From russell.rukin at lineone.net Fri Aug 1 07:53:00 2008 From: russell.rukin at lineone.net (Russell Rukin) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:53:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Changers by Ezra Claytan Daniels In-Reply-To: <002501c8f31d$f6664dc0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> References: <002501c8f31d$f6664dc0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> Message-ID: <4892C0DC.3060809@lineone.net> http://www.wowio.com/users/searchresults.asp?nGroupId=451 I pointed him in the direction of H+ a couple of years ago after seeing this early work and he's fully turned on to what we are about now. When you get into the online pages the navigation controls are at the top. I'd recommend making the page bigger (right hand control) as his text is small. Russell R From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Aug 1 17:45:26 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:45:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <011f01c8e2fe$9e1cb070$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <292059.33038.qm@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <000b01c8e251$f77b4b20$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <011f01c8e2fe$9e1cb070$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20080801174526.GB22488@ofb.net> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 07:32:53PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Well, hell yes! Who would give a damn about the murdered > woman in that case? People as well as our legal system, understand > priorities. I would think such a committed anti-statist as yourself would be more wary of sending messages to cops that they could get away with violating due process. > But what I don't understand is this. Usually when the jury reaches > the wrong verdict, as they did in the Rodney King case against > the police officers--- can you believe it, in the first trial the jury > acquited the police officers? --- the government simply retries the > case in another jurisdiction. So why wasn't O. J. Simpson tried Well, there is this minor thing in the Constitution about no double jeopardy... > again for, oh, violating someone's civil rights, or engaging in a Well, perhaps the civil rights laws (which were used to re-try the King officers in federal courts) aren't written so as to apply to private individuals or something. Wikipedia says the federal trial focused more on training than the videotape. > conspiracy, or, (when the government gets desperate) "attempting Need people to have a conspiracy. > to evade a guilty verdict", or whatever it takes to convict? ...now yo're being silly. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Aug 1 17:34:17 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:34:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <200806290550.m5T5oDL8028048@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1214688352_9942@s6.cableone.net> <200806290550.m5T5oDL8028048@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20080801173417.GA22488@ofb.net> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 10:23:27PM -0700, spike wrote: > Thanks for pointing this out Keith. The next few years will surely give the > masses a hard education in physics and engineering. We will come to > understand comments such as a politician's recent assertion that we could > have cars that get 100 mpg, had we invested sufficient billions of dollars > in research. The fact remains that we don't need research, we can already Even more important than high mpg cars may be getting low mpg cars off the road. What you really care about is gallons per mile MPG GP 10,000 miles 10 1000 20 500 30 333 40 250 50 200 100 100 1000 10 Note the savings are much bigger early on. Same is true of power plants. Going from 25% to 50% is much more urgent (and likely easier and cheaper) than going from 50% to 75% efficiency. Or in real numbers, going from using 4 units of fuel to make 1 unit of power to using 2 units, vs. going from 2 units to 1.333 units. As for the problem of "needing" a big vehicle for self-protection: if the government can mandate that cars drive on the right or left side, surely it can mandate the maximum size or weight of vehicles driven on public roads, even without invoking concepts of externality risk. Ban the suburban tanks. Or mandate that they be unable to go very fast, to trade off size vs. speed. -xx- Damien X-) From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Aug 1 19:53:31 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:53:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] taste test: water on Mars N. pole Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080801145213.023f6a00@satx.rr.com> LOS ANGELES: NASA's Phoenix lander has confirmed that there is water at the Red Planet's north pole following the analysis of a Martian surface soil sample. The discovery was made after the lander's robotic arm delivered a sample this week to an instrument onboard that identifies vapours through heating samples. "We have water," said William Boynton of the University of Arizona in Tucson, lead scientist for the lander's 'oven', the Thermal and Evolved-Gas Analyser (TEGA). Extension granted "We've seen evidence for this water ice before in observations by the Mars Odyssey orbiter and in disappearing chunks observed by Phoenix last month, but this is the first time Martian water has been touched and tasted," he said. Earlier, NASA officials said the Phoenix's mission had been extended until the end of September, describing its progress so far as "very successful." Michael Meyer, chief scientist of NASA's Mars Exploration Program, told reporters that the lander's minimum objectives had been achieved and that "full mission success" was expected. "It's been very successful and Mars had proven itself to be very interesting. Mechanically the spacecraft is operating great, and there's plenty of power margin to carry us beyond the waning summer," Meyer said. "With that, what I'd like to do is announce that we're going to extend the mission to go till the end of the fiscal year [September 30]." The lander started digging trenches into Martian soil after touching down near the planet's north pole on 25 May, revealing a white substance that scientists suspected was ice in June. Habitable environment University of Arizona scientist Peter Smith, Phoenix's principal investigator, said ice scooped up by Phoenix's robotic digging arm was being analysed to see if conditions on Mars could have supported life. "We're looking to understand the history of the ice, by trying to figure out if this ice has ever melted, and through melting has created a liquid environment that modifies soil," Smith said. "We're just getting the data back. Through this we also hope to resolve questions, [such as]: is this a habitable zone on Mars?" he said. Habitable "meaning that we have periodic liquid water, materials that are the basic ingredients for lifeforms." Smith said chemical analyses which indicated soil was alkaline had baffled scientists. "This is a mystery ... this is a typically acidic environment, perhaps this had to do with a nearby crater," he said. Although important nutrients including sodium, potassium and magnesium had been discovered, no organic materials had been found so far. From scerir at libero.it Sat Aug 2 06:16:39 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:16:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] solar nirvana boutique References: <1214688352_9942@s6.cableone.net><200806290550.m5T5oDL8028048@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20080801173417.GA22488@ofb.net> Message-ID: <003401c8f467$53e9f6f0$4de61e97@archimede> Daniel G. Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT, has developed a simple method to split water molecules and produce oxygen gas, a discovery that paves the way for large-scale use of solar power [they say]. More here: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html See also: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/chem-solar-0620.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/chesonis-0422.html http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/518/ http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/spotlights/a-recipe.html From max at maxmore.com Sat Aug 2 16:11:13 2008 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:11:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] An important new application of evolutionary thinking (not) Message-ID: <20080802160913.NHVC16547.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com> Beer Makes You Smarter A herd of buffalo can move only as fast as the slowest buffalo. When the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, we all know, kills brain cells, but naturally it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers. From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Aug 2 22:14:38 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:14:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Techie question: best/fastest WAN file system solution Message-ID: <8B29DA3F-AA78-450A-A9A2-0FADE1CE8A0B@mac.com> One thing that I grapple with a lot is how i/we can use network resources efficiently in at least small steps towards extending our brains via hardware and the network. One aspect of this is looking for and using the most efficient means of having the equivalent of fast dependable cloud data storage and retrieval. By this I mean network file system equivalents fully useable by any tools that access filesystems. It is very important to me and I imagine a lot of folks to be able to access our persistent bits from wherever we are given a network connection. I have looked at WebDAV, both on my own linux server and the Mac iDisk. Pretty slow, especially for browsing reasonable sized directories of information and opening PDF and media docs. Hell, any kind of document save, even small ones, is a bit tedious. I tried sshfs but it is if anything a bit slower in my experience thus far. Something that automatically cached locally might be better (the iDisk does some of that). I haven't pulled out NFS as my very dated opinion is that it isn't secure enough. I have used various offerings that use the Amazon cloud S3 data. None of those to date were better than WebDAV. What do other people use that they think well of? I would prefer open solutions but am not totally adverse to putting some money into a superior solution. - samantha From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 02:19:18 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 21:19:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Techie question: best/fastest WAN file system solution In-Reply-To: <8B29DA3F-AA78-450A-A9A2-0FADE1CE8A0B@mac.com> References: <8B29DA3F-AA78-450A-A9A2-0FADE1CE8A0B@mac.com> Message-ID: <200808022119.18546.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 02 August 2008, Samantha Atkins wrote: > One thing that I grapple with a lot is how i/we can use network > resources efficiently in at least small steps towards extending our > brains via hardware and the network. One aspect of this is looking There's a few ways that I've been considering for storing brain related information, especially in neurofeedback datasets and MRI datasets and the like. The tricky part is extracting value out of it ... as in, semantic value, or doing something interesting with data dumped from your brain. You could try training artificial neural networks to act like small regions of your own functionality :-) which is something that Thomas DeMarse has shown relevant technology for. "A new approach to neural cell culture for long-term studies" "The Neurally Controlled Animat: Biological Brains Acting with Simulated Bodies" "Closing the loop: stimulation feedback systems for embodied MEA cultures" "Removing some ?A?from AI: embodied cultured networks" "Poly-HEMA as a drug delivery device for in vitro neural networks on micro-electrode arrays" > for and using the most efficient means of having the equivalent of > fast dependable cloud data storage and retrieval. By this I mean Hey, want to implement DeMarse's work with Amazon's S3? That would be worth a paper or two. > network file system equivalents fully useable by any tools that > access filesystems. It is very important to me and I imagine a lot > of folks to be able to access our persistent bits from wherever we > are given a network connection. I have looked at WebDAV, both on my > own linux server and the Mac iDisk. Pretty slow, especially for > browsing reasonable sized directories of information and opening PDF > and media docs. Hell, any kind of document save, even small ones, is > a bit tedious. I tried sshfs but it is if anything a bit slower in > my experience thus far. Something that automatically cached locally > might be better (the iDisk does some of that). I haven't pulled out > NFS as my very dated opinion is that it isn't secure enough. I have > used various offerings that use the Amazon cloud S3 data. None of > those to date were better than WebDAV. There's a few solutions for this specifically so that there are file systems extended across the network, so that cached reads/writes occur and so on, but generally there's nothing that is working as well as it really should be and you're rightly worried. I know a few individuals that I can put you in contact with regarding distributed file systems (freenet was at one point somewhat like this). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu <-- pipe dream ;-) (Also, WikipediaFS is totally worth it ... if it would have directory listings ... which by the nature of the mediawiki, it's not quite easy to immediately have all of the categories in some giant root-node-origin structure .. ) - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Aug 2 22:22:30 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 15:22:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Techie question: best/fastest WAN file system solution In-Reply-To: <8B29DA3F-AA78-450A-A9A2-0FADE1CE8A0B@mac.com> References: <8B29DA3F-AA78-450A-A9A2-0FADE1CE8A0B@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > One thing that I grapple with a lot is how i/we can use network resources > efficiently in at least small steps towards extending our brains via > hardware and the network. One aspect of this is looking for and using the > most efficient means of having the equivalent of fast dependable cloud data > storage and retrieval. I'm pretty satisfied for now reading/writing Amazon S3 (mainly using Python with Boto) for wide-access general storage and for files feeding servers running in Amazon EC2, and using a combination of rsync and Git over ssh to replicate between workstations (and my notebook.) - Jef From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Aug 3 16:12:53 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 11:12:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] TECH: Hypermediated Mind Map Message-ID: <010201c8f583$c8e3eac0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> Does anyone have information on what might be the best or coolest software to date for developing a hypermediated mind map? Thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More BFA, MS, MPhil/PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Faculty of Technology, School of Computers, Communication and Electronics University of Plymouth, UK Arts and Design - NBIC+ Convergence H+ Europe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Aug 3 16:22:35 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 09:22:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] TECH: Hypermediated Mind Map In-Reply-To: <010201c8f583$c8e3eac0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> References: <010201c8f583$c8e3eac0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Does anyone have information on what might be the best or coolest software > to date for developing a hypermediated mind map? Define "hypermediated" please? - Jef From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 19:20:06 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:20:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] TECH: Hypermediated Mind Map In-Reply-To: <010201c8f583$c8e3eac0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> References: <010201c8f583$c8e3eac0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> Message-ID: <200808031420.11024.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 03 August 2008, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Does anyone have information on what might be the best or coolest > software to date for developing a hypermediated mind map? http://mindmap.sf.net/ Maybe you mean a more 3D approach to the actual brains? http://brain-map.org/ That's gene expression though. There's a few imaging reconstruction models that would be worth looking into if that's what you mean. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 19:49:46 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:49:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A better way of saying "transhumanism" (re: twobits.net) Message-ID: <200808031449.46915.kanzure@gmail.com> I tried to say in http://heybryan.org/transhumanism_def.html what was successfully achieved in: http://twobits.net/discuss/chapter2 > My favorite transhumanist is Eugen Leitl (who is, in fact, an > authentic transhumanist and has been vice-chair of the World > Transhumanist Association). Eugen is Russian-born, lives in Munich, > and once worked in a cryobiology research lab. He is well versed in > chemistry, nanotechnology, artificial-intelligence (AI) research, > computational- and network-complexity research, artificial organs, > cryobiology, materials engineering, and science fiction. He writes, > for example, > > 76 > > If you consider AI handcoded by humans, yes. However, given > considerable computational resources (~cubic meter of computronium), > and using suitable start population, you can coevolve machine > intelligence on a time scale of much less than a year. After it > achieves about a human level, it is potentially capable of entering > an autofeedback loop. Given that even autoassembly-grade computronium > is capable of running a human-grade intellect in a volume ranging > from a sugar cube to an orange at a speed ranging from 10^4 . . . > 10^6 it is easy to see that the autofeedback loop has explosive > dynamics. (I hope above is intelligible, I?ve been exposed to weird > memes for far too long).30 > > 77 > > Eugen is also a polymath (and an autodidact to boot), but in the > conventional sense. Eugen?s polymathy is an avocational necessity: > transhumanists need to keep up with all advances in technology and > science in order to better assess what kinds of human-augmenting or > human-obsolescing technologies are out there. It is not for work in > this world that the transhumanist expands his or her knowledge, nor > quite for the next, but for a ?this world? yet to arrive. > > 78 > > Eugen and I were introduced during the Napster debates of 2001, which > seemed at the time to be a knock-down, drag-out conflagration, but > Eugen has been involved in so many online flame wars that he probably > experienced it as a mere blip in an otherwise constant struggle with > less-evolved intelligences like mine. Nonethe[PAGE 91]less, it was > one of the more clarifying examples of how geeks think, and think > differently, about technology, infrastructure, networks, and > software. Transhumanism has no truck with old-fashioned humanism. > > 79 > > >>From: Ramu Narayan . . . > >>I don?t like the > >>notion of technology as an unstoppable force with a will of its own > >> that has nothing to do with the needs of real people. > > [Eugen Leitl:] Emergent large-scale behaviour is nothing new. How do > you intend to control individual behaviour of a large population of > only partially rational agents? They don?t come with too many > convenient behaviour-modifying hooks (pheromones as in social > insects, but notice menarche-synch in females sharing quarters), and > for a good reason. The few hooks we have (mob, war, politics, > religion) have been notoriously abused, already. Analogous to > apoptosis, metaindividuals may function using processes > deletorious[sic] to its components (us).31 > > 80 > > Eugen?s understanding of what ?technological progress? means is > sufficiently complex to confound most of his interlocutors. For one > surprising thing, it is not exactly inevitable. The manner in which > Leitl argues with people is usually a kind of machine-gun prattle of > coevolutionary, game-theoretic, cryptographic sorites. Eugen piles on > the scientific and transhumanist reasoning, and his interlocutors > slowly peel away from the discussion. But it isn?t craziness, hype, > or half-digested popular science?Eugen generally knows his stuff?it > just fits together in a way that almost no one else can quite grasp. > Eugen sees the large-scale adoption and proliferation of technologies > (particularly self-replicating molecular devices and evolutionary > software algorithms) as a danger that transcends all possibility of > control at the individual or state level. Billions of individual > decisions do not ?average? into one will, but instead produce complex > dynamics and hang perilously on initial conditions. In discussing the > possibility of the singularity, Eugen suggests, ?It could literally > be a science-fair project [that causes the singularity].? If Francis > Bacon?s understanding of the relation between Man and Nature was that > of master and possessor, Eugen?s is its radicalization: Man is a > powerful but ultimately arbitrary force in the progress of > Life-Intelligence. Man is fully incorporated into Nature in this > story, [PAGE 92] so much so that he dissolves into it. Eugen writes, > when ?life crosses over into this petri dish which is getting > readied, things will become a lot more lively. . . . I hope we?ll > make it.? > > 81 > > For Eugen, the arguments about technology that the polymaths involve > themselves in couldn?t be more parochial. They are important only > insofar as they will set the ?initial conditions? for the grand > coevolutionary adventure of technology ahead of us. For the > transhumanist, technology does not dissolve. Instead, it is the > solution within which humans are dissolved. Suffering, allocation, > decision making?all these are inessential to the ultimate outcome of > technological progress; they are worldly affairs, even if they > concern life and death, and as such, they can be either denounced or > supported, but only with respect to fine-tuning the acceleration > toward the singularity. For the transhumanist, one can?t fight the > inevitability of technical evolution, but one certainly can > contribute to it. Technical progress is thus both law-like and > subject to intelligent manipulation; technical progress is > inevitable, but only because of the power of massively parallel human > curiosity. > > 82 > > Considered as one of the modes of thought present in this-worldly > political discussion, the transhumanist (like the polymath) turns > technology into a rhetorical argument. Technology is the more > powerful political argument because ?it works.? It is pointless to > argue ?about? technology, but not pointless to argue through and with > it. It is pointless to talk about whether stopping technology is good > or bad, because someone will simply build a technology that will > invalidate your argument. > > 83 > > There is still a role for technical invention, but it is strongly > distinguished from political, legal, cultural, or social > interventions. For most transhumanists, there is no rhetoric here, no > sophistry, just the pure truth of ?it works?: the pure, undeniable, > unstoppable, and undeconstructable reality of technology. For the > transhumanist attitude, the reality of ?working code? has a reality > that other assertions about the world do not. Extreme transhumanism > replaces the life-world with the world of the computer, where bad > (ethically bad) ideas won?t compile. Less-staunch versions of > transhumanism simply allow the confusion to operate > opportunistically: the progress of technology is unquestionable > (omniscient), and only its effects on humans are worth investigating. > > 84 > > The pure transhumanist, then, is a countermodern. The transhumanist > despises the present for its intolerably slow descent into the [PAGE > 93] future of immortality and superhuman self-improvement, and fears > destruction because of too much turbulent (and ignorant) human > resistance. One need have no individual conception of the present, no > reflection on or synthetic understanding of it. One only need > contribute to it correctly. One might even go so far as to suggest > that forms of reflection on the present that do not contribute to > technical progress endanger the very future of life-intelligence. > Curiosity and technical innovation are not historical features of > Western science, but natural features of a human animal that has > created its own conditions for development. Thus, the transhumanists? > historical consciousness consists largely of a timeline that makes > ordered sense of our place on the progress toward the Singularity. > > 85 > > The moral of the story is not just that technology determines > history, however. Transhumanism is a radically antihumanist position > in which human agency or will?if it even exists?is not ontologically > distinct from the agency of machines and animals and life itself. > Even if it is necessary to organize, do things, make choices, > participate, build, hack, innovate, this does not amount to a belief > in the ability of humans to control their destiny, individually or > collectively. In the end, the transhumanist cannot quite pinpoint > exactly what part of this story is inevitable?except perhaps the > story itself. Technology does not develop without millions of > distributed humans contributing to it; humans cannot evolve without > the explicit human adoption of life-altering and identity-altering > technologies; evolution cannot become inevitable without the > manipulation of environments and struggles for fitness. As in the > dilemma of Calvinism (wherein one cannot know if one is saved by > one?s good works), the transhumanist must still create technology > according to the particular and parochial demands of the day, but > this by no means determines the eventual outcome of technological > progress. It is a sentiment well articulated by Adam Ferguson and > highlighted repeatedly by Friederich Hayek with respect to human > society: ?the result of human action, but not the execution of any > human design.?32 - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Aug 3 20:02:12 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:02:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A better way of saying "transhumanism" (re: twobits.net) In-Reply-To: <200808031449.46915.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200808031449.46915.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080803145759.023d1c80@satx.rr.com> At 02:49 PM 8/3/2008 -0500, you wrote: >Content-Transfer-Encoding: >base64Content-Disposition: inlineI tried to say >in http://heybryan.org/transhumanism_def.html what was >successfully achieved in: http://twobits.net/discuss/chapter2 > >^H?]???]H?[??[X[?\?\?]Y?[?Leitl (who is, in fact, an > > authentic transhumanist and has been vice-chair of the World > > Transhumanist Association). Eugen is Russian-born, lives in Munich, > > and once worked in a cryobiology research lab. He is well versed in >?[Z\??K?[??X?????K\?Y?X?X[Z[?[Y?[??H >@I) research, > > computational- and network-complexity research, artificial organs, > > cryobiology, materials engineering, and science fiction. He writes, >???^[\K???76 > > >Y?[?H????Y\?RH[???Y?H[X[??Y\????]?er, given > > considerable computational resources (X?X?X?meter of computronium), > > and using suitable start population, you can coevolve machine > > intelligence on a time scale of much less than a year. After it > > achieves about a human level, it is potentially capable of entering >[? autofeedback loop. Given that even autoassembly-grade computronium >\??\X?H???[??[??H[X[?Y??YH[?[X?t in a volume ranging > > from a sugar cube to an orange at a speed ranging from 10^4 . . . > > 10^6 it is easy to see that the autofeedback loop has explosive > > dynamics. (I hope above is intelligible, I?ve been exposed to weird > > memes for far too long).30 >?? >????WVvV??2?6?olymath (and an autodidact to boot), but in the > > conventional sense. Eugen?s polymathy is an avocational necessity: >?[??[X[?\???YY??Y\\?][Y?[??\?@n technology and >??Y[??H[???\???]\?\??\???] kinds of human-augmenting or > > human-obsolescing technologies are out there. It is not for work in > > this world that the transhumanist expands his or her knowledge, nor > quite for the next, but for a ?this world? yet to arrive. > > > >?????]Y?[?[?H?\?H[???X?Y\?[??H? H Testing. Maybe I'm going to have to read this stuff on the archive. From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 21:03:17 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 16:03:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] TECH: Hypermediated Mind Map In-Reply-To: <200808031420.11024.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <010201c8f583$c8e3eac0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> <200808031420.11024.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200808031603.17732.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 03 August 2008, Bryan Bishop wrote: > http://mindmap.sf.net/ http://freemind.sf.net/ Oops. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Aug 3 21:41:53 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:41:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A better way of saying "transhumanism" (re: twobits.net) References: <200808031449.46915.kanzure@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080803145759.023d1c80@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <002401c8f5b1$cc0252e0$18bf684c@BOXX> I got it okay, see if you can read it below: Gina www.nanogirl.com BEGIN_________________________________-- I tried to say in http://heybryan.org/transhumanism_def.html what was successfully achieved in: http://twobits.net/discuss/chapter2 > My favorite transhumanist is Eugen Leitl (who is, in fact, an > authentic transhumanist and has been vice-chair of the World > Transhumanist Association). Eugen is Russian-born, lives in Munich, > and once worked in a cryobiology research lab. He is well versed in > chemistry, nanotechnology, artificial-intelligence (AI) research, > computational- and network-complexity research, artificial organs, > cryobiology, materials engineering, and science fiction. He writes, > for example, > > 76 > > If you consider AI handcoded by humans, yes. However, given > considerable computational resources (~cubic meter of computronium), > and using suitable start population, you can coevolve machine > intelligence on a time scale of much less than a year. After it > achieves about a human level, it is potentially capable of entering > an autofeedback loop. Given that even autoassembly-grade computronium > is capable of running a human-grade intellect in a volume ranging > from a sugar cube to an orange at a speed ranging from 10^4 . . . > 10^6 it is easy to see that the autofeedback loop has explosive > dynamics. (I hope above is intelligible, I've been exposed to weird > memes for far too long).30 > > 77 > > Eugen is also a polymath (and an autodidact to boot), but in the > conventional sense. Eugen's polymathy is an avocational necessity: > transhumanists need to keep up with all advances in technology and > science in order to better assess what kinds of human-augmenting or > human-obsolescing technologies are out there. It is not for work in > this world that the transhumanist expands his or her knowledge, nor > quite for the next, but for a "this world" yet to arrive. > > 78 > > Eugen and I were introduced during the Napster debates of 2001, which > seemed at the time to be a knock-down, drag-out conflagration, but > Eugen has been involved in so many online flame wars that he probably > experienced it as a mere blip in an otherwise constant struggle with > less-evolved intelligences like mine. Nonethe[PAGE 91]less, it was > one of the more clarifying examples of how geeks think, and think > differently, about technology, infrastructure, networks, and > software. Transhumanism has no truck with old-fashioned humanism. > > 79 > > >>From: Ramu Narayan . . . > >>I don't like the > >>notion of technology as an unstoppable force with a will of its own > >> that has nothing to do with the needs of real people. > > [Eugen Leitl:] Emergent large-scale behaviour is nothing new. How do > you intend to control individual behaviour of a large population of > only partially rational agents? They don't come with too many > convenient behaviour-modifying hooks (pheromones as in social > insects, but notice menarche-synch in females sharing quarters), and > for a good reason. The few hooks we have (mob, war, politics, > religion) have been notoriously abused, already. Analogous to > apoptosis, metaindividuals may function using processes > deletorious[sic] to its components (us).31 > > 80 > > Eugen's understanding of what "technological progress" means is > sufficiently complex to confound most of his interlocutors. For one > surprising thing, it is not exactly inevitable. The manner in which > Leitl argues with people is usually a kind of machine-gun prattle of > coevolutionary, game-theoretic, cryptographic sorites. Eugen piles on > the scientific and transhumanist reasoning, and his interlocutors > slowly peel away from the discussion. But it isn't craziness, hype, > or half-digested popular science-Eugen generally knows his stuff-it > just fits together in a way that almost no one else can quite grasp. > Eugen sees the large-scale adoption and proliferation of technologies > (particularly self-replicating molecular devices and evolutionary > software algorithms) as a danger that transcends all possibility of > control at the individual or state level. Billions of individual > decisions do not "average" into one will, but instead produce complex > dynamics and hang perilously on initial conditions. In discussing the > possibility of the singularity, Eugen suggests, "It could literally > be a science-fair project [that causes the singularity]." If Francis > Bacon's understanding of the relation between Man and Nature was that > of master and possessor, Eugen's is its radicalization: Man is a > powerful but ultimately arbitrary force in the progress of > Life-Intelligence. Man is fully incorporated into Nature in this > story, [PAGE 92] so much so that he dissolves into it. Eugen writes, > when "life crosses over into this petri dish which is getting > readied, things will become a lot more lively. . . . I hope we'll > make it." > > 81 > > For Eugen, the arguments about technology that the polymaths involve > themselves in couldn't be more parochial. They are important only > insofar as they will set the "initial conditions" for the grand > coevolutionary adventure of technology ahead of us. For the > transhumanist, technology does not dissolve. Instead, it is the > solution within which humans are dissolved. Suffering, allocation, > decision making-all these are inessential to the ultimate outcome of > technological progress; they are worldly affairs, even if they > concern life and death, and as such, they can be either denounced or > supported, but only with respect to fine-tuning the acceleration > toward the singularity. For the transhumanist, one can't fight the > inevitability of technical evolution, but one certainly can > contribute to it. Technical progress is thus both law-like and > subject to intelligent manipulation; technical progress is > inevitable, but only because of the power of massively parallel human > curiosity. > > 82 > > Considered as one of the modes of thought present in this-worldly > political discussion, the transhumanist (like the polymath) turns > technology into a rhetorical argument. Technology is the more > powerful political argument because "it works." It is pointless to > argue "about" technology, but not pointless to argue through and with > it. It is pointless to talk about whether stopping technology is good > or bad, because someone will simply build a technology that will > invalidate your argument. > > 83 > > There is still a role for technical invention, but it is strongly > distinguished from political, legal, cultural, or social > interventions. For most transhumanists, there is no rhetoric here, no > sophistry, just the pure truth of "it works": the pure, undeniable, > unstoppable, and undeconstructable reality of technology. For the > transhumanist attitude, the reality of "working code" has a reality > that other assertions about the world do not. Extreme transhumanism > replaces the life-world with the world of the computer, where bad > (ethically bad) ideas won't compile. Less-staunch versions of > transhumanism simply allow the confusion to operate > opportunistically: the progress of technology is unquestionable > (omniscient), and only its effects on humans are worth investigating. > > 84 > > The pure transhumanist, then, is a countermodern. The transhumanist > despises the present for its intolerably slow descent into the [PAGE > 93] future of immortality and superhuman self-improvement, and fears > destruction because of too much turbulent (and ignorant) human > resistance. One need have no individual conception of the present, no > reflection on or synthetic understanding of it. One only need > contribute to it correctly. One might even go so far as to suggest > that forms of reflection on the present that do not contribute to > technical progress endanger the very future of life-intelligence. > Curiosity and technical innovation are not historical features of > Western science, but natural features of a human animal that has > created its own conditions for development. Thus, the transhumanists' > historical consciousness consists largely of a timeline that makes > ordered sense of our place on the progress toward the Singularity. > > 85 > > The moral of the story is not just that technology determines > history, however. Transhumanism is a radically antihumanist position > in which human agency or will-if it even exists-is not ontologically > distinct from the agency of machines and animals and life itself. > Even if it is necessary to organize, do things, make choices, > participate, build, hack, innovate, this does not amount to a belief > in the ability of humans to control their destiny, individually or > collectively. In the end, the transhumanist cannot quite pinpoint > exactly what part of this story is inevitable-except perhaps the > story itself. Technology does not develop without millions of > distributed humans contributing to it; humans cannot evolve without > the explicit human adoption of life-altering and identity-altering > technologies; evolution cannot become inevitable without the > manipulation of environments and struggles for fitness. As in the > dilemma of Calvinism (wherein one cannot know if one is saved by > one's good works), the transhumanist must still create technology > according to the particular and parochial demands of the day, but > this by no means determines the eventual outcome of technological > progress. It is a sentiment well articulated by Adam Ferguson and > highlighted repeatedly by Friederich Hayek with respect to human > society: "the result of human action, but not the execution of any > human design."32 - Bryan END________________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Broderick" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 1:02 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] A better way of saying "transhumanism" (re: twobits.net) > At 02:49 PM 8/3/2008 -0500, you wrote: >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64Content-Disposition: inlineI tried to say >>in http://heybryan.org/transhumanism_def.html what was >>successfully achieved in: http://twobits.net/discuss/chapter2 >> >>^H~]>?s]H~[o?[X[s\?\?]Y?[^Leitl (who is, in fact, an >> > authentic transhumanist and has been vice-chair of the World >> > Transhumanist Association). Eugen is Russian-born, lives in Munich, >> > and once worked in a cryobiology research lab. He is well versed in >>?[Z\?zK~[>?X?>???K\?YsX?X[Z[?[Y?[~?H >>@I) research, >> > computational- and network-complexity research, artificial organs, >> > cryobiology, materials engineering, and science fiction. He writes, >>>?^^[\K???76 >> > >>Y^[?H??o?Y\^RH[T??YzH[X[o?Y\?^??]?er, given >> > considerable computational resources (X?XsX?meter of computronium), >> > and using suitable start population, you can coevolve machine >> > intelligence on a time scale of much less than a year. After it >> > achieves about a human level, it is potentially capable of entering >>[? autofeedback loop. Given that even autoassembly-grade computronium >>\??\X>H?^?[>s[T?H[X[ >> > from a sugar cube to an orange at a speed >>ranging from 10^4 . . . >> > 10^6 it is easy to see that the autofeedback loop has explosive >> > dynamics. (I hope above is intelligible, I've been exposed to weird >> > memes for far too long).30 >>?^ >>??,,WVvV?-2?6?olymath (and an autodidact to boot), but in the >> > conventional sense. Eugen's polymathy is an avocational necessity: >>~[o?[X[s\??TYY??Y\\?][Y~[~?\?@n technology and >>??Y[~?H[^?T\^?T]\^\??\???] kinds of human-augmenting or >> > human-obsolescing technologies are out there. It is not for work in >> > this world that the transhumanist expands his or her knowledge, nor >> quite for the next, but for a "this world" yet to arrive. >> > >> >>??,?^]Y?[^[TH?\TH[?>?X?Y\s[T?H? > > > > H > > Testing. > > Maybe I'm going to have to read this stuff on the archive. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Aug 3 22:43:32 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:43:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] TECH: Hypermediated Mind Map In-Reply-To: <200808031603.17732.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <010201c8f583$c8e3eac0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> <200808031420.11024.kanzure@gmail.com> <200808031603.17732.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Aug 3, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Sunday 03 August 2008, Bryan Bishop wrote: >> http://mindmap.sf.net/ > > http://freemind.sf.net/ That is relatively flat like most mind maps. I would very much love to have a tool that extends this to 3-D and more. It would be great to blend in semantic network or concept maps with multiple information bearing edges including connection weights and active (arbitrary fired and background) computation at nodes and links. Some AI infrastructure might come close. But is there anything more accessible today? This is a very richly capable dream "mapping" capability. It will be a challenge to not only implement its internals but especially to produce great useable UI interfaces to such. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Aug 3 23:13:35 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:13:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jul 30, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Michael LaTorra (quoting from excellent Michael Shermer piece) wrote: > Type 1.0: Globalism that includes worldwide wireless Internet > access, with all knowledge digitized and available to everyone. A > completely global economy with free markets in which anyone can > trade with anyone else without interference from states or > governments. A planet where all states are democracies in which > everyone has the franchise. > Yes! This has been part of what I see as near term extropic goals for some time now. The world wide web is how the true "global brain" comes into being. Right now the global brain is largely stroking out with relatively random fits of activity and some actual good functioning. It is nowhere near what a fully activated healthy global brain would be. Here in the early 21st century the reality is that the internet is nearly utterly unattainable for much of humanity. Even where I am in the very heart of Silicon Valley there was exactly one and only one way to get reasonably functional internet access. That is true in most of the US, that is in those places where you can get anything but dial up. I just saw a map of AT&T cellular data coverage of any kind at all in the US. At least 90% of the country is dark. Almost no place in the US has full wireless (or even wired) coverage. Given that how many products, ideas, applications, tools whose benefit rises exponentially (Metcalfe's law ) are stillborn if they are thought of at all? How many contributions to our total knowledge, power, understanding, joy, live are we missing by these great fissures and chasms in the global brain? If I was 20 years old again I could think of few better things to make a career of than ensuring that the global brain is fully connected up. Sharing of knowledge, information also exponentially increases our total pool of truth wealth (knowledge, ability, joy). There are many factors in the way of such sharing. Many have made it part of the definition of "good business" to restrict such sharing and lock minds into one carefully throttled offering or another. This may maximize short term profits for such businesses in relation to other businesses but it is arguably not at all maximal or even necessarily the best we can do in relation to our potential true wealth. New ways of being profitable, perhaps of measuring profit itself and thus attracting resources to make ideas realities are needed. > The forces at work that could prevent us from making the great leap > forward to a Type 1 civilization are primarily political and economic. I would add that we have much ingrained EP that underlies the more structured entities mentioned. There is a large amount of psychological and other internal work to be done along the Way. > The resistance by nondemocratic states to turning power over to the > people is considerable, especially in theocracies whose leaders > would prefer we all revert to Type 0.4 chiefdoms. This is one form of EP at work. There are many others much closer to home. > The opposition toward a global economy is substantial, even in the > industrialized West, where economic tribalism still dominates the > thinking of most politicians, intellectuals and citizens. This is in large part scarcity thinking at work. It is deeply ingrained and it has more than a little basis in fact today even in relatively affluent societies. There is a chicken and egg problem. Which comes first, the shift beyond actual scarcity (at this level) or the shift in conscious to an abundance mentality and worldview? Without the shift in conscious even full MNT will not produce true abundance in the world. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Aug 3 23:30:54 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:30:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Edge.org "HYPERPOLITICS (AMERICAN STYLE)" by Mark Pesce In-Reply-To: <9ff585550807301144q2347eb56rfa2de05bb917e63b@mail.gmail.com> References: <9ff585550807301144q2347eb56rfa2de05bb917e63b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1941EFC2-A869-4961-90B4-B5B234828A34@mac.com> On Jul 30, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Michael LaTorra wrote: > http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge252.html#pesce > > HYPERPOLITICS (AMERICAN STYLE) > A Talk By Mark Pesce > > > > Introduction > > In his well-received talk at this year's Personal Democracy Forum > (organized by Andrew Rasiej and Micah Sifry), "digital ethnologist" > Mark Pesce makes the point that "we have a drive to connect and > socialize: this drive has now been accelerated and amplified as > comprehensively as the steam engine amplified human strength two > hundred and fifty years ago. Just as the steam engine initiated the > transformation of the natural landscape into man-made artifice, the > 'hyperconnectivity' engendered by these new toys is transforming the > human landscape of social relations. This time around, fifty > thousand years of cultural development will collapse into about > twenty. > > In presenting his ideas on "the human network" Pesce references the > work of archeologist Colin Renfrew, that "we may have had great > hardware, but it took a long, long time for humans to develop > software which made full use of it"; and Jared Diamond's ideas in > Guns, Germs, and Steel, that "where sharing had been a local and > generational project for fifty thousand years, it suddenly became a > geographical project across nearly half the diameter of the planet". > > In the 21st century, it's time to "Fasten your seatbelts and prepare > for a rapid descent into the Bellum omnia contra omnes, Thomas > Hobbes' "war of all against all." A hyperconnected polity?whether > composed of a hundred individuals or a hundred thousand?has > resources at its disposal which exponentially amplify its > capabilities. Hyperconnectivity begets hypermimesis begets > hyperempowerment. After the arms race comes the war." > It does not have to be a war of all against all. That is just one of the options. The other option is that that hyper sharing drives such plenty and multi-dimensional understanding that many of the external and some of the internal ones of such conflict subside. > To understand this new kind of mob rule, it's necessary to realize > that "Sharing is the threat. Not just a threat. It is the whole of > the thing. A photo taken on a mobile now becomes instantaneously and > pervasively visible on Flickr or other sharing websites. This act of > sharing voids "any pretensions to control, or limitation, or the > exercise of power". > > "Mob"???? This seems like a very classist and elitist position and I say that as a flavor of "elitist" myself. That mob is composed of individuals who have exactly the same long term trans- and even post- human potential as you and I. Every individual in it, no matter how different in ingrained cultural patterns and beliefs, is far more like you and I than we may be comfortable acknowledging. What the hyper- connection between all does is make it far more difficult to hide, especially to hide unfair disparities. Sharing is here to stay. If we attempt to limit it to the few we most like and deny the future to others then we will certainly guarantee War. Sharing is absolutely essential if we want peace and progress to the future we dream of. If instead we walk the path to War by limiting sharing then what we will end up with, if we survive at all, will be a great deal more hideous than what we once dreamed of. The denial of sharing will lead to the detailed observation and in-depth control of everyone and everything or at least the attempt to do so. That is not the path to what we desire. I look forward to reading the rest of the piece. - samantha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Aug 3 23:47:56 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:47:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Techie question: best/fastest WAN file system solution In-Reply-To: <200808022119.18546.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <8B29DA3F-AA78-450A-A9A2-0FADE1CE8A0B@mac.com> <200808022119.18546.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50AABB60-81FC-4703-824B-1F2D457D113D@mac.com> On Aug 2, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Saturday 02 August 2008, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> One thing that I grapple with a lot is how i/we can use network >> resources efficiently in at least small steps towards extending our >> brains via hardware and the network. One aspect of this is looking > > There's a few ways that I've been considering for storing brain > related > information, especially in neurofeedback datasets and MRI datasets and > the like. The tricky part is extracting value out of it ... as in, > semantic value, or doing something interesting with data dumped from > your brain. You could try training artificial neural networks to act > like small regions of your own functionality :-) which is something > that Thomas DeMarse has shown relevant technology for. > Tasty grist for the mental mill. Thanks for the reference. > > Hey, want to implement DeMarse's work with Amazon's S3? That would be > worth a paper or two. > It would be interesting to play with highly specialized Linux images in the Amazon compute cloud. Each of those comes with quite a bit of disk space. And the images can be cloned freely to give needed scalability. S3 would be a good shared store and source of inherited knowledge across instances. I don't know enough about DeMarse's work to really understand if this is worth considering. It is a ways away from my own interest areas. > > There's a few solutions for this specifically so that there are file > systems extended across the network, so that cached reads/writes occur > and so on, but generally there's nothing that is working as well as it > really should be and you're rightly worried. I know a few individuals > that I can put you in contact with regarding distributed file systems > (freenet was at one point somewhat like this). > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu <-- pipe dream ;-) > Freenet had a lot of other agendas especially freedom to persist whatever anyone wished without snooping and consequences imposed by others. As a result some function such as efficiently finding information and link following were compromised. In any case I don't know of a freenet-FS (a la Fuse). Perhaps FreeNet or Xanadu have some available pieces to work from if one is out to build a solution. I may have to cobble together my own but I need something really efficient for this yesterday. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Aug 3 23:55:55 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:55:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Techie question: best/fastest WAN file system solution In-Reply-To: References: <8B29DA3F-AA78-450A-A9A2-0FADE1CE8A0B@mac.com> Message-ID: <09F98F26-C53B-4A53-B6FC-0B91CAD0075E@mac.com> On Aug 2, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Samantha Atkins > wrote: > >> One thing that I grapple with a lot is how i/we can use network >> resources >> efficiently in at least small steps towards extending our brains via >> hardware and the network. One aspect of this is looking for and >> using the >> most efficient means of having the equivalent of fast dependable >> cloud data >> storage and retrieval. > > I'm pretty satisfied for now reading/writing Amazon S3 (mainly using > Python with Boto) for wide-access general storage and for files > feeding servers running in Amazon EC2, and using a combination of > rsync and Git over ssh to replicate between workstations (and my > notebook.) Specialized non-standard tool although interesting as possible way to build such a store on S3. Using git or svn and rsync is the network equivalent of copying to a floppy. OK, that dates me - copying to a USB stick. I want something I can treat exactly like a file system that is as performant as possible from all software that accesses files on some media. I can write something that can very efficiently share structured and non-structured (blob aka file) data but it wouldn't be universal to all those apps and tools that expect file access (including random access r/w BTW). - samantha - samantha From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 01:09:37 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:09:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200808032009.37559.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 03 August 2008, Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Jul 30, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Michael LaTorra (quoting from > excellent Michael Shermer piece) wrote: > > Type 1.0: Globalism that includes worldwide wireless Internet > > access, with all knowledge digitized and available to everyone. A Not necessarily wireless of course. Wired connections aren't evil. > > completely global economy with free markets in which anyone can > > trade with anyone else without interference from states or Yeah, but there's still an architecture behind it, no matter how little you know about the DNS admins that are running the scene under your nose. > > governments. A planet where all states are democracies in which > > everyone has the franchise. Not necessarily democracies though. > Yes! This has been part of what I see as near term extropic goals > for some time now. The world wide web is how the true "global > brain" comes into being. Right now the global brain is largely There's certainly the possibility of doing distributed brain computing, but on the other hand you're probably talking about the typical "internet as part of my neural system" which is an ok idea too. > stroking out with relatively random fits of activity and some actual > good functioning. It is nowhere near what a fully activated healthy > global brain would be. Here in the early 21st century the reality I would be interested in hearing your ideas about health monitoring for a global brain. There are all sorts of diagnostic possibilities but nothing that is yet correlated to the semantics related to healthy phenotypes. > is that the internet is nearly utterly unattainable for much of > humanity. Even where I am in the very heart of Silicon Valley there That's not true. Go help out the ronja project. It's something like usual optics for 1 km of connectivity distance via very, very bright lights. There's also the SolarNetOne project. http://sleekfreak.ath.cx/ "Gnuveau proudly announces SolarNetOne, a solar powered multi-user Linux Terminal Server network, with integrated long range wireless access point, analog telephone adapter, proximity based security system, and many other features. Please click the image below for more information on the green computing solution SolarNetOne." > was exactly one and only one way to get reasonably functional > internet access. That is true in most of the US, that is in those > places where you can get anything but dial up. I just saw a map of Well, that's commercialized access -- if you really wanted it, deploy Ronja < http://ronja.twibright.com/ >. > many contributions to our total knowledge, power, understanding, joy, > live are we missing by these great fissures and chasms in the global > brain? If I was 20 years old again I could think of few better > things to make a career of than ensuring that the global brain is > fully connected up. Well, what's what makes a 'career' good though? There's probably some other interesting things to be doing around this time that would be on the same general area of thought as global brain health, but not about careers. > Sharing of knowledge, information also exponentially increases our > total pool of truth wealth (knowledge, ability, joy). There are s/wealth/extropy/ > > The opposition toward a global economy is substantial, even in the > > industrialized West, where economic tribalism still dominates the > > thinking of most politicians, intellectuals and citizens. > > This is in large part scarcity thinking at work. It is deeply > ingrained and it has more than a little basis in fact today even in > relatively affluent societies. There is a chicken and egg problem. Bootstrapping problems kind of rely on philanthropy in some cases. There's little other way to make it happen -- you have to be where the ball stops and actually get it done. It's kinda hard. Might be your "shift" that you mentioned. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 01:15:41 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:15:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] TECH: Hypermediated Mind Map In-Reply-To: References: <010201c8f583$c8e3eac0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> <200808031603.17732.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200808032015.41161.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 03 August 2008, Samantha Atkins wrote: > That is relatively flat like most mind maps. ?I would very much love > ? to have a tool that extends this to 3-D and more. ?It would be > great to blend in semantic network or concept maps with multiple > information bearing edges including connection weights and active > (arbitrary fired and background) computation at nodes and links. ? Yeah, we all want this. I've been wanting this for years and been working on it, sort of, in ways that wouldn't actually be describable as work, but still. What I worry about sometimes is that the general idea of writing stuff out with weird dependencies and relationships between things in the system isn't necessarily going to end up being functional. i.e. my stack of many hundreds of hand-written documents with something like 200~ lines per page or something, all of which I'll likely rarely ever remember to go back to look at. [[ Most of the work that I mention is in the form of using hierarchical outliners and trying to figure out good ways of doing todo lists and so on. The problem of getting output from the brain on to the screen is why I explore brain implants in relation to text output and monitoring for assistive grammatical elucidation or something equally wordy but also awesome sounding. ]] > ?Some AI infrastructure might come close. ? But is there anything > more accessible today? ? ?This is a very richly capable dream > "mapping" capability. ? It will be a challenge to not only implement > its internals but especially to produce great useable UI interfaces > to such. Seeing the challenges in making good web browsers, yeah, it's a problem. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 12:02:16 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:02:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20808040502g12b286c5w7240c4ab5dddb26d@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Jul 30, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Michael LaTorra (quoting from excellent > Michael Shermer piece) wrote: > > *Type 1.0:* Globalism that includes worldwide wireless Internet access, > with all knowledge digitized and available to everyone. A completely global > economy with free markets in which anyone can trade with anyone else without > interference from states or governments. A planet where all states are > democracies in which everyone has the franchise. > > > Yes! This has been part of what I see as near term extropic goals for some > time now. The world wide web is how the true "global brain" comes into > being. > Mmhhh. "Democracy" meaning "the rule of the people", I do not see how it could go without a real sovereignty of the single people concerned. Now, the primordial act of sovereignty is to give oneself the legal system of one's choice, rather than a a system imposed from outside, e.g., a colonial power or a supernational bureaucracy. If this is the case, I think we should accept the idea that the planet may continue exhibiting a plural and diverse landscape of political and economic regimes, and that peoples may continue to have a say about that. Or we could opt for a Brave- New- Worldish "enlightened" globalism, but in that case we have already renounced the idea of different states and of "democracy" altogether. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Mon Aug 4 12:02:12 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 06:02:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Available podcasts of nontechnical astronomy talks Message-ID: From The Planetary Exploration Newsletter, Vol. 2, Nr. 37, August 3, 2008: ===================================================================== PODCASTS OF NONTECHNICAL ASTRONOMY TALKS AVAILABLE WITHOUT CHARGE Audio recordings of twelve public lectures by astronomers are now available as free MP3 downloads at the web site of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (ASP): http://www.astrosociety.org/education/podcast/index.html Among the talks now available are: * Dr. Jill Tarter (SETI Institute): "Better Searches for Signals from Extra-terrestrial Civilizations" * Dr. Geoff Marcy (U. of California, Berkeley): "Hunting for Earth-like Planets Among the Stars" * Dr. David Morrison (NASA Ames Research Center): "Asteroid Impacts and the Evolution of Life on Earth" * Dr. David Grinspoon (Denver Museum of Nature & Science): "Climate Catastrophes in the Solar System" * Dr. Dale Cruikshank (NASA Ames): "The Planet Pluto: Maligned but Not Forgotten" * Dr. Alex Filippenko (University of California, Berkeley): "Dark Energy and the Runaway Universe" * Dr. Frank Drake (SETI Institute): "Estimating the Chances of Life Out There" A few talks are also available as video files (instructions can be found on the same page.) These lectures are co-sponsored by: + NASA's Ames Research Center + The SETI Institute + The Foothill College Astronomy Program + The Astronomical Society of the Pacific ===================================================================== Enjoy... Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Aug 4 16:17:05 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:17:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Hypermediated Mind Map - Programmer Needed Message-ID: <002601c8f64d$89b3dd40$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> If you are or know a Java superprogrammer, please email me off list. I have a potential project ( in collaboration with Ted Nelson/ZigZag) to discuss. Thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More BFA, MS, MPhil/PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Faculty of Technology, School of Computers, Communication and Electronics University of Plymouth, UK Arts and Design - NBIC+ Convergence H+ Europe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Aug 4 16:03:39 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:03:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] TECH: Hypermediated Mind Map In-Reply-To: References: <010201c8f583$c8e3eac0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> Message-ID: <002201c8f64b$a923e0a0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> First, to answer Jef's question: Hypermediated mind map would be a multi-media interface which introduces the basic mind mapping protocol with moving images (video clips) and audio. It is also interactive, so the user can move about and even build his/her own wiki for private or public viewing. The basic mapping, however, is not subject to alteration - it would remain constant or only editable by the author. Currently there is no hard and fast definition that I know of. If someone has one, please share. > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 11:23 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] TECH: Hypermediated Mind Map > > On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Natasha Vita-More > wrote: > > Does anyone have information on what might be the best or coolest software > > to date for developing a hypermediated mind map? > > Define "hypermediated" please? > > - Jef > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1587 - Release Date: 8/2/2008 5:30 > PM From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Aug 4 17:20:38 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:20:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] TECH: Hypermediated Mind Map In-Reply-To: <002201c8f64b$a923e0a0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> References: <010201c8f583$c8e3eac0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> <002201c8f64b$a923e0a0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > First, to answer Jef's question: Hypermediated mind map would be a > multi-media interface which introduces the basic mind mapping protocol with > moving images (video clips) and audio. It is also interactive, so the user > can move about and even build his/her own wiki for private or public > viewing. The basic mapping, however, is not subject to alteration - it > would remain constant or only editable by the author. Currently there is no > hard and fast definition that I know of. If someone has one, please share. Natasha, thanks for the clarification. I suspect that Wikipedia's Wikimedia platform may be your best bet at present, leveraging the efforts of a quite large base of developers and users. Look and feel for your product could be much more media-intensive than what you see on Wikipedia, dependent mainly on available bandwidth and storage. Given your specification that the content be editable exclusively, a viable corner-case might be distribution via (data) DVD. As for highly effective collaborative mind-mapping, my hopes were raised very high with the initial announcement of Nelson's Xanadu project so many years ago, and have yet to be satisfied. We're getting there in bits and pieces, fits and starts, and while many projects do well at opening the door widely to content contribution, few if any provide explicitly for the meta-requirement of increasingly intelligent selection of that content. [Queue comments by Brent on the still untapped potential of canons and camps, popularity and authority, on the web...] - Jef From jrd1415 at gmail.com Tue Aug 5 04:53:53 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 21:53:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002a01c8e648$aa097740$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <0f4701c8e64b$4ccb0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com> <0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com> <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Lee Corbin > Well, the solution is what has been pointed to in a number of web links. > Namely, to wit, viz., the strings do break. The "solution" is wrong. The strings do not break. There are two easy ways to see this. First, If you were on board the space ships, in which frame of reference the laws of physics would operate in pedestrian fashion, where is there any reason for the strings to break? There isn't, so they don't. Second, replace all that spaceship and string stuff with a long ruler with alternating sections marked "spaceship" and "string". Accelerate the ruler according to the same regime. Will the sections marked string break? Will the ruler break anywhere? Of course not? Mr. Bell may have been a very bright fellow, but outside his area of expertise just as likely to get it wrong. Best, Jeff Davis From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Aug 5 15:18:25 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:18:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00c801c8ea7d$10be55e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <26DB6C7C27E94664A095488F8D0AE6C5@Catbert> <148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Harvey wrote Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Literary Criticism Technique > [Murray] only looked at European histories and concluded > that Europeans were the most important figures in history. No, he did not make such a claim! He lists dozens of Chinese and Japanese contributors to human achievement alone. And breakthroughs from many cultures, not to mention amazingly long lists of Indian or Arabic breakthroughs. The Europeans were simply by far the most *numerous* contributors. Someone had to be. Silicon Valley has done far more for human accomplishment than has Nebraska (in population about the same size), but the cultural and historical factors are obvious. Same with the whole world. > What do you think would have happened if he only read > Oriental or only Middle Eastern histories? No matter how > much he claims to have "corrected" the data, it still comes > from one culture only, biasing the results toward that culture. What histories? Exactly which ones do you have in mind? In almost every case, you'll now find that the stories of the (not insignificant) actual accomplishment which occurred outside the west have now been most thoroughly catalogued *by* western students, (or, as in the case I'm most personally familiar with, (mathematics, see below), their disciples, in effect). > His methodology clearly only polls European sources and > therefore overcounts them. Had he actually tabulated > references from all cultures, he would have counted more > entries for more non-European figures. When you speak of "references from all cultures", could you be more specific? Yes, it would make sense to tabulate references to Chinese writers that appear in the extremely vast corpus of Chinese literature, but no, it wouldn't make sense to take names off Mayan stelae just because some king was mentioned dozens and dozens of times. How careful was Murray? Here is what he says in http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.17821,filter.all/pub_detail.asp An excerpt: The science inventories (subdivided into astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth sciences, physics, mathematics, medicine, and technology) were worldwide-that is, Chinese and Arab scientists were part of the same inventory that contained Copernicus and Newton. My working assumption was that historians of science are able to identify important scientific achievements independently of the culture in which they occur.> to which, yes, your criticism might apply, and The arts inventories (subdivided into the visual arts, music, and literature) and the philosophy inventory could not be worldwide. Even though some sources for these topics purported to cover the entire world, the weight given to different artistic traditions involves judgments and preferences in ways that accounts of scientific accomplishment do not. It could not be assumed, for example, that a history of the visual arts written by a German would use the same standards for Chinese or French art as for German art. To avoid the problem of cultural chauvinism within the Western world, I selected sources balanced among the major Western countries (along with other precautions discussed in the book). For non- Western countries, the most direct way to sidestep this problem was to prepare independent inventories. For philosophy, I prepared separate inventories for the West, China, and India. For the visual arts, I made use of distinct inventories for the West, China, and Japan. For literature, I used separate inventories for the West, the Arab world, China, India, and Japan. Music was restricted to the West. Altogether, 4,002 people qualified as "significant figures," defined as those who were mentioned in at least 50 percent of the sources, in one or another of the inventories. to which it doesn't. Please allow me to mention mathematics, on which I claim to be moderately well read. About ten years ago I purchased the unbelievably massive two volume "Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics" 2nd edition, published by the Mathematical Association of Japan. It dwarfs any other world-wide compendium Although it lists two hundred (!) translators of the first edition, ---every single one of them Japanese---easily ninety-eight percent of the mathematical achievement is attributed to Europeans (or westerners in general). Of course, we know the historical reasons for this. Indeed, since the opening of Japan in 1853, the Japanese have, starting a half century later, demonstrated that in terms of ability they're the equals of anyone (beginning in 1903 with Takagi, and working right through an extremely vital component in Wiles' 1994 proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, the Tatyana-Shumura conjecture. Do you think the Mathematical Association of Japan suffers from Eurocentric bias? > You are implying that my objections are not serious or not based on the book... Have you read it? If not, *what* summaries or criticisms did you read? > I cannot imagine that you are unaware of the controversies > surrounding Murray and his methods, including this book. Of course I am *VERY* aware of the controversy over one small part of "The Bell Curve" (the small chapter that talked about race differences and that got everyone so excited, but is *not* at all the main theme of the book). But *no*, I am *not* aware of criticism of "Human Achievement". And it doesn't look like Wikipedia is either. You must help if you can. > Go Google it for yourself if you are unaware of the negative > peer review and criticism that this book has received. I tried! Just after I read your post, I tried, and then tonight putting "Charles Murray Eurocentrism" in google yielded no negative reviews in the entire first two pages of links! In fact, of the links shown were (I don't recommend them) http://denisdutton.com/murray_review.htm (link 6) (This hasn't much substance: but at least it's a *criticism*: (link 3) http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:0j8rjQegV6wJ:www.leeds.ac.uk/cers/toolkit/pdf/Toolkit_Endnotes.pdf+Charles+Murray+Eurocentric&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us just a bunch of footnotes.) A predictable Wall Street Journal take: (link 5) http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110004206 and so on. Would you (or anyone) *please* provide any meaty critical links at all? My book group is discussing "Human Achievement" very shortly, and it would be great to have some substantive criticism. I haven't found any. Even Wikipedia is ominously silent. There is no "Criticism" section, as so often there is, in their article on the book itself. Only near the end of the article on Murray himself is: Pro a.. Cato Institute Book Forum (RealVideo) (RealAudio), 1 hour lecture that Murray gave discussing his book Human Accomplishment, and some of the response to it. b.. Address to Commonwealth Club of California on 18-Apr-2006 regarding his welfare reform proposals (RealAudio) c.. "10 questions for Charles Murray." McIntosh, Matt (2006), Gene Expression. d.. "The Idea of Progress: Once Again, with Feeling" in the Hoover digest. [edit] Con a.. NY Times biographical article: Jason DeParle (1994), "Daring Research or 'Social Science Pornography'?: Charles Murray". b.. "Flattening The Bell Curve" by Nicholas Leman, at Slate Magazine c.. "Debunking The Bell Curve" Articles on The Bell Curve. which only mention "The Bell Curve". Even more oddly, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Accomplishment Their "External links" section has not even a single one that's negative. Do you have any idea why? I'm at a loss. Thanks, Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Aug 5 15:46:07 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:46:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] environmental friendliness blamed for both shuttle losses Message-ID: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> >From http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33782 Oh, and don't overlook the part where the writer says The original report is still there on NASA's website for any other enterprising journalist to go see for himself or herself. Challenger, Columbia ... what next? By Joseph Farah ? 2008 WorldNetDaily.com "When NASA's environmental concerns resulted in the tragic deaths of the Columbia crew, it wasn't the first time a space shuttle crew was lost because of misguided regulations and fads. "In fact, NASA's own investigations strongly suggest something very similar occurred back in 1986 resulting in the destruction of the Challenger and its entire crew. "Long before the space agency officially blamed the Feb. 1 disintegration of the Columbia upon re-entry - on foam insulation breaking free from the external tank and slamming into the leading edge of the left wing - NASA knew of a continuing problem with foam insulation dating back six years. The new foam had been chosen for shuttle mission - the day after the Columbia tragedy - because it was "environmentally friendly." "More than six years ago, NASA investigated extensive thermal tile damage on the space shuttle Columbia as a direct result of the shedding of external tank insulation on launch. The problems began when the space agency switched to materials and parts that were considered more "environmentally friendly," according to a NASA report obtained by WorldNetDaily. "In 1997, during the 87th space shuttle mission, similar tile damage was experienced during launch when the external tank foam crashed into some tiles during the stress of takeoff. Fortunately, the damage was not catastrophic. But investigators then noted the damage followed changes in the methods of "foaming" the external tank - changes mandated by concerns about being "environmentally friendly." "Here's what that report said: "During the ... mission, there was a change made on the external tank. Because of NASA's goal to use environmentally friendly products, a new method of 'foaming' the external tank had been used for this mission and the (previous) mission. It is suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to the protective tiles of the orbiter." "While the NASA report on that earlier Columbia mission ended on a positive note, suggesting changes would be made in procedures to avoid such problems in the future, obviously the problems were never corrected. "The original report is still there on NASA's website for any other enterprising journalist to go see for himself or herself. (i.e. http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/katnik/sts87-12-23.html) "Worse, this is apparently not the first shuttle mission and crew destroyed because of concerns about the environmental friendliness of certain products used by NASA. "Anyone alive in 1986 likely remembers where he or she was when the Challenger exploded shortly after launch. And everyone who followed the story of the investigation of the Challenger disaster knows the official findings - a problem with O-rings. "But what exactly was the problem with the O-rings? "In 1977, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of asbestos in a wide range of paint products. NASA, through the mid-1980s, had used a commercially available, "off-the-shelf" putty manufactured by the Fuller O'Brien Paint Company in San Francisco to help seal the shuttle field joints. But the paint company, fearful of legal action as a result of the asbestos ban, stopped manufacturing the putty. NASA had to look for another solution. "Six months before the Challenger disaster, a July 23, 1985, memo by budget analyst Richard Cook warned about new burn-through problems with O-rings. " 'Engineers have not yet determined the cause of the problem,' he wrote. 'Candidates include the use of a new type of putty (the putty formerly used was removed from the market by NASA because it contained asbestos).' "Indeed, NASA began buying putty from a New Jersey company. The experts working with it noted that it did not seem to seal the joints as well as the old putty, but they continued to use it anyway. As long as I am the only one reporting that NASA has for 20 years put petty "environmental correctness" ahead of the lives of astronauts, I do not expect future missions to be any safer. Problems are seldom corrected when they are not recognized." END QUOTE. And this has to be the tip of the iceberg because all the rest of the economic retardation is about one thousand times less visible. Insidious processes everywhere, multiplying the costs of everything. Who knows how much more progress there'd have been since 1983 (twenty-five years!) without this collectivist/idealist fucking with the economy? Lee P.S. Oh---and for the distracting and irrelevant attacks on who published this. Are we automatically to reject out of hand everything that Pravda ever said just because Stalin was wicked? Civilized and rational discourse *demands* paying attention to the arguments themselves, not to who puts them forward or where they're published. From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Aug 5 20:30:50 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 15:30:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] biosafety issues in DIY-bio In-Reply-To: <2fda5279-a944-4dfe-b39a-097dd3dc74d5@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com> References: <2fda5279-a944-4dfe-b39a-097dd3dc74d5@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <200808051530.50640.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 05 August 2008, markus_1 wrote: > I would like to share with you a paper about the biosafety > implications of the ongoing diffusion of synbio techniques, including > references to "biohackers". Hey Markus, glad to hear from you again. How'd synbiosafe.eu turn out? Here's my general thoughts on this issue. Let's talk sometime. Let's abstract this from the recent trends in di(rt)ybio. In *general* one would be generally clueless about biology and one's body to the extent of relying on healthcare systems and other people, a small percentage of them, knowing how to take care of the physiology and morphology and so on. That system generally does not scale adequately. In open source programming circles, the general mantra is to more eyes looking to expose the ever increasing number of bugs. How else are you going to find them and adequately deal with them? [unit tests] So we need to train our "eyes" and ears (amateur engineers making up 'hacks') to filter up biological information on the general microbial/viral health of their local ecosystems and pockets of society, which can generally be done with software, knowledge diffusion, knowhow on building the necessary physical setups, and so on. Bubbling up information isn't all of it though -- just as bug reports aren't all of it, as many bug reporters submit patches to prevent the zero-day exploits or add new features to the technological foundation. Same here. "Let a thousand flowers bloom! By all means, inspect the flowers for signs of infestation and weed as necessary. But don?t cut off the hands of those who spread the seeds of the future." -- Max More. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue Aug 5 22:57:47 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 15:57:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Twitter In-Reply-To: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: You guys Twittering yet? http://twitter.com Follow me here: http://twitter.com/nanogyrl Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at harveynewstrom.com Wed Aug 6 01:19:44 2008 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:19:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] environmental friendliness blamed for both shuttle losses In-Reply-To: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200808052119.45008.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Tuesday 05 August 2008 11:46:07 Lee Corbin wrote: > The new foam > had been chosen for shuttle mission - the day after > the Columbia tragedy - because it was > "environmentally friendly." Do you have a source for this? Because here in Florida, people are concerned about how deadly toxic that foam is. I never heard the theory that it was environmentally friendly before. > "In 1977, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the > use of asbestos in a wide range of paint products. NASA, > through the mid-1980s, had used a commercially available, > "off-the-shelf" putty manufactured by the Fuller O'Brien Paint > Company in San Francisco to help seal the shuttle field joints. > But the paint company, fearful of legal action as a result of the > asbestos ban, stopped manufacturing the putty. NASA had to > look for another solution. I find this hard to believe, as well. The O-rings were well documented to lose their flexibility at low temperatures. And the temperatures that morning were below the threshold already established. The problem was the decision to launch outside operational parameters. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at harveynewstrom.com Wed Aug 6 01:47:38 2008 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:47:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement In-Reply-To: <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200808052147.39232.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Tuesday 05 August 2008 11:18:25 Lee Corbin wrote: > > [Murray] only looked at European histories and concluded > > that Europeans were the most important figures in history. > > No, he did not make such a claim! He lists dozens of Chinese > and Japanese contributors to human achievement alone. And > breakthroughs from many cultures, not to mention amazingly > long lists of Indian or Arabic breakthroughs. The Europeans > were simply by far the most *numerous* contributors. Even given your "correction", my point still stands. Restated, Murray only looked at European histories and concluded that Europeans were the most *numerous* figures in history. It still seems contrived, and is a standard criticism of his work. > > What do you think would have happened if he only read > > Oriental or only Middle Eastern histories? No matter how > > much he claims to have "corrected" the data, it still comes > > from one culture only, biasing the results toward that culture. > > What histories? Exactly which ones do you have in mind? Chinese writing predates western writing by a couple of thousand years. If you want to count those documents, then Chinese outnumber Europeans just by the sheer number of references. But that seems to be a very contrived statistical measure. > To avoid > the problem of cultural chauvinism within the Western world, I selected > sources balanced among the major Western countries (along with other > precautions discussed in the book). For non- Western countries, the most > direct way to sidestep this problem was to prepare independent inventories. Does this seem valid to you? He only used existing Western sources and created his own non-Western sources? Then he referenced his own inventories as sources for his own reserach? > Music was restricted to the West. Does anybody believe that there are no historical music references outside of the West? > Although it lists two hundred (!) translators of the first edition, > ---every single one of them Japanese---easily ninety-eight percent > of the mathematical achievement is attributed to Europeans > (or westerners in general). Japanese vs. Eurpoean? What about Arabic? There are reasons that all mathematics in the world is done with Arabic numerals? They contributed little to nothing to mathematics? > > I cannot imagine that you are unaware of the controversies > > surrounding Murray and his methods, including this book. > > Of course I am *VERY* aware of the controversy over > one small part of "The Bell Curve" (the small chapter that > talked about race differences and that got everyone so > excited, but is *not* at all the main theme of the book). You keep diverting the conversation back to The Bell Curve. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about "Human Achievement" and the controversy surrounding it. > But *no*, I am *not* aware of criticism of "Human Achievement". > And it doesn't look like Wikipedia is either. You must help if you can. > > > Go Google it for yourself if you are unaware of the negative > > peer review and criticism that this book has received. > > I tried! Just after I read your post, I tried, and then tonight putting > "Charles Murray Eurocentrism" in google yielded no negative reviews in the > entire first two pages of links! In fact, of the links shown were (I don't > recommend them) Try googling "Charles Murray" "Human Achievement" flaws. - or - Try looking at Amazon negative reviews of the book. It's not a big deal for me. But just the concept of counting encyclopedia pages to estimate worth seems sophomoric to me. This just isn't a scientific method. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Aug 6 04:34:52 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Just curious..i'm always there..what is majority? In-Reply-To: <200808052147.39232.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <149936.79067.qm@web30405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This video is by Leona Lewis, a very well new known popular artist that interprets a vision. "What is majority?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08X2lN669k I've recently discovered images that i'm curious about. Why do most think that this video would get 5 000 000 hits? I suppose subjectively I would think this is all about me as I imagine that when I hear this song I am interpreting the lyrics to reflect a certain image that I recall..objectively I would wonder why so many people are interested? Just a curious thought. Anna __________________________________________________________________ Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Aug 6 05:07:44 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 22:07:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Scientists remain PC References: <1216988195_13200@s8.cableone.net> Message-ID: <14fe01c8f782$9a17cf80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Dagon wrote (From: Dagon Gmail Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 7:16 AM) > It goes smack in the face of the typical 20/30 year old soon-to-be breeder that > his or her lifestyle is causing, by a small increment, the destruction of the planet. This is a *highly* disputed pronouncement, not something to be taken as matter-of-fact. Julian Simon and many others have adduced a good deal of evidence that population growth, other things being equal, is good for society, good for economies, and good for humanity in general. In some countries, where the population growth is pronounced, such as the United States, there is clearly a great shortage of people, considering how many opportunities evidently exist for those able to emigrate there. > Even then, countries with biggest problems tend to be countries > with religious extremism, authoritarianism and rather inadequate > democracies. Yeah, that's the other hand, all right. But their problems are not so much population growth per se, but retarded economies due to the world-wide unequal distribution of capitalism. > It just doesn't sink in that the more people you have, the less each > individual is worth. Perhaps you intend that your following remarks qualify that, but I don't quite see how. That's an outrageous statement, on its face! Do you mean to suggest that John Adams was worth less than Cicero because there were so many more people in John Adams' time? Or, in terms of locality, I would be worth much more if I moved to a tiny hamlet in a small country on an underpopulated continent? > Having an excess of cheap, desperate individuals means cheap > labour, which is in the interest of those in power, or those with > money. This is a conundrum that can not be resolved with current > science and current democracies. You seem to believe that the number of jobs is somehow fixed, and that this fixed quantity of jobs will just cause the "excess" of "cheap, desperate individuals" to have to share them among them, bid down each others' wages, and live off charity. It's not so! Under the right circumstances, more people means more jobs, as the larger number of individuals discover new creative niches within an economy. (It's true that too few countries have "the right circumstances", but we should be pushing for more freedom, democracy, rule of law, protection of private property, and all the rest of those things that make it possible.) > Nobody will address it, except for a few with vision, and they > will be scorned in return. :-) Thus the fate of all of us who seem to be ahead of our times, e.g., us cryonicists. > My single best argument we need immortality treatments in > the 7/11 NOW. Once people have to face consequences > they'll change their tune really fast. I see no other way to > resolve many of our problems. I might agree. But your opening remarks will just be echoed by those who think that there are too many people, and it's high time some of the old ones died off. Lee From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 05:49:34 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:19:34 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Just to upset the astronomers among us... Message-ID: <710b78fc0808052249x286cd410q1ed2abf280254818@mail.gmail.com> Check this out, I think it's real. http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1773116 -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Aug 6 05:30:33 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 22:30:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <152801c8f78a$2e029d90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes > On Jul 30, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Michael LaTorra > (quoting from excellent Michael Shermer piece) wrote: I have to say that I too thought Shermer's piece really very fine, though I do have a few criticisms. Maybe later. > Yes! This has been part of what I see as near term extropic > goals for some time now. The world wide web is how the > true "global brain" comes into being. Right now the global > brain is largely stroking out with relatively random fits of activity > and some actual good functioning. It is nowhere near what a > fully activated healthy global brain would be. How right you are! > Here in the early 21st century the reality is that the internet is nearly utterly unattainable for much of humanity. Even where > I am in the very heart of Silicon Valley there was exactly one and only one way to get reasonably functional internet access. > That is true in most of the US, that is in those places where you can get anything but dial up. I just saw a map of AT&T > cellular data coverage of any kind at all in the US. At least 90% of the country is dark. Almost no place in the US has full > wireless (or even wired) coverage. Given that how many products, ideas, applications, tools whose benefit rises exponentially (Metcalfe's law ) are stillborn if they are thought of at all? How many contributions to our total knowledge, power, understanding, joy, live are we missing by these great fissures and chasms in the global brain? If I was 20 years old again I could think of few better things to make a career of than ensuring that the global brain is fully connected up. < Very well said again! Sadly, I have been unable to find anything in the remainder of Samantha's post with which to disagree. I was *sure* I would find *something*. (I ususally hate "me-too" posts.) Oh well, no one is perfect. Ah, but I must skip over most the rest and comment on > This is in large part scarcity thinking at work. It is deeply > ingrained and it has more than a little basis in fact today > even in relatively affluent societies. Right yet again! (Grrrr.) Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Aug 6 05:54:32 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 22:54:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality References: <292059.33038.qm@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <000b01c8e251$f77b4b20$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <011f01c8e2fe$9e1cb070$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20080801174526.GB22488@ofb.net> Message-ID: <152901c8f78a$2e1f2640$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien S. writes > Lee Corbin wrote: [ > > Olga writes > > > > > But consider this: Let's just imagine that Woody Allen had been accused of > > > murdering Mia Farrow, and a major piece of evidence had been found by a > > > black detective. And let's say this black detective goes on the witness > > > stand and he's asked if he ever referred to Jews as "kikes." He says no, > > > never. Then a tape is discovered in which we find out the detective is a > > > member of some racist black group that considers Jews not just kikes but > > > monsters. ] >> >> Well, hell yes! Who would give a damn about the murdered >> woman in that case? People as well as our legal system, >> understand priorities. (where my sarcasm, I take it, was well understood by more people than just by Damien) > I would think such a committed anti-statist as yourself would be more > wary of sending messages to cops that they could get away with violating > due process. Judges and juries override the strict interpretation of the law all the time, (way too much so, I'd say, at least for the former). The police definitely should not violate due process. There should always be penalties for doing so. But it is madness to make the penalties include the freeing of criminals whose guilt is completely evident by the (incorrectly gathered) evidence. It sends terrible, terrible signals to criminals as well as the public at large when murderers are freed on technicalities. No wonder people in cities began locking their doors at night during the sixties; such was the perception of the efficacy of the criminal justice system, and the palpable and very justified fear that even if criminals were apprehended, they'd be likely to get off one way or another. >> But what I don't understand is this. Usually when the jury reaches >> the wrong verdict, as they did in the Rodney King case against >> the police officers--- can you believe it, in the first trial the jury >> acquitted the police officers? --- the government simply retries the >> case in another jurisdiction. So why wasn't O. J. Simpson tried > > Well, there is this minor thing in the Constitution about no double > jeopardy... I thought so too. But my high school teacher explained it to us back as early as 1965: American society may try a person a second time by the expedient of trying him or her at a different "level" of government. Therefore, if the state doesn't convict you, the federal government can try you again. This "double jeopardy" you speak of, is merely words on papers when the proper political pressures and popular wills are brought into it. My high school teacher was actually ecstatic about it. He reveled in the idea that we were becoming a "country ruled by men, not by laws". Concurrently, on television, "The Fugitive" was shown every week as having been a victim of "blind justice", and they showed every week a picture of the famous statue with Justice and her scales, blindfolded. Great efforts were being made, then as now, to transfer power to judges and away from literal written laws. Lee > Well, perhaps the civil rights laws (which were used to re-try the King > officers in federal courts) aren't written so as to apply to private > individuals or something. Wikipedia says the federal trial focused > more on training than the videotape. > >> conspiracy, or, (when the government gets desperate) "attempting > > Need people to have a conspiracy. > >> to evade a guilty verdict", or whatever it takes to convict? > > ...now yo're being silly. > > -xx- Damien X-) From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Aug 6 05:21:20 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 22:21:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Critter's Dilemma on the African Plain References: <607461.80092.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <152701c8f78a$2dc23930$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> The Avantguardian wrote (Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:43 PM) > They say a picture is worth a thousand words so I have compiled some wild life > videos from Africa that I think beautifully illustrate Critter's Dilemma in > action. Some of these videos are very hard to explain in terms of traditional > biology but are easily explained by the concept of strategy-shifting in > Critter's Dilemma. What I want to emphasize is that there is a lot of rational > decision-making, free agency, and cost-benefit analysis happening in these > videos if you look closely enough. Evidently the law of the jungle is not quite > as simple as once thought. Your case is very persuasive! Thanks especially, though, for your very, very excellent summaries below, from those of us a little too impatient to sit through videos: > 1. Predator-prey dogma. > This short video while breathtaking is the "traditional" view of what the > relationship between a lion and a zebra is. Lion chases, zebra runs, lion > scores a flawless takedown and enjoys lunch. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGDEnpCgGOI > > 2. Predator-prey becomes interspecies competition due to strategy shift. > This video demonstrates that relationship #1 cannot be taken for granted not > even by the king (or in this case a queen) of the jungle. Ignore what the > commentator is saying and simply watch the zebra.... I relegate the rest of Stuart's nice descriptions to the codicil, below. For now, look at > Experienced safari guide *forces* lions to ignore him by first by communicating > submission to them and then threatening to defect on them with a roll of toilet > paper. and > Male human defects on male lion and *barely* escapes retaliation from dying > lion seeking revenge. Can you feel the love tonight? You apparently invite us to substitute the game theory term "defect" for any act of aggression or failure to cooperate? I have a bad feeling about that, but cannot put it into words. (Perhaps lucky for me, since I hope you don't take disagreement or challenge as defection. :-) Usually the rich variety of words within a language are there for a reason. They did, after all, evolve, because it's seldom that a government, (even the French government), or an influential individual will simply decree usage of words and get away with it. So we have a lot of highly nuanced English words that you're deliberately passing up. Well, of course, maybe we ought to more often look at these things in game theoretic terms, which may be your point. But neologisms rarely work out, you know, along with non-standard language uses. Still, why look at the human/lion relationship as in any way whatsoever a classic game? Lee > 2. Predator-prey becomes interspecies competition due to strategy shift. > This video demonstrates that relationship #1 cannot be taken for granted not > even by the king (or in this case a queen) of the jungle. Ignore what the > commentator is saying and simply watch the zebra. How would one of the > strongest and fastest zebras in the herd become separated from the herd unless > it wanted to be? Does the zebra stallion look "panicked" or does it look like > it is baiting a trap? Might the females and young in the herd have influenced > this stallion's decision? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGAeRWwQ2mA&feature=related > > 3. Lioness has a bad day. In this video a pride of lions takes down a cape > buffalo. Although the buffalo knows escape is hopeless, it nonetheless defects > and drags one of its predators to hell with it as any self-respecting critter > should. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOq18oecT1A&feature=related > > 4. A three way battle between a herd of buffalo, a pride of lions, and > crocodiles over the life of a lone buffalo calf. Not every buffalo in the herd > is related to the calf. What's going on here? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjibWWTevdA&feature=related > > 5. Buffalo revenge served up COLD. And you thought genocide was a human > invention? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRwTQcCH9UE&feature=related > > 6. According to the wikipedia article on elephants, "Healthy adult elephants > have no natural predators." What does evolution and Critter's Dilemma have to > say about that? That there is no substitute for numbers and teamwork when it > comes to forcing cooperation from *big* critters. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOE4RzS7JPY&feature=related > > 7. In this video, you see a pride of lions try to take down a full grown > giraffe. The females get thrown around like rag dolls until the much larger > males get off their lazy butts and lend a paw. I guess the males decided that > they would not get supper otherwise. Just goes to show you that the "Battle of > the Sexes" is just another game of Critter's Dilemma. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAqrVRi6tMU&feature=related > > 8. Interspecies Samaritanism. I know that Samaritanism is not really a > technical term, but what else would you call these? Hamiltonian kin-selecting > altruism just doesn't cut the mustard here. > > Elephant rescues buffalo from lion then administers first aid by kicking dust > on its bleeding wounds. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhHXeJZzJwo > > Hippo rescues impala from crocodile and then tries to resuscitate it. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENWp0Q2RkTA&feature=related > > Leopard kills baboon and then adopts baboon's baby. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpfvkeo0KBc > > 9. Humans and lions playing Critter's Dilemma in the savage garden. > > Tourist cooperates with lions by turning his back on them, making himself > appear smaller by crouching, and then meekly allowing himself to be eaten. I > would be surprised if the game wardens didn't have to kill that whole pride of > lions because of this fool demonstrating how easy prey humans are to them. If > you learn nothing else from this video, it should be to *NEVER* turn your back > on a predator. That is how they are used to seeing their prey; from behind. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR_Lva7XXlY&feature=related > > Experienced safari guide *forces* lions to ignore him by first by communicating > submission to them and then threatening to defect on them with a roll of toilet > paper. Bluffing works in CD as well as it does in poker. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQs9W9MmXgs > > Male human defects on male lion and *barely* escapes retaliation from dying > lion seeking revenge. Can you feel the love tonight? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQsTGIvmp90 > > > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 07:53:36 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 00:53:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement In-Reply-To: <200808052147.39232.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200808052147.39232.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670808060053l1d3928c8i60c0f53eb88f09d2@mail.gmail.com> What were the major factors that caused such a large share of human achievement to originate from the Western/European world? And allowed it to dominate the rest of the planet? I have read such things as multiple national rivalries & wars that inspired competition and technological innovation, geographic and cultural diversity that made it hard for super empires to monopolize everything as seen so often in China (and thereby limit competition), many river systems and rich farmlands, a wide variety of pack animals and crop plants, and a Christian worldview that involved seeing history/time as moving forward instead of simply moving in endless cycles of life and death, were at least some of the key advantages of the West. John Grigg From amara at amara.com Wed Aug 6 07:53:31 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 01:53:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Just to upset the astronomers among us... Message-ID: We have our work cut out for us, it seems. :-( Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 08:26:51 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 01:26:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Twitter In-Reply-To: References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com> I had to look up Twitter on Wikipedia to find out how it differed from Myspace and Facebook. lol I look forward to keeping everyone informed about what I'm eating for dinner and what I'm watching on television. hee! Ironically, right now I'm taking in a Boondocks episode where the aged grandfather doggedly looks via internet for a young and beautiful woman to date. When he finally comes across a gorgeous young gal who is actually interested he gets more than he bargains for... John Grigg From dagonweb at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 08:58:39 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:58:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Just to upset the astronomers among us... In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0808052249x286cd410q1ed2abf280254818@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0808052249x286cd410q1ed2abf280254818@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Check this out, I think it's real. http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1773116 It is real, I have seen it several times before. I would be inclined, in real anger, to slam a betamax recorder in his face (because those are convenient big and heavy). I used to be proud I didn't live in Iraq. Can someone subtly edit that video to make the guy drool while giving the answer? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGrmYR50jJ8 Much much worse. This old nut will kill you for disagreeing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sondre-list at bjellas.com Wed Aug 6 10:06:40 2008 From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:06:40 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Twitter In-Reply-To: <2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com> References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Actually, the benefits I've received from Twitter is way beyond other social networks like LinkedIn, FaceBook, MySpace :-) You don't want to subscribve to people that only posts crap, and when you post, you need to be aware of your "listeners". Make it worth their time visiting the site and watching your updates, and there's no point telling everyone, every details about your life. Started reading two new books, and a friend commented on my message that one of them was actually written by his boss! So now I'm actually giving feedback to the author through him, and it's another element that enforces the friends me and he has. Twitter is useful for snapping up interesting information, it's very un-organized but it's a good place to find inspiration. It's complete opposite of FaceBook, where you have groups and more closely related friends, and the topic/subjects rarely go beyond the normal trend. So yes, I do twitter, and yes, I do find it useless, but there is nothing we have more of, than time to waste: http://twitter.com/SondreB My 5 cents :-) - Sondre On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:26 AM, John Grigg wrote: > I had to look up Twitter on Wikipedia to find out how it differed from > Myspace and Facebook. lol I look forward to keeping everyone informed > about what I'm eating for dinner and what I'm watching on television. > hee! Ironically, right now I'm taking in a Boondocks episode where > the aged grandfather doggedly looks via internet for a young and > beautiful woman to date. When he finally comes across a gorgeous > young gal who is actually interested he gets more than he bargains > for... > > John Grigg > _______________________________________________ > 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 dagonweb at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 11:06:25 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:06:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Scientists remain PC In-Reply-To: <14fe01c8f782$9a17cf80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1216988195_13200@s8.cableone.net> <14fe01c8f782$9a17cf80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: Dagon wrote (From: Dagon Gmail Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 7:16 AM) It goes smack in the face of the typical 20/30 year old soon-to-be breeder that his or her lifestyle is causing, by a small increment, the destruction of the planet. This is a *highly* disputed pronouncement, not something to be taken as matter-of-fact. Julian Simon and many others have adduced a good deal of evidence that population growth, other things being equal, is good for society, good for economies, and good for humanity in general. In some countries, where the population growth is pronounced, such as the United States, there is clearly a great shortage of people, considering how many opportunities evidently exist for those able to emigrate there. > I cannot see it any differently from what I have stated. Humanity has overbred its carrying capacity and I do not see any evidence otherwise in my daily life or whenever I listen to the experts. In an ideal world, where all humans are adequately educated, well-fed, where everyone has access to humane medical treatments and necessities, and where people can lead a life without senseless mind-numbing labour, competition or abuse, and where we have access to abundant energy, food and natural resources, sure, onwards to a Trillion humans !! But the assumption we can go on as the singularity is already a done deal, economies are religiously reliable and we have rock solid guarantees in the law we aren't terrorized by alienated minorities or exploited by dehumanized powerblocks - that's naive. I agree, the US can probably grow to 350 million. But India, the Middle East, Africa, large parts of Asia, even south America ... it is all a disaster waiting to happen. As a painful example, no less then a few months ago I was mocked when I suggested we could have the first signs of a die-off when oil prices would increase over 100$. Right now people are in fact dying, because of this scarcity problem, and politicians in rich countries are already wringing their hands at the "desperation divident" - lots of new desperate and eager labour entering the global marketplace driving down wages. If oil costs 500$ per barrel, they'll be dragging the shriveled up corpses from apartments in YOUR street. > The question is - do we (you and me) live in a society that is rich because we are smart and well-organized, or are we this affluent and spoiled because we had ourselves a big party on the oil inheritance. I am personally pretty sure, and I can saturate you in meaningless URL's, amazon bestsellers and youtube vids attesting to the idea that our western opulence, progress as well as the almost infernal population explosion in large parts of the third world was primarily caused not by some manifest destiny of progress, but rather by wallowing heedlessly in oil calories. The bad news is we will be faced with at least several decades of scarcity before we can entertain any hope of nanotechnology, fusion, spacedbased solar, He3, biotechnology revolutions, life extension, the second coming, a robotics revolution or the resplended AI providing a "lucky bastard" dividend to save our collective asses. We are so screwed it hurts. > In an ideal world europe would assimilate 500+ million enthusiastic mixed-demographic people from the middle east, the US would welcome the same from the overcrowded slums of southamerica and asia and we be all be dancing in happy circles wearing flowers. That is not going to happen. Resource depletion, largely oil-based, come with energy prices of 250 per barrel, and very soon too. Humanity will fail miserably at the cooperative model and revert to zero sum strategies across the board if that happens. If you lived in senegal would you have faith in populist western european politicians? If I lived in, say, Iran, sure I'd want to own a nuke, and real fast too. Can Iran trust a senile sociopath like McCain? Even then, countries with biggest problems tend to be countries with religious extremism, authoritarianism and rather inadequate democracies. Yeah, that's the other hand, all right. But their problems are not so much population growth per se, but retarded economies due to the world-wide unequal distribution of capitalism. > I agree that many countries haven't been pulling their fair share and have been underachievers in the global marketplace. But to be honest, isn't that their own choice? Who the hell are we, smug obese westerners, to dictate to argentine or saudi arabia or syria or venezuela they are supposed to fit in with the program? Whose program? I sure as hell object if the same countries are making choices (or don't make choices) that will cause fall out in my opart of the world (immigration) but last time I checked their way of doing business is none of yours. If Saudi Arabia wants to live in a sterile mix of oil-infused population boom, selective modernism and sociopathic medievalism it's none of your business. If they suffer food riots, they can always behead their surplus population for stealing. It just doesn't sink in that the more people you have, the less each individual is worth. Perhaps you intend that your following remarks qualify that, but I don't quite see how. That's an outrageous statement, on its face! Do you mean to suggest that John Adams was worth less than Cicero because there were so many more people in John Adams' time? Or, in terms of locality, I would be worth much more if I moved to a tiny hamlet in a small country on an underpopulated continent? > Absolutely. Humans, a priori, are worth as much as society says they are. It's an economic calculation, incorporating how much is invested in the individual, class, ethnicity, education, poperty, health, insurances and several other factors. If there are more people in a specific area, and if investment of value per individual is less, society will sure as hell act on that calculation. Try getting police help with a dispute if you are unemployed, without a permanent address, even in western democracies. You'd almost think you were living in an apartheid regime. Frankly I regard it as shocking you do not see this as anything else than common sense. I would wish it different, but it isn't. > A large factor in this equasion IS population density. Larger populations are inefficient, producing less, largely because access to the commons of raw materials (or space) is curtailed by competition. Wishing upon the blessings of increased progress, efficiency, education and civilization will help, but only so much. Families in tokyo pay three generations to own a home smaller than the one I live in, on my own. A good portion of egyptian society is so damn inefficient and undersupplied that the slightest decrease in flow of goods causes the bottom 20% to not receive their allotment of free bread - and that translates instantly in knee-jerk police crackdowns, riots and a flaring up of religious extremism. One would almost think they were bloody communists. Having an excess of cheap, desperate individuals means cheap labour, which is in the interest of those in power, or those with money. This is a conundrum that can not be resolved with current science and current democracies. You seem to believe that the number of jobs is somehow fixed, and that this fixed quantity of jobs will just cause the "excess" of "cheap, desperate individuals" to have to share them among them, bid down each others' wages, and live off charity. It's not so! Under the right circumstances, more people means more jobs, as the larger number of individuals discover new creative niches within an economy. (It's true that too few countries have "the right circumstances", but we should be pushing for more freedom, democracy, rule of law, protection of private property, and all the rest of those things that make it possible.) > The right circumstances being a limitless access to energy, space, materials and time. But that era has ended. The world is becoming governed by cuthroat competition, and the idea that politicians do not use machiavellan tactics to cultivate their national competitiveness - including shoving people in the incinerators, "metaphorically" is naive. I am sorry if I sound cynical, but I do not trust my fellow humans anymore after 8 years of neocons. Nobody will address it, except for a few with vision, and they will be scorned in return. :-) Thus the fate of all of us who seem to be ahead of our times, e.g., us cryonicists. > Personally cryonic suspension as an idea doesn't work for me. If given a choice, and me having a million or two to spare, sure, hurl my corpse in the nitrogen. I'd opt for freezing my body when old, rich and on the verge of death. But right now the required investment is as far removed from me as the far side of the moon. My single best argument we need immortality treatments in the 7/11 NOW. Once people have to face consequences they'll change their tune really fast. I see no other way to resolve many of our problems. I might agree. But your opening remarks will just be echoed by those who think that there are too many people, and it's high time some of the old ones died off. > In an ideal world, etc. I have nothing but contempt for the current one, so if it goes away, *one way or another* I won't miss it, or be there to miss it. I am only idealist when I can afford to. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 12:09:10 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 21:39:10 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Just to upset the astronomers among us... In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0808052249x286cd410q1ed2abf280254818@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0808060509u4dd4dceaqaae773986d120356@mail.gmail.com> 2008/8/6 Dagon Gmail : > Check this out, I think it's real. > http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1773116 > > It is real, I have seen it several times before. I would be inclined, in > real anger, to slam a betamax recorder in his face (because those are > convenient big and heavy). > I used to be proud I didn't live in Iraq. Can someone subtly edit that video > to make the guy drool while giving the answer? I thought the guy himself was ok, I imagine you can screw up something like that under pressure. One person not knowing something, well, hard to believe in this case, but it's not the end of the world. But, the audience... more of them answered "Sun" than "Moon". More! -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 12:31:58 2008 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:31:58 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200808052147.39232.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <091601c8f7c0$6c5b8da0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Harvey Newstrom> Japanese vs. Eurpoean? What about Arabic? There are reasons that all > mathematics in the world is done with Arabic numerals? They contributed > little to nothing to mathematics? The 'arabic' numerals are in fact Indian numerals. Their math knowledge they took from the greek. From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Aug 6 14:32:09 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:32:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Just curious..i'm always there..what is majority? In-Reply-To: <149936.79067.qm@web30405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200808052147.39232.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <149936.79067.qm@web30405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005701c8f7d1$35abdba0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> I think this clip has had so many hits because the song is about hope. Visually it manipulates the viewer by showing children crying, starving, stranded. Juxtaposed is an image of a stunningly beautiful face. If one image does not get to us, the other will. She does not have the vocal quality of Whitney Houston by any stretch, but she is lovely to look at. The song is not pleasant to my own ears, but again, the images of the children are tender and causes the viewer to want to hold them and nurture them. The end of the video the children are smiling, which provides the viewer with a placebo effect that we "feel" emotionally that we did something good by watching this video. The only problem I had with the end is that her voice became a bit harsh on my own ears, rather then nurturing and causing me to "feel" sensorially good. Best, Natasha Natasha Vita-More BFA, MS, MPhil/PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Faculty of Technology, School of Computers, Communication and Electronics University of Plymouth, UK Arts and Design - NBIC+ Convergence H+ Europe > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anna Taylor > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:35 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Just curious..i'm always there..what is majority? > > This video is by Leona Lewis, a very well new known popular artist that interprets a > vision. > > "What is majority?" > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08X2lN669k > > I've recently discovered images that i'm curious about. Why do most think that this > video would get 5 000 000 hits? > > I suppose subjectively I would think this is all about me as I imagine that when I > hear this song I am interpreting the lyrics to reflect a certain image that I > recall..objectively I would wonder why so many people are interested? > > Just a curious thought. > Anna > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! > Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1594 - Release Date: 8/5/2008 9:49 > PM From amara at amara.com Wed Aug 6 15:19:45 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:19:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Just to upset the astronomers among us... Message-ID: Emlyn: >But, the audience... more of them answered "Sun" than "Moon". More! It's sobering. And I'm not optimistic that the result would be very much different in other countries (in fact, I think that there would be a higher percentage of the audience answering 'Sun' if that game show was in the US). Thanks for that, though. It helps to bolster the argument that Education/Public Outreach funds and efforts for/by astronomers should be increased. btw: I have good support from my SwRI manager for my efforts in that direction. He thinks that popsci articles and outreach efforts should have as heavy of a weight in employee evaluation as the scientific research results. My big SciAm article about the origin of water on the Earth, the hardest writing I've ever done (especially since the conclusions are a moving target), is about finished, thank goodness. When the magazine makes their final editing and proofs and I know the publication date, I'll inform people here. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 16:19:14 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:19:14 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement In-Reply-To: <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00c801c8ea7d$10be55e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <26DB6C7C27E94664A095488F8D0AE6C5@Catbert> <148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808060919g17475181xc2cf48c4baf51a46@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Harvey wrote > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:39 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Literary Criticism Technique > >> [Murray] only looked at European histories and concluded >> that Europeans were the most important figures in history. > > No, he did not make such a claim! He lists dozens of Chinese > and Japanese contributors to human achievement alone. And > breakthroughs from many cultures, not to mention amazingly > long lists of Indian or Arabic breakthroughs. The Europeans > were simply by far the most *numerous* contributors. There is also a subtler point. While it is part of the (European) historiographic tradition to take into account to some extent external narratives, it is delusional - and ultimately the fruit of a parochial view of quite specific European ideological traditions - to assume that it makes sense to strive for some kind of "disembodied", "objective" perspective. If one is looking for a China-centric account of human history, anthropology and destiny he or she has better look for it in China. SV From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 7 03:15:07 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 20:15:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20808040502g12b286c5w7240c4ab5dddb26d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <159901c8f83c$53929260$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano wrote (Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 5:02 AM) > Samantha Atkins [quoted the Shermer piece]: Type 1.0: Globalism that includes worldwide wireless Internet access, with all knowledge digitized and available to everyone. A completely global economy with free markets in which anyone can trade with anyone else without interference from states or governments. A planet where all states are democracies [!!!] in which everyone has the franchise. > > Yes! This has been part of what I see as near term extropic > > goals for some time now. The world wide web is how the > > true "global brain" comes into being. > > Mmhhh. "Democracy" meaning "the rule of the people", I do not see how > it could go without a real sovereignty of the single people concerned. We want representative democracy. The "real sovereignty" should reside in the mass of people, however deluded, electing somewhat more intelligent and hopefully more thoughtful specimens to debate and consider legislation. I presume we're all on the same page here. > Now, the primordial act of sovereignty is to give oneself the > legal system of one's choice, rather than a system imposed > from outside, e.g., a colonial power or a supernational bureaucracy. Yes, that's right, although it seems reasonable to me for more advanced (i.e. democratic and individual rights respecting nations) to intercede temporarily in chaotic nations to restore order, principally for humanitarian concerns. > If this is the case, I think we should accept the idea that the > planet may continue exhibiting a plural and diverse landscape > of political and economic regimes, and that peoples may > continue to have a say about that. The cultural straightjackets of a number of nations will, to be sure, at least give any democracy they embrace a distinct character. But what examples do you have in mind? For all their "other ways of doing things", the Japanese seem remarkably democratic to me. Unfortunately, certain nations in which religion is the dominant force will be slow to accept democracy (as opposed to rule by priests, imams, or other holy men. Is this what you were getting at? > Or we could opt for a Brave- New- Worldish "enlightened" > globalism, but in that case we have already renounced the > idea of different states and of "democracy" altogether. I'm also at a loss to understand exactly what you're suggesting. You mention Brave New World. That Huxley novel is best noted for his use of a "drugged" society in which people were (in Huxley's mind) necessarily unfulfilled and unhappy despite the drugs. That Huxley's views are really quite monstrous and quite contrary to enlightenment is best seen in the marvelous David Pearce essay http://www.huxley.net/ Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 7 03:31:03 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 20:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Critter's Dilemma on the African Plain In-Reply-To: <152701c8f78a$2dc23930$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <566616.97944.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Your case is very persuasive! Thanks especially, though, for your very, very > excellent summaries below, from those of us a little too impatient to sit > through > videos: Thanks, Lee. :-) > I relegate the rest of Stuart's nice descriptions to the codicil, below. > For now, look at > > > Experienced safari guide *forces* lions to ignore him by first by > communicating > > submission to them and then threatening to defect on them with a roll of > toilet > > paper. > > and > > > Male human defects on male lion and *barely* escapes retaliation from dying > > lion seeking revenge. Can you feel the love tonight? > > You apparently invite us to substitute the game theory term "defect" > for any act of aggression or failure to cooperate? I have a bad feeling > about that, but cannot put it into words. (Perhaps lucky for me, since > I hope you don't take disagreement or challenge as defection. :-) Actually no. Ignorance and defection both are failures to cooperate, so to speak. Although for precision I would prefer to simply call them alternative options. Remember that all three moves are very precisely defined. Defection does not have to be at all violent or agressive or even intentional. I define it as the incurring of a non-neglible economic cost upon the other player by any measure of utility one desires, whether it be space, time, dollars, calories, offspring, or Darwinian fitness. With that in mind, you are right that some people would consider the incurring of a cost upon them, especially if they didn't get any benefit out of it, to be "aggression" of a sort. Indeed "cost" and "benefit" are completely open to interpretation because they are for the most part subjective. This subjectivity of percieved cost and benefit leads to seemingly irrational behavior. Like the notorious gunslinger John Wesley Hardin who allegedly shot a man for snoring. Hardin certainly must have rationalized the snorer as costing him something worthy of some fairly brutal retaliation. Similarly people sometimes rationalize cooperating with defectors. "My friend always intends to pay me back whenever I loan him money, he is just never able to because he is unlucky." Or paying for cable when you never watch TV. In these cases "retaliation" is as non-violent as saying no to your friend or getting your cable disconnected. Of course as non-violent as it is, there is liable to be resistance from both the friend and the cable company to your retaliation. So yes defection is always aggressive just sometimes in a very passive or defensive way. Disagreement or challenge is only defection when it costs me something and banter on a chat list seldom does. Besides I was hoping for some peer review or criticism from the scholarly types on the list. I am after all forwarding this as a scientific theory. So please keep trying to give voice to any "bad feelings" you might have about it. > Usually the rich variety of words within a language are there for a > reason. They did, after all, evolve, because it's seldom that a government, > (even the French government), or an influential individual will simply > decree usage of words and get away with it. So we have a lot of > highly nuanced English words that you're deliberately passing up. Well, > of course, maybe we ought to more often look at these things in game > theoretic terms, which may be your point. But neologisms rarely work > out, you know, along with non-standard language uses. Critter's Dilemma is a mathematical-empirical bionomic model and makes no claim to the title of philosophy, ethic, or moral code. It is simply a description of nature, a very useful one. To try to derive human values from it is falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy. Of course being both a naturalist and a transhumanist, I embrace the so-called naturalistic fallacy as beautiful truth and instead criticize the irrational belief in the supernatural or the artificial. Unlike legislation or even moral codes, it is not possible to violate the laws of nature, whether you understand them or not. Therefore if it is at all possible by some clever technological trick or other natural phenomenon then it is perfectly natural. The good or evil of any act depends solely on the subjective cost or benefit of the people affected by the act. If it costs someone something they will say it is evil, if it benefits them they will say it is good, and if neither, they probably won't even notice the act to begin with. > Still, why look at the human/lion relationship as in any way whatsoever > a classic game? Because classic game or not, one cannot choose to not play. To know the rules and to play deliberately allows one to choose ones relationship with lions or anything else one may encounter in ones travels. The only way to win Critter's Dilemma is to get the relationships one wants to have, with the critters one wants to have them with and to stay in the game. And every other game, whether it be the stock market, parcheesi or nuclear war is simply a sub game of CD that falls squarely in the relationship square of competition. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A portion of mankind take pride in their vices and pursue their purpose; many more waver between doing what is right and complying with what is wrong." - Horace From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 7 04:07:21 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 21:07:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200808052147.39232.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <15a201c8f843$5c205820$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Harvey writes > [Lee quotes Murray] > >> To avoid >> the problem of cultural chauvinism within the Western world, I selected >> sources balanced among the major Western countries (along with other >> precautions discussed in the book). For non- Western countries, the most >> direct way to sidestep this problem was to prepare independent inventories. > > Does this seem valid to you? He only used existing Western sources and > created his own non-Western sources? Then he referenced his own inventories > as sources for his own research? If there are other inventories, no one seems to be mentioning them. What else was he to do (if in fact that's how it came about)? For quite a number of the world's nations, I'll wager, more is known from the investigations and research of the (relatively wealthy) Western anthropological and history departments than is known in the oral histories of the locals. In many other countries, e.g. Islamic ones, the penetration of religious viewpoint is so pervasive into what historical literature that does exist, as to make those sources unreliable---not, again, that western scholars haven't attempted to verify those records. (Consider for example, the ongoing efforts to try to find historical validity in the Old Testament, and not with much success.) >> Music was restricted to the West. > > Does anybody believe that there are no historical music references outside of > the West? Murray did more than restrict it just to the West. He excluded almost all the music and musical figures from before the Renaissance. I'm sure you see why. And believe me, it was *not* because of a bias against Roman, medieval, Greek, or Nordic music. >> Although it lists two hundred (!) translators of the first edition, >> ---every single one of them Japanese---easily ninety-eight percent >> of the mathematical achievement is attributed to Europeans >> (or westerners in general). > > Japanese vs. European? What about Arabic? There are reasons that all > mathematics in the world is done with Arabic numerals? They contributed > little to nothing to mathematics? Of course the contributions of the great Arab mathematician Al-Kwarizmi were noted in the book. But the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics (compiled by Japanese scholars) gives half a page or so to Arab mathematics out of a total of 1720 pages. It does list the contributions of Al-Battani (trigonometry discoveries) and Omar Khayyam, whose math (investigations of cubic equations) was almost as impressive as his poetry. But the real problem there was that Muslim society closed down on academic research after about 1000 or so, because there is something about Islam that gives religious fundamentalists the upper hand. (In other words, *their* Galileos were not only persecuted, but banned, nearly forgotten, and---above all--- prevented from inspiring followers.) It even turns out that the "Arabic" numerals were really a Hindu invention. >> But *no*, I am *not* aware of criticism of "Human Achievement". >> And it doesn't look like Wikipedia is either. You must help if you can. >> >> > Go Google it for yourself if you are unaware of the negative >> > peer review and criticism that this book has received. >> >> I tried! Just after I read your post, I tried, and then tonight putting >> "Charles Murray Eurocentrism" in google yielded no negative reviews in the >> entire first two pages of links! In fact, of the links shown were (I don't >> recommend them) > > Try googling "Charles Murray" "Human Achievement" flaws. I will. Thanks! > - or - > Try looking at Amazon negative reviews of the book. Of the five editorial reviews, one is negative and four are positive. I haven't looked at all the customer reviews, but so far all I see is rhetoric. No one is rising to Murray's challenge to provide any evidence that there is a significant body of ignored non- European accomplishment out there. He does demand, however, that two provisos be met: (from, again, http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.17821,filter.all/pub_detail.asp ) But what is really at issue is whether historians of science and technology in the last half-century are aware of the non-Western record-and it is clear that they are. Europeans used the works of the great Arab scholar-scientists of a millennium ago as the foundations for European science (which is why so many Arab scholars are known by their Latinized names). The great works of Indian mathematicians have long since been translated and incorporated into the history of mathematics, just as the works of Chinese naturalists and astronomers have been translated and incorporated into the narratives of those fields. In recognizing how thoroughly non-Western science and technology have been explored, let's also give credit where credit is due: By and large, it has not been Asian or Arab scholars, fighting for recognition against Western indifference, who were responsible for piecing together the record of accomplishment by non-Western cultures, but Westerners themselves. Imperialists they may have been, but one of the byproducts of that imperialism was a large cadre of Continental, British, and American scholars who, fascinated by the exotic civilizations of Arabia and East Asia, set about uncovering evidence of their accomplishments that inheritors of those civilizations had themselves neglected. Joseph Needham's seven-volume history of Chinese science and technology is a case in point. Another is George Sarton's Introduction to the History of Science, five large volumes published from 1927 to 1948, all of which are devoted to science before the end of the fourteenth century-including meticulous accounts of scientific accomplishment in the Arab world, India, and China. Of the remaining ways in which one could attenuate the 97-percent proportion I assign to both significant figures and significant events in the sciences, my proposition is that none work. I attach two provisos to that claim: First, attempts to add new events to the non-Western roster must consist of discoveries, inventions, and other forms of "firsts." No fair adding the first Indian suspension bridge to a catalog of Indian technology if suspension bridges were already in use elsewhere. The other proviso is that the rules for inclusion of a person or event must be applied evenly. If one augments the inventory of non-Western accomplishment by going to Joseph Needham's seven-volume account of Chinese science and technology, one must also augment the inventory of Western accomplishment by going to comparably detailed histories dealing with German science (for example)-in other words, no fair using the naked eye to search for Western accomplishments and a microscope to search for non-Western ones. If one observes these two constraints, the Western dominance of people and events cannot be reduced more than fractionally. For every new non-Western person or event that is added to the list, dozens of new entries qualify for the Western list, and the relative proportions assigned to the West and the non-West do not change. The differential may become even more extreme, because the reservoir of Western scientific accomplishment that did not qualify for the inventories is so immense. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 7 04:20:31 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 21:20:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Just to upset the astronomers among us... References: <710b78fc0808052249x286cd410q1ed2abf280254818@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <15b401c8f845$79620d00$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> > Check this out, I think it's real. > > http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1773116 Ah, mais non! Yes, it is real, but: In fact, the moon does not rotate around the Earth as the video claims. Nor does the sun or the other celestial bodies mentioned. Alas, in this contretemps, *no* answer provided to the poor contestant was correct. Nothing rotates around the Earth, for such a motion is impossible! (Eem-pos-see-beele! Eem-pos-see-beele!) It is true, however, that the Earth has a number of satellites that revolve around it. :-) Those bodies, it so happen, rotate only about their own axes, never about the Earth or other off-world objects. Lee P.S. Could have been translator error. Or maybe with the lame "anything goes" attitude today, both words are coming to be accepted. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 7 04:43:49 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 21:43:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808052147.39232.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <2d6187670808060053l1d3928c8i60c0f53eb88f09d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <15ba01c8f848$47d7adf0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> John Grigg writes > What were the major factors that caused such a large share of human > achievement to originate from the Western/European world? There are many reasons, as you allude to below. > I have read such things as multiple national rivalries & wars that > inspired competition and technological innovation, right > geographic and cultural diversity that made it hard for super empires to > monopolize everything as seen so often in China (and thereby > limit competition), right (i.e., I agree: I've encountered the same explanations in my readings) > many river systems and rich farmlands, a wide variety of pack > animals and crop plants, Oh? Is east Asian really more limited these ways? Or is it that the geographic and animal diversity between China and India required surmounting a much more daunting physical barrier than in the West? > and a Christian worldview that involved seeing history/time as moving > forward instead of simply moving in endless cycles of life and death, > were at least some of the key advantages of the West. Yes. Murray gives some credit to "St. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274) [who] make the case, eventually adopted by the church, that human intelligence is a gift from God, and that to apply human intelligence to understanding the world is not an affront to God but is pleasing to him. Well, that helps explain the difference between Arabic and Western, but not between East and West. For another take, that I don't agree with, see the Amazon reviews of "The Great Divergence". And we have Diamond's cogent explanations in "Germs, Guns, and Steel", although his attempted explanations of why the Western Hemisphere lagged the Eastern are completely flawed. As I've mentioned on this list before, I made a graph of Eastern Hemisphere vs. Western Hemisphere early accomplishment in http://www.leecorbin.com/EastVsWestCiv3.html wherein I show that the Olmec, Aztec, Inca, and Mayan rate of advancement was at *least* as high. It's just as though they got a late start! Lee From jrd1415 at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 04:47:51 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 21:47:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Just to upset the astronomers among us... In-Reply-To: <15b401c8f845$79620d00$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <710b78fc0808052249x286cd410q1ed2abf280254818@mail.gmail.com> <15b401c8f845$79620d00$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: ... > Could have been translator error. Indeed, and soo it seems. I put "Qu'est-ce qui gravite autour de la Terre?" into Google translate, and it responded with: "What revolves around the Earth?" Best, Jeff Davis From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 7 05:15:15 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 22:15:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808052147.39232.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <091601c8f7c0$6c5b8da0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <15ca01c8f84d$316d0e20$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Henrique writes >> Japanese vs. Eurpoean? What about Arabic? There are >> reasons that all mathematics in the world is done with >> Arabic numerals? They contributed little to nothing to >> mathematics? > > The 'arabic' numerals are in fact Indian numerals. Yes, I should perhaps have read your email before posting. > Their math knowledge they took from the greek. Well, they took a *lot* of it from the Greeks and Indians, but you make it sound as though they did nothing. Hardly: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Indexes/Arabs.html It's *only* that what they did was small *relative* to (later) European and (earlier) Indian and Greek mathematics. And MOST IMPORTANTLY, we must not allow their relative lack of contributions to mathematics to cast a shadow on their achievements in medicine, physics, and astronomy, which were much more significant, (just think of how many stars have Arabic names) even if those achievements still pale in comparison to Europe's. The key, of course, is the extraordinary and peculiar transition that happened during 1100-1500 A.D. to a small penisula on the western tip of the Eurasian land mass, for reasons still obscure. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 7 05:32:16 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 22:32:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR References: <002a01c8e648$aa097740$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <0f4701c8e64b$4ccb0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com> <0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com> <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <15cb01c8f84f$4c8ccd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jeff wrote (Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 9:53 PM) > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Lee Corbin > >> Well, the solution is what has been pointed to in a number of web links. >> Namely, to wit, viz., the strings do break. > > The "solution" is wrong. The strings do not break. Bell, as you state, was indeed a very bright fellow, even better at physics than most of the demi-gods at CERN. The a priori odds of you being right and him being wrong (along with all those web references) may be small, but we must never argue from authority! > There are two easy ways to see this. First, If you were on board the > space ships, in which frame of reference the laws of physics would > operate in pedestrian fashion, where is there any reason for the > strings to break? Your "line of simultaneity" shifts as your velocity increases. A cabin officer who slept through the takeoff would, looking at the velocities of the other ships, calculate that they had departed the vicinity of the Earth earlier than his own ship, and that his ship had taken off before the ones behind him, contrary to the admiralty's orders. In fact, if the line of space ships was long enough, he'd be able to calculate from certain observations that a number of them were still on the runway "right now". > Second, replace all that spaceship and string stuff with a long > ruler with alternating sections marked "spaceship" and "string". Very good approach, said Lee, trying hard not to be patronizing. > Accelerate the ruler according to the same regime. Will the > sections marked "string" break? No. You're right about that! > Will the ruler break anywhere? No. Also correct. But equip the rear end of each portion of those segments marked "spaceship" with their very own hyper-powerful nucleonic tasmodic interrocitor (some, certainly not you, probably think I'm making up that word) engines, and the ruler does break. In fact, I have long suspected *you* of being the author of http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/interocitor/ so your little "poor confused little me" trick isn't working. "Jeff Lee" indeed. Thanks, but no thanks. Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Aug 7 05:48:37 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:48:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: <15cb01c8f84f$4c8ccd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002a01c8e648$aa097740$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <0f4701c8e64b$4ccb0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com> <0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com> <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <15cb01c8f84f$4c8ccd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080807004453.024f7ce0@satx.rr.com> At 10:32 PM 8/6/2008 -0700, Lee wrote: >interrocitor (some, certainly >not you, probably think I'm making up that word) You did, though. Raymond F. Jones invented the "interociter", a farr less interesting device. Oh, look, you then cited a page where it's spelled correctly in the url. Damien Broderick From amara at amara.com Thu Aug 7 05:54:11 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 23:54:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Just to upset the astronomers among us... Message-ID: >P.S. Could have been translator error. It was, if you read the French words. And I doubt that the contestant could have been expected to know about the Earth's and Moon tidal locking. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Aug 7 06:00:32 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 23:00:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] environmental friendliness blamed for both shuttle losses In-Reply-To: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20080807060032.GC12602@ofb.net> On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 08:46:07AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > >From http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33782 > > Oh, and don't overlook the part where the writer says > The original report is still there on NASA's website for any other > enterprising journalist to go see for himself or herself. > (i.e. > http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/katnik/sts87-12-23.html) I did look at that. The change to a foam that doesn't require freon for its production is mentioned as one *possible* cause. Another one is 'The aerodynamics of the roll to "heads up." The STS-87 mission was the first time this maneuver had ever been completed.' And the investigation is described as ongoing. > "Six months before the Challenger disaster, a July 23, 1985, > memo by budget analyst Richard Cook warned about new > burn-through problems with O-rings. > > " 'Engineers have not yet determined the cause of the problem,' ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^6 > he wrote. 'Candidates include the use of a new type of putty (the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > putty formerly used was removed from the market by NASA > because it contained asbestos).' > As long as I am the only one reporting that NASA has for 20 years > put petty "environmental correctness" ahead of the lives of > astronauts, I do not expect future missions to be any safer. Ah yes, petty concerns like the integrity of the ozone layer. > visible. Insidious processes everywhere, multiplying > the costs of everything. Who knows how much more > progress there'd have been since 1983 (twenty-five > years!) without this collectivist/idealist fucking with > the economy? What's so collectivist or idealist about preventing pollution? Do you endorse imposing the effects of production on non-consenting parties? > P.S. Oh---and for the distracting and irrelevant > attacks on who published this. Are we automatically > to reject out of hand everything that Pravda ever > said just because Stalin was wicked? Civilized and Treating anything Pravda published under Communist rule with extreme doubt is pretty warranted, yes. > rational discourse *demands* paying attention to the > arguments themselves, not to who puts them forward > or where they're published. "bounded rationality". We can't afford to think indefinitely about everything someone presents to us. At some point we have to use heuristics to weed out probable garbage, and when a source is frequently inaccurate or massively biased, it behooves us to ignore it. Here, we have cherrypicking (highlighting environmental candidates but not other ones) and use of intermediate reports, not final ones. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Aug 7 05:36:15 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 22:36:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement In-Reply-To: <091601c8f7c0$6c5b8da0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> References: <200808052147.39232.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <091601c8f7c0$6c5b8da0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <20080807053615.GA12602@ofb.net> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 09:31:58AM -0300, Henrique Moraes Machado (CI) wrote: > The 'arabic' numerals are in fact Indian numerals. Their math knowledge > they took from the greek. Right, like al-gebra, al-gorithm... http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mathematics development of spherical trigonometry, and trigonometry as field separate from astronomy. modern notation for fractions frequency analysis in cryptography triangulation Omar Khayyam: binomial expansion, roots of non-Euclidean geometry -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Aug 7 05:45:55 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 22:45:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement In-Reply-To: <2d6187670808060053l1d3928c8i60c0f53eb88f09d2@mail.gmail.com> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200808052147.39232.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <2d6187670808060053l1d3928c8i60c0f53eb88f09d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080807054555.GB12602@ofb.net> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 12:53:36AM -0700, John Grigg wrote: > What were the major factors that caused such a large share of human > achievement to originate from the Western/European world? And allowed > it to dominate the rest of the planet? I have read such things as > multiple national rivalries & wars that inspired competition and > technological innovation, geographic and cultural diversity that made > it hard for super empires to monopolize everything as seen so often in > China (and thereby limit competition), many river systems and rich > farmlands, a wide variety of pack animals and crop plants, and a > Christian worldview that involved seeing history/time as moving > forward instead of simply moving in endless cycles of life and death, > were at least some of the key advantages of the West. "at least some" might well be the right idea. Someone, I forget whom, suggested that a search for a single explanation is completely misguided; rather, the European explosion should be seen as a complex phenomenon easily derailed by entropy. Basically, everything went right for (northwestern) Europe, or more right than anywhere else at least. Exactly what might have been needed, well, that'd be a complex question. Other factors: the alphabet, which made the printing press that much more useful; coal deposits in England, making the industrial revolution more feasible; fast-moving rivers in New England, helping that phase of the revolution; not getting sacked by the Mongols; Dissenters, a class of well-educated people outside the mainstream of English society. One suggestion has been that China was in an efficiency trap, so good at doing things with human and animal labor that there was no path allowing the profitable development of industrial machinery. And consider that steam engines started life pumping water out of coal mines, an oddly circular endeavor. (The coal being initially wanted either for house heating or for coke for steel production, or both, I think.) Crappy steam engine, needing lots of coal, but hey, it's right by the coal mine! A fairly specific bootstrap. -xx- Damien X-) From protokol2020 at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 06:53:51 2008 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 08:53:51 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: <9ff585550807301146l4ff75efoe04136dc18543c4d@mail.gmail.com> References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <9ff585550807301146l4ff75efoe04136dc18543c4d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry Mike! I was not after you, I was after the claim. I don't know where I saw it. I apologize to you, of course. The claim is still crap. - Thomas On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Michael LaTorra wrote: > Hi Thomas, > It would make more sense for you to address the author of the piece I > posted rather than me, since I am not the one making that claim. > > Regards, > Mike > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > >> >> >> > Humans will need to make the transition from nonrenewable fossil fuels >> as the primary source of our energy to renewable energy sources >> >> What a crap, man! There is NOTHING like "renewable sources". All energy >> sources are not "renewable". Entropy always goes up, no matter what you do. >> Use is wisely as you can. Cut the crap. >> >> - Thomas >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Aug 7 07:39:51 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 00:39:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <9ff585550807301146l4ff75efoe04136dc18543c4d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080807073951.GA9724@ofb.net> On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 08:53:51AM +0200, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > > Humans will need to make the transition from nonrenewable fossil > fuels as the primary source of our energy to renewable energy sources > What a crap, man! There is NOTHING like "renewable sources". All > energy sources are not "renewable". Entropy always goes up, no matter > what you do. Use is wisely as you can. Cut the crap. Yet there are many energy resources, commonly called renewable, which will be sustainable for billions of years, unlike the centuries or decades of fossil fuel use. And I'm sure you knew that. -xx- Damien X-) From protokol2020 at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 08:10:07 2008 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:10:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: <20080807073951.GA9724@ofb.net> References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <9ff585550807301146l4ff75efoe04136dc18543c4d@mail.gmail.com> <20080807073951.GA9724@ofb.net> Message-ID: Sun's burning is not sustainable way to live by. Instead of a few billion years of warming up we could have at lest many times more by decomposing it to smaller furnaces. - Thomas On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 08:53:51AM +0200, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > > > > Humans will need to make the transition from nonrenewable fossil > > fuels as the primary source of our energy to renewable energy sources > > > What a crap, man! There is NOTHING like "renewable sources". All > > energy sources are not "renewable". Entropy always goes up, no matter > > what you do. Use is wisely as you can. Cut the crap. > > Yet there are many energy resources, commonly called renewable, which > will be sustainable for billions of years, unlike the centuries or > decades of fossil fuel use. And I'm sure you knew that. > > -xx- Damien X-) > _______________________________________________ > 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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Thu Aug 7 08:28:18 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 01:28:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <9ff585550807301146l4ff75efoe04136dc18543c4d@mail.gmail.com> <20080807073951.GA9724@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20080807082818.GA19874@ofb.net> On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 10:10:07AM +0200, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > > Sun's burning is not sustainable way to live by. Instead of a few > billion years of warming up we could have at lest many times more by > decomposing it to smaller furnaces. As you yourself point point, nothing's sustainable indefinitely. But it's sustainable for billions of years, which is good enough for normal and practical people. -xx- Damien X-) From protokol2020 at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 08:55:07 2008 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:55:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: <20080807082818.GA19874@ofb.net> References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <9ff585550807301146l4ff75efoe04136dc18543c4d@mail.gmail.com> <20080807073951.GA9724@ofb.net> <20080807082818.GA19874@ofb.net> Message-ID: Normal and practical people will not last long, anyway. We need long term solutions. - Thomas On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 10:10:07AM +0200, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > > > > Sun's burning is not sustainable way to live by. Instead of a few > > billion years of warming up we could have at lest many times more by > > decomposing it to smaller furnaces. > > As you yourself point point, nothing's sustainable indefinitely. But > it's sustainable for billions of years, which is good enough for normal > and practical people. > > -xx- Damien X-) > _______________________________________________ > 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 kanzure at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 11:18:41 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 06:18:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <20080807082818.GA19874@ofb.net> Message-ID: <200808070618.41106.kanzure@gmail.com> On Thursday 07 August 2008, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > Normal and practical people will not last long, anyway. We need long > term solutions. Maybe we need some superstars. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 12:10:49 2008 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:10:49 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808052147.39232.mail@harveynewstrom.com><091601c8f7c0$6c5b8da0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <15ca01c8f84d$316d0e20$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0a1e01c8f886$a2879600$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> HeMM>> The 'arabic' numerals are in fact Indian numerals. Lee> Yes, I should perhaps have read your email before posting. But your answer was more comprehensive than mine. Lee> And MOST IMPORTANTLY, we must not allow their relative > lack of contributions to mathematics to cast a shadow on their > achievements in medicine, physics, and astronomy, which were > much more significant, (just think of how many stars have Arabic > names) even if those achievements still pale in comparison to > Europe's. > The key, of course, is the extraordinary and peculiar transition > that happened during 1100-1500 A.D. to a small penisula on the > western tip of the Eurasian land mass, for reasons still obscure. Well, the arabs ended up turning to blinding religion fanaticism, instead. The chinese could have conquered the world (see Zheng He and treasure ship fleets) but they decided to shut down and turn their back to the outside world. In both ways they became sort of stagnant, while europeans didn't. I like to agree with James Burke on this. What made european civilisation dominate the world was the way it constantly changes and reinvents (see the excellent documentary "The Day The Universe Changed"). In history, any civilisation that stopped either died or was conquered by another. From protokol2020 at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 12:22:02 2008 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:22:02 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: <200808070618.41106.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <20080807082818.GA19874@ofb.net> <200808070618.41106.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: Super stars die quickly. We need a lot of very small fires. - Thomas On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Thursday 07 August 2008, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > > Normal and practical people will not last long, anyway. We need long > > term solutions. > > Maybe we need some superstars. > > - Bryan > ________________________________________ > http://heybryan.org/ > Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html > irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap > _______________________________________________ > 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 jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Aug 7 16:53:34 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:53:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR References: <002a01c8e648$aa097740$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f4701c8e64b$4ccb0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com><0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com><00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> "Jeff Davis" > The "solution" is wrong. The strings do not break. I don't think it's wrong, I think the string would break. > If you were on board the space ships, in which frame of > reference the laws of physics would operate in pedestrian > fashion, where is there any reason for the strings to break? If I tacked a string inside the cockpit of my accelerating spaceship from the front to back the string would NOT break because the atoms and electromagnetic fields inside the string would shrink at the same rate as the atoms in the cockpit walls. However if I tied a string from the front of my spaceship to the back of another 10 feet ahead of mine and accelerating at the same rate the string would break because the atoms in the sting would shrink just as they did before but there is nothing else between the two spaceships to counterbalance that effect, there is only empty space. Also, when you hear the term "same frame of reference" it usually refers to an inertial frame of reference, but this one is accelerating so you have to be careful; then you can have all sorts of pseudo forces operating WITHIN the frame, like tides. For example, General Relativity tells us that rockets firing their engines is equivalent to them falling in a gravitational field. If they were falling toward a Neutron Star the lower one would be a little closer to the star and so puller a little faster than the one above and so the string would break even though some might say they are in the same frame of reference. >Mr. Bell may have been a very bright fellow Indeed! > but outside his area of expertise just as likely to get it wrong That was his area of expertise. John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Aug 7 22:14:48 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:14:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] dark energy and CMB variations Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080807171400.024c1340@satx.rr.com> http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2974 Dark Energy Detected with Supervoids and Superclusters Authors: Benjamin R. Granett, Mark C. Neyrinck, Istv?n Szapudi (IfA, Hawaii) (Submitted on 20 May 2008 (v1), last revised 10 Jul 2008 (this version, v2)) Abstract: The observed apparent acceleration of the universe is usually attributed to negative pressure from a mysterious dark energy. This acceleration causes the gravitational potential to decay, heating or cooling photons travelling through crests or troughs of large-scale matter density fluctuations. This phenomenon, the late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect, has been detected, albeit at low significance, by cross-correlating various galaxy surveys with the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). Recently, the best evidence has come from the statistical combination of results from multiple correlated galaxy data sets. Here we show that vast structures identified in a galaxy survey project an image onto the CMB; stacking regions aligned with superclusters produces a hot spot, and supervoids, a cold spot. At over 4 sigma, this is the clearest evidence of the ISW effect to date. For the first time, our findings pin the effect to discrete structures. The ISW signal from supervoids and superclusters can be combined with other cosmological probes to constrain dark energy and cosmological parameters. In addition, our findings make it more plausible that the extreme Cold Spot and other anomalies in the CMB are caused by supervoids. Comments: 17 pages. For the more technical ApJ Letter, see 0805.3695. Also see this http URL Subjects: Astrophysics (astro-ph) Cite as: arXiv:0805.2974v2 [astro-ph] Submission history From: Mark C. Neyrinck [view email] [v1] Tue, 20 May 2008 01:46:10 GMT (957kb) [v2] Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:59:19 GMT (669kb) From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 00:51:48 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 20:51:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: <001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> References: <012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com> <0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com> <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: <62c14240808071751n4bf22cbaledc3dccdaf4ba5b9@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 12:53 PM, John K Clark wrote: > Also, when you hear the term "same frame of reference" it usually > refers to an inertial frame of reference, but this one is accelerating > so you have to be careful; then you can have all sorts of pseudo forces > operating WITHIN the frame, like tides. For example, General Relativity > tells us that rockets firing their engines is equivalent to them falling in > a gravitational field. If they were falling toward a Neutron Star the lower > one would be a little closer to the star and so puller a little faster than > the one above > and so the string would break even though some might say they > are in the same frame of reference. > Since this is all theoretical anyway... I'd like to introduce the answer that as these collections of spaceships, strings, molecules, atoms, etc approach the speed of light the number of reference frames exceeds the computational ability of the universe to "render" a consistent result. From some vantage point(s) there is a breakage, some there is not - after some lag there is un-breakage explained away by "wave collapse" or some other QM magic. Perhaps when this breakdown occurs, there are different "laws" of physics - much the same way our gas laws yield to statistical models in the face of the overwhelming complexity tracking individual molecules (or maybe something like the distributed model of examining protein folding - it's not quite real-time, so what do we call the state of work that is in-process?) Please feel free to school me for talking out of turn. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 00:57:44 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 20:57:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <20080807082818.GA19874@ofb.net> <200808070618.41106.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240808071757ge973151wa8d1470e52fa355d@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > Super stars die quickly. We need a lot of very small fires. > > the first monthly Transhuman Arsonists meeting will be held .... wait, maybe that's not a good idea. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Aug 8 03:36:01 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 20:36:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00c801c8ea7d$10be55e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <26DB6C7C27E94664A095488F8D0AE6C5@Catbert> <148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808060919g17475181xc2cf48c4baf51a46@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano writes (Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:19 AM) Subject: Re: [ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> He [Murray] lists dozens of Chinese >> and Japanese contributors to human achievement alone. And >> breakthroughs from many cultures, not to mention amazingly >> long lists of Indian or Arabic breakthroughs. The Europeans >> were simply by far the most *numerous* contributors. > > There is also a subtler point. > > While it is part of the (European) historiographic tradition to take > into account to some extent external narratives, it is delusional - > and ultimately the fruit of a parochial view of quite specific > European ideological traditions - to assume that it makes sense to > strive for some kind of "disembodied", "objective" perspective. Yes, in certain kinds of things like this, an *extremely* highly objective view or summary is not possible to attain. We must consider (as usual) a continuum of success when trying to reach towards objectivity. (Pace the good folks who just junk *objectivity* altogether, and so remove this concept---and this whole axis---from our vocabularies and from our abilities to describe "the world".) We should start at one end and say that some conclusions are perfectly objective: "Some people have been to Hawaii" (my Great Hawaiian Truth, which is almost impossible to criticize, I claim), "water molecules comprise two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom", "Genghis Khan was a mighty ruler of the Mongols" and so on. Then we slide down the scale just a bit with "American culture is highly pervasive in today's world, much more so than it was in 1800", "some breeds of dogs are far tamer than certain other breeds", "heroin is highly addictive for some people", and so on. So in these cases, thus far, wouldn't you agree that "it makes sense to strive for some kind of "disembodied", "objective" perspective"? Your blanket statement above seems not to allow for this. Moreover, I frankly disagree with your claim, at least when I emphasize a certain word there: "it [doesn't make sense] to *strive* for some kind of "disembodied", "objective" perspective. I say we should always strive, to the greatest degree we are able, towards making as objective as possible whatever we investigate! True, we must necessarily come up short in many inquiries, but we must always try, right? And you write "it is part of the (European) historiographic tradition to take into account to some extent external narratives..." as if there were any question that this is an entirely laudable activity. To me, of *course* taking into account external narratives is something that always ought to be done. > If one is looking for a China-centric account of human history, > anthropology and destiny he or she has better look for it in China. And I'll counter that with this: the more and more that honest Chinese academicians and other seekers of knowledge look into things, the more that they too will take other narratives into account, and---unless there is something really wrong and really sick about them---they'll strive for rational, objective, falsifiable, lucid, and clearly presentable understandings also. Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 8 04:04:50 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 21:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement In-Reply-To: <20080807054555.GB12602@ofb.net> Message-ID: <199543.38484.qm@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Damien Sullivan wrote: > One suggestion has been that China was in an efficiency trap, so good at > doing things with human and animal labor that there was no path allowing > the profitable development of industrial machinery. An interesting biological version of the efficiency trap are jungles. Most people would think that the lush tropical rainforests would harbour exceptionally fertile soil, but in fact the exact opposite is true. The soil of the rainforests is very deficient in nutrients, by virtue of the fact that all the nutrients are in use by something already. So I guess early adoption of industrialization by China would have been like trying to plant a garden in the Amazon without first burning or mulching what was already there. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A portion of mankind take pride in their vices and pursue their purpose; many more waver between doing what is right and complying with what is wrong." - Horace From amara at amara.com Fri Aug 8 05:17:46 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:17:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer Message-ID: "Mike Dougherty" : >> Super stars die quickly. We need a lot of very small fires. >the first monthly Transhuman Arsonists meeting will be held .... wait, >maybe that's not a good idea. It Could Be M-Stars. See the Face You Love Light Up With M-Stars. Don't Forget The M-Stars, Mum. The M-Stars Of A New Generation. Things Go Better with M-Stars. Next to the Breast, M-Stars's the Best. M-Stars. It's What's For Dinner. M-Stars Comes to Those Who Wait. You've Always Got Time For M-Stars. Is It Live, Or Is It M-Stars? It's the M-Stars Fizz That Does The Bizz. http://thesurrealist.co.uk/slogan.cgi?word=M-stars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification#Class_M Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Aug 8 05:16:57 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 22:16:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement References: <200808052147.39232.mail@harveynewstrom.com><091601c8f7c0$6c5b8da0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <20080807053615.GA12602@ofb.net> Message-ID: <160e01c8f916$625bcfc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien Sullivan writes > Henrique wrote: > >> The 'arabic' numerals are in fact Indian numerals. Their math knowledge >> they took from the Greek. > > Right, like al-gebra, al-gorithm... Henrique's two-sentence post contains more truth than falsehood, I'd say. For example, "al-gebra" and "al-gorithm" are just Arabic terms for what Diophantus of Alexandria (for one) knew hundreds of years before. > http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html Well, in their enthusiasm, I contend that the authors of those web pages overstate their case. (I myself did quote from their site last night: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Indexes/Arabs.html ). But the names of those 45 Arabic mathematicians are obtained, as Murray would say, by relaxing the standards a bit. If you peruse at random in that list, you'll find a number of entries like "Al-Mahani was an Islamic mathematician who tried to solve some of Archimedes' problems on cutting up spheres." If you relax the standards to the same degree, you'll come up with hundreds and hundreds of Indian or Chinese mathematicians, and many thousands of European ones. But! This is *not* to decry the truly remarkable advances that were made; it's just, like I said, it happened to be *relatively* little in the Arab case, for reasons we are all too unhappily aware of. Since you brought up "Algebra" and al-Khwarismi, their greatest or at least most prominent mathematician, I excerpt from http://www.uni-essen.de/didmath/texte/jahnke/hnj_pdf/musa.pdf the following, wherein our hero speaks of himself in the third person: IN THE NAME OF GOD, GRACIOUS AND MERCIFUL! This work was written by MOHAMMED BEN MUSA, of KHOWAREZM. He commences it thus: Praised be God for his bounty towards those who deserve it by their virtuous acts: in performing which, as by him prescribed to his adoring creatures, we express our thanks, and render ourselves worthy of the continuance (of his mercy), and preserve ourselves from change: acknowledging his might, bending before his power, and revering his greatness! He sent MOHAMMED (on whom may the blessing of God repose!) with the mission of a prophet... Oops. Wrong excerpt. Looking down further (much further, sigh) one finds Squares and Numbers are equal to Roots: For instance, "a square and twenty-one in number are equal to ten roots of the same square." That is to say, what must be the amount of a square, which, when twenty-one dirhems are added to it, becomes equal to the equivalent of ten roots of that square? Solution: Halve the number of the roots; the moiety is five. Multiply this by itself; the product is twenty-five. Subtract from this the twenty- one which are connected with the square; the remainder is four. Extract its root; it is two. Subtract this from the moiety of the roots, which is five; the remainder is three. This is the root of the square which you required, and the square is nine. Or you may add the root to the moiety of the roots; the sum is seven; this is the root of the square which you sought for, and the square itself is forty-nine. When you meet with an instance which refers you to this case, try its solution by addition, and if that do not serve, then subtraction certainly will. For in this case both addition and subtraction may be employed, which will not answer in any other of the three cases in which the number of the roots must be halved. Diophantus knew how to do this too. But he didn't write up an entire systematic treatise covering both linear equations and quadratic equations. See the wikipedia biographical entry on Al-Khwarizmi (which must have some Arabic in its URL, else I would present it). For this reason, Al-Khwarismi along with Diophantus (it says) is considered the father of algebra. But don't, of course, confuse their achievements with that of the very minor European mathematician Francois Viete, who introduced symbols, enabling, for example, Descartes to solve a long standing problem of Appolonius that nobody, Greek, Indian, Arab, or Christian had been able to touch. Vieta's breakthrough makes the above stuff by Al-Khwarizmi look elementary and easy to the modern reader, but it was *not* easy before the use of Viete's symbols began. As you write, the Arabs are credited with > development of spherical trigonometry, and trigonometry as field > separate from astronomy. > modern notation for fractions > frequency analysis in cryptography > triangulation > Omar Khayyam: binomial expansion, roots of non-Euclidean geometry which evidently is completely correct. But a parallel list of Greek, Indian, Chinese (I suspect), and European breakthroughs would totally dwarf that. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Aug 8 06:08:22 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:08:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR References: <012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com><0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com><00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <62c14240808071751n4bf22cbaledc3dccdaf4ba5b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <166701c8f91d$acb5e9f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike writes > John K Clark wrote: > > > Also, when you hear the term "same frame of reference" it usually > > refers to an inertial frame of reference, but this one is accelerating > > so you have to be careful; then you can have all sorts of pseudo > > forces operating WITHIN the frame, like tides. For example, > > General Relativity tells us that rockets firing their engines is equivalent > > to them falling in a gravitational field. If they were falling toward > > a Neutron Star the lower one would be a little closer to the star > > and so puller a little faster than the one above and so the string > > would break even though some might say they are in the same frame > > of reference. This was okay (except maybe it lacked a stiffer criticism of the idea of being in the same reference frame under those conditions) but it doesn't hold a candle to John's superb disposal of the Bell Spaceship Paradox. (I append his explanation, more concise and simple than any I've seen, to this email.) > Since this is all theoretical anyway... I'd like to introduce the answer > that as these collections of spaceships, strings, molecules, atoms, etc > approach the speed of light the number of reference frames exceeds > the computational ability of the universe to "render" a consistent result. Well, you certainly get a "A" for imagination! I wonder if your observation implies anything about the chances of us being run on a deterministic digital computer. > From some vantage point(s) there is a breakage, some there is not I don't think that this can in any way be the case. Either the string breaks, and the pieces can become separated arbitrarily far, or else it doesn't. The nearest, in my opinion, that reference frames enter into it is that two observers may be talking about different points in time (and be thereby temporarily confused), one seeing the string before it broke, and one after. > - after some lag there is un-breakage explained away by "wave > collapse" or some other QM magic. Another great idea! From our new POV you've provided, not only can questions be un-asked, but strings can un-break, along with QM driven reversals of all sorts. It's fantastic. But quite mind-bending. > Please feel free to school me for talking out of turn. Nonsense. C'est impossible. Turns? :-) As for me, I'll feel free to display my own ignorance on everything from simple electronic circuits to literary criticism. Lee ____________________________________________ John Clark wrote: If I tacked a string inside the cockpit of my accelerating spaceship from the front to back the string would NOT break because the atoms and electromagnetic fields inside the string would shrink at the same rate as the atoms in the cockpit walls. However if I tied a string from the front of my spaceship to the back of another 10 feet ahead of mine and accelerating at the same rate, the string would break because the atoms in the sting would shrink just as they did before but there is nothing else between the two spaceships to counterbalance that effect, there is only empty space. From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 07:44:28 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 00:44:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: <001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> References: <012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com> <0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com> <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 9:53 AM, John K Clark wrote: > "Jeff Davis" > >> The "solution" is wrong. The strings do not break. > > I don't think it's wrong, I think the string would break. > >> If you were on board the space ships, in which frame of >> reference the laws of physics would operate in pedestrian >> fashion, The ships took off at the same time, accelerated at the same rate, and maintained identical velocities throughout. I am not an expert, and I acknowledge that the ships are accelerating rather than gliding along "on their inertia", but I kinda think this case fits the definition of the same frame of reference, the same inertial frame of reference. >> where is there any reason for the strings to break? > > If I tacked a string inside the cockpit of my accelerating spaceship > from the front to back the string would NOT break because the atoms and > electromagnetic fields inside the string would shrink at > the same rate as the atoms in the cockpit walls. However if I tied > a string from the front of my spaceship to the back of another 10 > feet ahead of mine and accelerating at the same rate the string would break > because the atoms in the sting would shrink just as they did before but > there is nothing else between the two spaceships to counterbalance that > effect, there is only empty space. It is my understanding that the Lorentz contraction is only observed by an observer outside of the moving/accelerating reference frame. Such an observer would see the entire assembly shrink proportionately along its length. No breakage. And a person on board the ships would observe no shrinkage at all. Again, no breakage. > > Also, when you hear the term "same frame of reference" it usually > refers to an inertial frame of reference, but this one is accelerating > so you have to be careful; Again I need something authoritative sources to help clarify for me what exactly constitutes a frame of reference, inertial frame of reference, etc. > then you can have all sorts of pseudo forces > operating WITHIN the frame, like tides. For example, General Relativity > tells us that rockets firing their engines is equivalent to them falling in > a gravitational field. Umm, I think the equivalence/indistinguishablity is between the gravitational **force** and the accelerative **force**. > If they were falling toward a Neutron Star the lower > one would be a little closer to the star and so puller a little faster than > the one above I believe this is a case of a gravitational force more complex due to its spacial variation than was implied by Einstein when he asserted the indistinguishability of gravitational force and accelerative force. > and so the string would break even though some might say they > are in the same frame of reference. >> >> Mr. Bell may have been a very bright fellow > > Indeed! > >> but outside his area of expertise just as likely to get it wrong > > That was his area of expertise. Ok, you got me there, John. Best, Jeff Davis From estropico at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 08:19:50 2008 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:19:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] ExtroBritannia. Enhancing minds: the pros and cons of hi-tech methods for improving cognition. Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90808080119i4ed55a10k6a19d3c047f77ebc@mail.gmail.com> [ apologies should you receive two copies of this message - something went funny with my first attempt ] Enhancing minds: the pros and cons of hi-tech methods for improving cognition. The next ExtroBritannia event is scheduled for Saturday August the 23rd, 2008; 2:00pm - 4:00pm. Venue: Birkbeck College - Room 153, 1st floor (via lift B), Main Building, Torrington Square, London WC1E 7HX. The event is free and everyone's welcome. What's the latest state of play with different methods (drugs, computer games, neuroimplants, genetics, etc) for enhancing cognition - and what are their benefits and problems? Speakers: Anders Sandberg, Neuroethics researcher at the Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University; Heather Bradshaw, Centre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, and Visions intern at the IEET. Join the debate! The meeting is sponsored by the United Kingdom Transhumanist Association (UKTA). There is no charge to attend and everyone is welcome. Venue: Room 153 is on the first floor (via lift B, down the corridor to the right of reception) in the main Birkbeck College building, in Torrington Square (which is a pedestrian-only square). Torrington Square is about 10 minutes walk from either Russell Square or Goodge St tube stations. MAP: http://www.bbk.ac.uk/maps Discussion is likely to continue after the event at "The Friend at Hand", nearby. There's also the option of joining some of the UKTA regulars for drinks/lunch beforehand, starting c. 12.30, in "The Friend At Hand" pub which is situated behind Russell Square tube station on Herbrand Street. There's also the option of joining some of the UKTA regulars for drinks/lunch beforehand, starting c. 12.30, in the same pub. To find us, look out for a table where there's a copy of Aubrey de Grey's book "Ending Aging" displayed. Our blog: http://extrobritannia.blogspot.com/ Our website: http://www.transhumanist.org.uk/ Our mailing list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extrobritannia/ From pharos at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 08:24:26 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 08:24:26 +0000 Subject: [ExI] dark energy and CMB variations In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080807171400.024c1340@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080807171400.024c1340@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2974 > > Dark Energy Detected with Supervoids and Superclusters > > Abstract: The observed apparent acceleration of the universe is usually > attributed to negative pressure from a mysterious dark energy. This > acceleration causes the gravitational potential to decay, heating or cooling > photons travelling through crests or troughs of large-scale matter density > fluctuations. This phenomenon, the late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) > effect, has been detected, albeit at low significance, by cross-correlating > various galaxy surveys with the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). Recently, > the best evidence has come from the statistical combination of results from > multiple correlated galaxy data sets. Here we show that vast structures > identified in a galaxy survey project an image onto the CMB; stacking > regions aligned with superclusters produces a hot spot, and supervoids, a > cold spot. At over 4 sigma, this is the clearest evidence of the ISW effect > to date. For the first time, our findings pin the effect to discrete > structures. The ISW signal from supervoids and superclusters can be combined > with other cosmological probes to constrain dark energy and cosmological > parameters. In addition, our findings make it more plausible that the > extreme Cold Spot and other anomalies in the CMB are caused by supervoids. > Yes, but there is still much discussion about this frontiers of science area. See: We're early in the game on this, but a haze of this material would clearly have effects on the way light passes through space. Type 1a supernovae have been considered to be 'standard candles,' their brightness offering a useful gauge of their distance. It was observations of particular Type 1a supernovae whose light was believed to be dimmer than it ought to have been at near infrared wavelengths that in the 1990's helped to shape the accelerated expansion theory. But if these supernovae are dimmer than expected, accelerated expansion is but one explanation. An alternative in the form of some kind of intervening material has long been suggested as a solution, but evidence for graphite whiskers has never been confirmed until now. ---------------- BillK From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 08:51:35 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 01:51:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: <15cb01c8f84f$4c8ccd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com> <0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com> <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <15cb01c8f84f$4c8ccd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Jeff wrote (Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 9:53 PM) > >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Lee Corbin >> >>> Well, the solution is what has been pointed to in a number of web links. >>> Namely, to wit, viz., the strings do break. >> >> The "solution" is wrong. The strings do not break. > > Bell, as you state, was indeed a very bright fellow, even better > at physics than most of the demi-gods at CERN. Really, Lee, aren't you putting these guys on a pedestal. I mean after all, they're only **demi-**gods. ;-} > The a priori > odds of you being right and him being wrong (along with all > those web references) may be small, Odds implies statistics. Statistics implies a sampling. We have here a sampling of one. One disagreement between me and Bell (presuming that Bell himself thought the strings would break -- I'd like to see some corroboration for that. Maybe you got it wrong and Bell **doesn't** think the strings would break. Then it would be a case of a single incidence of Bell and me agreeing. Far more likely in my view.) Either way, the sampling is too small to derive any meaningful "odds". ;-} But no matter. Like you said: > but we must never argue > from authority! > >> There are two easy ways to see this. First, If you were on board the >> space ships, in which frame of reference the laws of physics would >> operate in pedestrian fashion, where is there any reason for the >> strings to break? > > Your "line of simultaneity" shifts as your velocity increases. "My" line, by which you mean the line of someone outside the ships/strings frame of reference. But then you go back into the ships/strings frame of reference and cite the sleepy cabin officer's view of things. Isn't there some inconsistency here? I mean frame if reference -wise? > A cabin officer who slept through the takeoff would, looking > at the velocities of the other ships, calculate that they had > departed the vicinity of the Earth earlier than his own ship, > and that his ship had taken off before the ones behind him, > contrary to the admiralty's orders. No, he would wake up, find the fleet in perfect formation, absolutely motionless with respect to one another, with each and every clock clicking in precise unison. and all lengths undistorted, all strings intact. He would conclude that the fleet had executed a simultaneous departure precisely as planned. > > In fact, if the line of space ships was long enough, he'd be able > to calculate from certain observations that a number of them were > still on the runway "right now". It was my impression that the fleet was assembled in space, in line, with thirty meters (of string) between each, with each individual ship then accelerating the same as every other. The strings intact, at least initially. > >> Second, replace all that spaceship and string stuff with a long >> ruler with alternating sections marked "spaceship" and "string". > > Very good approach, said Lee, trying hard not to be patronizing. > >> Accelerate the ruler according to the same regime. Will the >> sections marked "string" break? > > No. You're right about that! > >> Will the ruler break anywhere? > > No. Also correct. But equip the rear end of each portion of > those segments marked "spaceship" with their very own > hyper-powerful nucleonic tasmodic interrocitor (some, certainly > not you, probably think I'm making up that word) engines, > and the ruler does break. The problem here is that the original premise/question seemed to suggest another mechanism of breakage. That whatever breakage might occur, would occur due to some hypothetical strain placed on the strings as a result of the Lorentz contraction. More specifically, the Lorentz contraction applies to strings and ships, which are supposed to shrink, but not to the **space** (or as John Clark refers to it: "empty space") between. The persons on board the ships are charged with maintaining matching acceleration profiles AND maintaining the original spacing -- thirty meters -- between ships, with the notion that the Lorentz contraction will shorten the string, whereupon the ship drivers will need to distinguish between the **original** thirty-meter lengths of the strings and the new and shorter Lorentz contracted lengths, and adjust their station keeping to maintain the **original** separation, which is supposedly longer than the **shortened** strings. No. This is classic reference frame misuse. Personnel on board the ships will see that everything remains spacialy correct, with the original thirty meters steady between ships and the strings stable and steady at thirty meters each. If they were to make a calculation of the Lorentz contraction and conclude that they must adjust their positions to a slightly greater separation distance, their measuring instruments would nonetheless indicate the distance to be greater than thirty meters, **in their reference frame**. The apparently-thirty-meter-long strings would certainly break under these circumstances, but the ships would at the same time not at all seem to be maintaining the same spacing as they held when they initially set out. > In fact, I have long suspected *you* of being the author of > > http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/interocitor/ > > so your little "poor confused little me" trick isn't working. > > "Jeff Lee" indeed. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take a look. Sometimes I have black outs, and wake up in strange places with people I don't know who call me strange names. ;-} Best, Jeff Davis From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 10:30:11 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:30:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00c801c8ea7d$10be55e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <26DB6C7C27E94664A095488F8D0AE6C5@Catbert> <148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808060919g17475181xc2cf48c4baf51a46@mail.gmail.com> <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808080330v722acac5m5ca31e73426f4c53@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Yes, in certain kinds of things like this, an *extremely* highly objective > view or summary is not possible to attain. > > Moreover, I frankly disagree with your claim, at least when I > emphasize a certain word there: "it [doesn't make sense] to > *strive* for some kind of "disembodied", "objective" perspective. I am reluctant to embark in a full epistemological discussion here, let alone in English, but I think that for the purpose of the present discussion we can consider my position as limited to *value* judgment, such as those considering the different "contributions" of civilisations to what one considers, e.g., the achievements of our species. > > And you write "it is part of the (European) historiographic > tradition to take into account to some extent external narratives..." as if > there were any question that this is an entirely laudable activity. To me, > of *course* taking into account external narratives is something that always > ought to be done. It *is* - for me (and for you, obviously). And I also maintain that this is not just our personal position, but an idea quite widespread in our culture - which exactly makes for the "superiority" of its historical works. But in saying that I have no qualms to admit that this is a purely "chauvinistic" point of view, since we have to accept that such attitude is far from generalised across human cultures, civilisations and eras. On the contrary, arguing for the "objective superiority of objectivity" does not really seem to add much to one's such stance. Multiculturalism in fact implies that *we are at least as entitled to adhere to our own paradigms as Bororos are*, the accepted western historical methods being certainly in some sense part of those paradigms. Different roads to the same destination, I guess... :-) Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 14:26:44 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 16:26:44 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: <159901c8f83c$53929260$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20808040502g12b286c5w7240c4ab5dddb26d@mail.gmail.com> <159901c8f83c$53929260$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808080726n68cb0d17i74b6ac171c5d5b53@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 5:15 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > We want representative democracy. The "real sovereignty" should > reside in the mass of people, however deluded, electing somewhat > more intelligent and hopefully more thoughtful specimens to debate > and consider legislation. I presume we're all on the same page here. In general terms, yes. Even though of course this leaves out only absolute, hereditary monarchies, and the devil is in the details. And there have been and may still exist even peoples opting for different systems that enjoyed or enjoy nevertheless a widespread popular consensus, leaving others the options of military intervention or at least cultural imperialism deliberately aimed at undermining such consensus... The cultural straightjackets of a number of nations will, to > be sure, at least give any democracy they embrace a > distinct character. But what examples do you have in mind? > For all their "other ways of doing things", the Japanese seem > remarkably democratic to me. Japan has copied in a remarkably close fashion constitutional technicalities from the western world. Yet, out of indirect information and personal experience I am under the impression that China is much more deeply westernised these days, as far as the real power structures and society working are concerned, in spite of the very different "democratic" rhetorics of the respective regimes. Please note that this is not a criticism of either country, and that I would *not* welcome the idea of some more "advanced" governments sending in the marines to intercede tenporarily in view of a deeper homologation of either country to some foreign or "univesal" ideal. > Unfortunately, certain nations in which religion is the dominant > force will be slow to accept democracy (as opposed to rule by > priests, imams, or other holy men. Is this what you were getting > at? Mmhhh, say, as in the United State where self-selected and nominated Justice Priests sitting in the Supreme Court have a final say on the local and federal legislation based on obscure and unplausible interpreting of a sacred document enshrined in the XVIII century? Just joking, no offense intended. You mention Brave New World. > That Huxley novel is best noted for his use of a "drugged" society > in which people were (in Huxley's mind) necessarily unfulfilled > and unhappy despite the drugs. > Brave New World depicts a future political evolution where a global system is in place making extensive use of available pharmacological, eugenetic, managerial, psychological, economic, etc., techniques to ensure stability, the end of history and conflicts, and as much happiness as possible to its citizens, who are deprived of any (significant) say for their own good and in order to limit existential and other risks. I would add, as it is interesting from a transhumanist point of view, that technology itself is largely employed, but also deliberately *frozen*, as technological progress is potentially as dangerous to the New Brave World as self-determination in any meaningful sense would be. Certainly, Huxley does not approve of such world, even though he falls short of offering any alternative, but the concern here is that some well-intentioned, politically correct, "progressive" views may incline in such direction, and this is why I think the novel has still something to tell us, namely; "Is this really where we want to go?". And this is also why for instance I am wary of the attitude of those in our ranks that seem sometimes inclined to sing an uncritical praise of the goods of globalisation (I am not referring to anybody in particular, and certainly not to you). Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 15:12:07 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 17:12:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: <62c14240808071751n4bf22cbaledc3dccdaf4ba5b9@mail.gmail.com> References: <0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com> <0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com> <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <62c14240808071751n4bf22cbaledc3dccdaf4ba5b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20808080812n1b355153i1de01581b1043744@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:51 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > Since this is all theoretical anyway... This does not sound so theoretical as to prevent my great surprise for the fact that there does not appear to be an undisputed solution on what is going to happen. After all, all that sounds classic - albeit relativistic - physics, body/ies and parties thereof uniformly accelerating and their positions and distances at specific moments of time. Moreover, while it may be difficult to go from a Gedanken experiment to a real one, I have little doubt that the latter would produce an unequivocal answer to such doubts, so that I do not see what relevance "vantage points" may have here. Or do we really believe that each time we perform the experiment we get random results, different results for different observers, or split universes reflecting the two alternatives? :-/// Stefano Vaj From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Aug 8 15:28:38 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:28:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] MEDIA: "Evolution Haute Couture" Message-ID: <009a01c8f96b$6e892e00$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> The groundbreaking Media & Bio Arts event in Russia is now taking place. Press-conference 8 August 2008 at 4 p.m. Exhibition opening 8 August 2008 at 5 p.m. http://www.ncca-kaliningrad.ru/ Participating Artists: Paula GaetanoAdi (Argentina) Mauro Annunziato & Piero Pierucci (Italy) James Auger Jimmy Loizeau (UK) Brandon Ballengee(USA) Laura Beloff (Finland) David Bowen (USA) Oron Catts Ionat Zurr (Australia) Adrian David Cheok (Singapore) Carlos Corpa (Spain) Critical Art Ensemble (USA) Joe Davis (USA) Marta de Menezes (Portugal Louis-Philippe Demers (Canada) Erwin Driessens & Maria Verstappen (The Netherlands) Tagny Duff (Canada) Arthur Elsenaar Remko Scha (The Netherlands) Julie Freeman (UK) George Gessert (USA) Ken Goldberg (USA) Isa Gordon (USA) Andy Gracie (UK) Paul Granjon (Wales) Mateusz Herczka (Sweden) Floris Kaayk (The Netherlands) Verena Kamini (Canada) Leonel Moura (Portugal) Orlan (France) Nicolas Reeves (Canada) Julia Reodica (USA) Ken Rinaldo (USA) Marcel.l?Ant?nez Roca (Spain) Kathleen Rogers (UK) Phill Ross (USA) SymbioticA The Potter Lab (Australia) and (USA) Stelarc (Australia) Paul Thomas (Australia) Tanja Visosevic & Guy Ben-Ary (Australia) Bill Vorn (Canada) Natasha Vita-More (USA) Adam Zaretsky (USA) The National Centre for Contemporary Arts (Kaliningrad branch, Russia) and the National Art Gallery (Kaliningrad) presents the collection of the videodocumentaries of the art projects which use high technologies of the XXI century as a medium of implementation - artificial life, robotics, and bio- and genetic engineering. Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation Ministry of Culture of Kaliningrad Region National Centre For ContemporaryArts (Kaliningrad Branch, Russia) NationalArt Gallery (Kaliningrad, Russia) Ford Foundation (The Moscow Office) The Dynasty Foundation (Moscow, Russia) Project curator: Dmitry Bulatov The National Centre for ContemporaryArts (Kaliningrad Branch, Russia) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Aug 8 16:55:56 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:55:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Brave New World (was Re: "Toward a Type 1 civilization") In-Reply-To: <580930c20808080726n68cb0d17i74b6ac171c5d5b53@mail.gmail.co m> References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20808040502g12b286c5w7240c4ab5dddb26d@mail.gmail.com> <159901c8f83c$53929260$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080726n68cb0d17i74b6ac171c5d5b53@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080808115022.02395008@satx.rr.com> At 04:26 PM 8/8/2008 +0200, Stefano Vaj wrote: >Certainly, Huxley does not approve of such world, even though he >falls short of offering any alternative, but the concern here is >that some well-intentioned, politically correct, "progressive" views >may incline in such direction, and this is why I think the novel has >still something to tell us, namely; "Is this really where we want to go?" Huxley did offer an alternative, thirty later, in the utopian novel ISLAND. It's more a lightly-dramatized tract than a novel (like Skinner's WALDEN-TWO) but I can recall being enthusiastic about it when it came out; I doubt that I'd even be able to get through it today. Damien Broderick From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Aug 8 17:50:51 2008 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:50:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: <580930c20808080726n68cb0d17i74b6ac171c5d5b53@mail.gmail.com> References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20808040502g12b286c5w7240c4ab5dddb26d@mail.gmail.com> <159901c8f83c$53929260$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080726n68cb0d17i74b6ac171c5d5b53@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080808175051.GA19460@ofb.net> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 04:26:44PM +0200, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Japan has copied in a remarkably close fashion constitutional > technicalities from the western world. Yet, out of indirect > information and personal experience I am under the impression that > China is much more deeply westernised these days, as far as the real > power structures and society working are concerned, in spite of the Westernised how? -xx- Damien X-) From mlatorra at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 18:02:13 2008 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:02:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Brave New World (was Re: "Toward a Type 1 civilization") In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080808115022.02395008@satx.rr.com> References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20808040502g12b286c5w7240c4ab5dddb26d@mail.gmail.com> <159901c8f83c$53929260$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080726n68cb0d17i74b6ac171c5d5b53@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080808115022.02395008@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <9ff585550808081102u3295dbebqf7d96dddc653082a@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 04:26 PM 8/8/2008 +0200, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > Certainly, Huxley does not approve of such world, even though he falls >> short of offering any alternative, but the concern here is that some >> well-intentioned, politically correct, "progressive" views may incline in >> such direction, and this is why I think the novel has still something to >> tell us, namely; "Is this really where we want to go?" >> > > Huxley did offer an alternative, thirty later, in the utopian novel ISLAND. > It's more a lightly-dramatized tract than a novel (like Skinner's > WALDEN-TWO) but I can recall being enthusiastic about it when it came out; I > doubt that I'd even be able to get through it today. > > Damien Broderick Nor would I care to read Huxley's ISLAND again, even though, like you Damien, I found it inspirational circa 1970. The "island" of the title was an enlightened (philosophically and spiritually) enclave under threat of contamination by influences from the wider, misguided world. Inhabitants of the island were supposedly kept focused on living in the moment by such contrivances as parrots that had been trained to say "Attention!" over and over again. Needless to say, that would not work more than once. So while Huxley did conceive the possibility of a utopian counterpart to his dystopian BRAVE NEW WORLD, he really had no clue how such a society could be organzied and operated. Regards, Mike LaTorra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat Aug 9 07:05:21 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 00:05:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: References: <0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com> <0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com> <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <15cb01c8f84f$4c8ccd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:51 AM, After Lee cCorbin wrote: >> Your "line of simultaneity" shifts as your velocity increases. Jeff Davis wrote: >"My" line, by which you mean the line of someone outside the ships/strings frame of reference. But then you go back into the ships/strings frame of reference and cite the sleepy cabin officer's view of things. Isn't there some inconsistency here? I mean frame if reference -wise? ***************** Now Jeff Davis is writing: Whoops! I misread Lee's line above. He is indeed referring consistently to the view from inside the accelerating frame of reference. To wit, "Your line,,,as your velocity increases." My bad. Never mind that part. Best, Jeff Davis From scerir at libero.it Sat Aug 9 16:45:17 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 18:45:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR References: <012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com><0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com><00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <62c14240808071751n4bf22cbaledc3dccdaf4ba5b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006a01c8fa3f$4e589150$82064797@archimede> Mike Dougherty: > Since this is all theoretical anyway... I'd like to introduce the answer > that as these collections of spaceships, strings, molecules, atoms, etc > approach the speed of light the number of reference frames exceeds the > computational ability of the universe to "render" a consistent result. > [...] > Please feel free to school me for talking out of turn. Talking out of turn? Au contraire. After 100 years there are still uncertainties, conceptual uncertainties in SR. (The solution of these comceptual difficulties may also solve, at least partially, the conceptual divergence between SR and QT?) The first question might be: Is there too much relativism in SR [1]? The second might be: Is it correct to say that, according to SR, one-way velocities are devoid of physical interest [2][3]? The third might be: Given that SR define a "relative" simultaneity is it possible to define an "absolute" simultaneity [4]? One-way velocities are rather natural properties of physical objects - like photons going from a point to another point. It seems strange, or maybe paradoxical, that one-way velocities are not reflected in the conceptual basis of a theory. Even in the conceptual basis of an operational theory like SR. But there are different, or more general approaches [5]. According to which the usual SR is just an important, special case of a broader class of theories. These theories are also consistent with the existent experimental results. The usual Lorentz Transformations are just an important but special case of a broader class of transformations, sometimes called Equivalent Transformations (and among them the Inertial Transformations). The Equivalent Transformations contain a free parameter reflecting the well-known clock synchronisation conceptual arbitrariness. Lorentz Transformations are recovered for a particular value of that parameter. Actually all performed SR experiments (Michelson, aberration, etc.) seem to be insensitive to the choice of that parameter. Two points somehow relevant here (since we are discussing the Bell's spaceships paradox). - The lenght of a moving rod can only be obtained by marking the simultaneous position of its both end points. Therefore it depends on the definition of simultaneity of (distant) events. A theory which defines the "absolute" (and not the relative) simultaneity of distant events would help a lot! - Imagine Bell's spaceships, and their dynamics exactly as in that paradox. Imagine each spaceship has its own clock, synchronised with a clock on Earth. We can say that, since spaceship A and B have at every instant of time exactly the same velocity, their clocks accumulate exactly the same delay with respect to the clock on Earth. So two events simultaneous on Earth - taking place at points near which spaceships A & B are passing - must be simultaneous also for the travellers of A & B. We are facing here an "absolute" simultaneity which cannot be explained by Lorentz Transformations (but can be explained via Equivalent Transformations). Paradoxical aspects of SR sometimes may have something to do with the conceptual uncertainties of the theory. [1] The best source is this one (maybe). F. Selleri (ed.), "Open Questions in Relativistic Physics", Apeiron, Montreal, 1998. [2] A.Einstein, "Relativity, The Special, The General Theory", Methuen, London, 1920, see page 18. A similar statement also by H.Poincar?. [3] One could also say that one-way velocity of light has never been measured, since SR assumes one clock and a mirror and ... a two-way velocity of light. (To measure a one-way velocity it is usually said one would need two clocks, and they have to be synchronised, and again synchronisation is a tricky concept and a conventional choice in SR. I do not think this is correct anymore.) [4] "Absolute simultaneity" does not mean "absolute time"! [5] Only to mention here papers by Reichenbach, Jammer, Mansouri & Sexl (1977), Croca, Selleri, etc. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Aug 9 20:28:22 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 13:28:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR Message-ID: <0cfa01c8fa5e$8580f4f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jeff writes > On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:51 AM, > > After Lee cCorbin wrote: I never was a cat. And so far as I know, the Cordwainer (Smith) never narrated my adventures. You may be thinking of C'mell or of some of the other cat people, but none of my ancestors were animals or underpeople any more recently than were yours. (Unless you're really Jeff D'avis.) >>> Your "line of simultaneity" shifts as your velocity increases. It was my need for email conciseness that caused me to fail to imply that this is a technical term in the special relativistic theory. The absolute *key* to both an intuitive and technical understanding of Special Relativity is to thoroughly expunge the intuition of simultaneity in one's thinking. >"My" line, by which you mean the line of someone outside the > ships/strings frame of reference. But then you go back into the > ships/strings frame of reference and cite the sleepy cabin officer's > view of things. Isn't there some inconsistency here? I mean frame if > reference -wise? Sorry, I meant that your line of simultaneity, the x-axis on any ordinary spacetime diagram you draw, is horizontal in that diagram before you begin to move, but then it's at an angle. But at the risk of being misunderstood, I mean this: if on an ST diagram you plot your position as x=0, then you "move" up the t-axis as time passes, while someone moving at c/2 to the right relative to you, has, on the same diagram his t-axis tilted slightly to the right. That part is easy to understand (and you probably already do). Because to him, he's not moving, and so his own motion is only into the future, and that's along his t-axis, which has to be inclined at a small angle to yours. But his "line of simultaneity" is also at a small angle to yours! (Many apologies if you already understand all this, but at least I console myself that there are readers who don't.) It so happens, and can be figured out (I think) without recourse to equations by carefully thinking it through, that his line of simultaneity is rotated a bit counter-clockwise, (while recall that his t-axis is rotated a bit clock-wise). Naturally, in his frame of reference, it's just opposite, and your t-axis is tilted slightly to the left (according to his diagram), and your x-axis line of simultaneity is garishly rotated clockwise. > Now Jeff Davis is writing: Whoops! I misread Lee's line above. He is > indeed referring consistently to the view from inside the accelerating > frame of reference. To wit, "Your line,,,as your velocity increases." Actually, I agreed with your criticism! At very least, the way you at first misread it will happen to others too. For about 20 years I kept being under the illusion, as I encountered one more SR puzzle ("paradox") after another, whether it was the "pole and barn", or or "twin paradox" or "the rotated cube", (and conquered them) that I had reached mastery. Then around 1990 I saw this "Bell Spaceship Paradox" in his book "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics", and I realized that sooner or later someone will present me with yet another paradox that baffles me. One of the more recent was this, and it's good! (I think so, mainly because it was my own invention.) You are in a spaceship approaching a solar system face on (not edge on). You see the planets rather too quickly moving around their sun (in conflict with the Federation's excellent Star System Atlas and Catalog), but then, of course, you correct for the fact that you are *approaching* and there is a Doppler shift. But now your new *measurements* (rather than mere observations, as at least I like to say), yield motion that is too slow for the planets! "Of course", finally you exclaim, "due to time dilation, things in my reference system (my reality) really are moving more slowly." But then you have a horrid thought: "Wait! The masses of all those planets in my frame of reference---the masses as I would weigh them if I pass close enough to bound balls off them---will be increased! And then, because that sun and those planets are more massive, their motion will speed up because of the excellent Newtonian formula F = Gm1m2/r^2, and the greatly needed increase in centrifugal force necessary to overcome the resulting force! So how can that be?" I credit Hal Finney, probably on this forum, for providing the answer. But I do understand that there will always be yet one more paradox, even in SR, of which I have not yet heard, that will floor me. Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Corbin" To: "Jeff Davis" Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] QT and SR > Jeff writes > >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:51 AM, >> >> After Lee cCorbin wrote: > > I never was a cat. And so far as I know, the Cordwainer > (Smith) never narrated my adventures. You may be thinking > of C'mell or of some of the other cat people, but none of > my ancestors were animals or underpeople any more > recently than were yours. (Unless you're really Jeff D'avis.) > >>>> Your "line of simultaneity" shifts as your velocity increases. > > It was my need for email conciseness that caused me to fail > to imply that this is a technical term in the special relativistic > theory. The absolute *key* to both an intuitive and technical > understanding of Special Relativity is to thoroughly expunge > the intuition of simultaneity in one's thinking. > >>"My" line, by which you mean the line of someone outside the >> ships/strings frame of reference. But then you go back into the >> ships/strings frame of reference and cite the sleepy cabin officer's >> view of things. Isn't there some inconsistency here? I mean frame if >> reference -wise? > > Sorry, I meant that your line of simultaneity, the x-axis on any > ordinary spacetime diagram you draw, is horizontal in that > diagram before you begin to move, but then it's at an angle. > But at the risk of being misunderstood, I mean this: if on an > ST diagram you plot your position as x=0, then you "move" > up the t-axis as time passes, while someone moving at c/2 > to the right relative to you, has, on the same diagram his > t-axis tilted slightly to the right. > > That part is easy to understand (and you probably already do). > Because to him, he's not moving, and so his own motion is > only into the future, and that's along his t-axis, which has to > be inclined at a small angle to yours. > > But his "line of simultaneity" is also at a small angle to yours! > (Many apologies if you already understand all this, but at least > I console myself that there are readers who don't.) It so > happens, and can be figured out (I think) without recourse > to equations by carefully thinking it through, that his line > of simultaneity is rotated a bit counter-clockwise, (while > recall that his t-axis is rotated a bit clock-wise). > > Naturally, in his frame of reference, it's just opposite, and > your t-axis is tilted slightly to the left (according to his > diagram), and your x-axis line of simultaneity is garishly > rotated clockwise. > >> Now Jeff Davis is writing: Whoops! I misread Lee's line above. He is >> indeed referring consistently to the view from inside the accelerating >> frame of reference. To wit, "Your line,,,as your velocity increases." > > Actually, I agreed with your criticism! At very least, the way > you at first misread it will happen to others too. > > For about 20 years I kept being under the illusion, as I encountered > one more SR puzzle ("paradox") after another, whether it was the > "pole and barn", or or "twin paradox" or "the rotated cube", (and > conquered them) that I had reached mastery. Then around 1990 > I saw this "Bell Spaceship Paradox" in his book "Speakable and > Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics", and I realized that sooner > or later someone will present me with yet another paradox that > baffles me. > > One of the more recent was this, and it's good! (I think so, > mainly because it was my own invention.) You are in a > spaceship approaching a solar system face on (not edge on). > You see the planets rather too quickly moving around their > sun (in conflict with the Federation's excellent Star System Atlas > and Catalog), but then, of course, you correct for the fact that you > are *approaching* and there is a Doppler shift. > > But now your new *measurements* (rather than mere observations, > as at least I like to say), yield motion that is too slow for the > planets! "Of course", finally you exclaim, "due to time dilation, things > in my reference system (my reality) really are moving more slowly." > But then you have a horrid thought: "Wait! The masses of all those > planets in my frame of reference---the masses as I would weigh > them if I pass close enough to bound balls off them---will be increased! > And then, because that sun and those planets are more massive, their > motion will speed up because of the excellent Newtonian formula > F = Gm1m2/r^2, and the greatly needed increase in centrifugal force > necessary to overcome the resulting force! So how can that be?" > > I credit Hal Finney, probably on this forum, for providing the answer. > > But I do understand that there will always be yet one more > paradox, even in SR, of which I have not yet heard, that will > floor me. > > Lee > From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Aug 9 22:16:53 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 15:16:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00c801c8ea7d$10be55e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <26DB6C7C27E94664A095488F8D0AE6C5@Catbert> <148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808060919g17475181xc2cf48c4baf51a46@mail.gmail.com> <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080330v722acac5m5ca31e73426f4c53@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano writes below that "arguing for the 'objective superiority of objectivity' does not really seem to add much to one's such stance". Which, I am forced to concede, does contain a grain of circularity :-) > > I frankly disagree with your claim, at least when I > > emphasize a certain word there: "it [doesn't make sense] to > > *strive* for some kind of "disembodied", "objective" perspective. > > I am reluctant to embark in a full epistemological discussion here, > let alone in English, I understand. To me, it's slightly miraculous that any philosophy could be done outside of one's native tongue. But then, I'm just a monolingual :-( > but I think that for the purpose of the present discussion we > can consider my position as limited to *value* judgment, such > as those considering the different "contributions" of civilisations > to what one considers, e.g., the achievements of our species. I'm not sure I understand. > > And you write "it is part of the (European) historiographic > > tradition to take into account to some extent external narratives..." > > as if there were any question that this is an entirely laudable activity. > > To me, of *course* taking into account external narratives is > > something that always ought to be done. > > It *is* - for me (and for you, obviously). And I also maintain > that this is not just our personal position, but an idea quite > widespread in our culture - which exactly makes for the > "superiority" of its historical works. It's too bad you (probably wisely) cannot enter into an epistemological discussion, because in a number of ways, the "superiority" of one culture over another is as factual as night and day. As I said, though, there is a sliding scale... > But in saying that I have no qualms to admit that this is > a purely "chauvinistic" point of view, since we have to > accept that such attitude is far from generalised across > human cultures, civilisations and eras. To take an obviously much more extreme example, the same argument might be directed to parents who consider themselves "superior" to their three-year-olds. It is indeed chauvinistic for them to actually go so far as to use force (!) to prevent these children from playing in the streets. English speaking children, incidentally, and quite beautifully, have their own way of remembering the Black Death. Every spring the six- and seven-year-olds take the four- and five-year-olds by the hand, and teach them to play "Ring around the Rosey"[1]. They have their way of remembering the terrible event, and we have ours. But as charming as theirs is, ours really is superior. :-) > On the contrary, arguing for the "objective superiority of > objectivity" does not really seem to add much to one's such stance. Right. > Multiculturalism in fact implies that *we are at least as entitled > to adhere to our own paradigms as Bororos are*, I had to look that up: The Bororos are a South American tribe living in the Brazilian states of Matto Grosso and Goyaz and averaging a height of over six feet. They were reduced in number in 1650 by the Portuguese. > the accepted western historical methods being certainly > in some sense part of those paradigms. Yes. But I'll still say that the Christian Scientists who turn to prayer when their children are dying of a treatable disease *are* misguided, *are* backwards, and do have an inferior understanding of the reality of sickness and health. > Different roads to the same destination, I guess... :-) Yes, perhaps only our language here is different. It sounds as though you and I would tend to take the same actions and support the same policies (e.g., no one should force Christian Scientists to take their children to conventional hospitals or to use modern medicine). Lee [1] Ring around the rosy A pocketful of posies "Ashes, Ashes" We all fall down! But, on the actual history of the rhyme, see http://www.rhymes.org.uk/ring_around_the_rosy.htm From pharos at gmail.com Sat Aug 9 23:09:53 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:09:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00c801c8ea7d$10be55e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <26DB6C7C27E94664A095488F8D0AE6C5@Catbert> <148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808060919g17475181xc2cf48c4baf51a46@mail.gmail.com> <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080330v722acac5m5ca31e73426f4c53@mail.gmail.com> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > English speaking children, incidentally, and quite > beautifully, have their own way of remembering the > Black Death. Every spring the six- and seven-year-olds > take the four- and five-year-olds by the hand, and > teach them to play "Ring around the Rosey"[1]. They > have their way of remembering the terrible event, > and we have ours. > Hey! Don't believe him, Stefano! :) That's just one of those made up stories that's so good, it *must* be true. Snopes disagrees: Wikipedia disagrees: And here: As Snopes explains: * Children were apparently reciting this plague-inspired nursery rhyme for over six hundred years before someone finally figured out what they were talking about, as the first known mention of a plague interpretation of "Ring Around the Rosie" didn't show up until James Leasor published The Plague and the Fire in 1961. This sounds suspiciously like the "discovery," several decades after the fact, that L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was written as a coded parable about Populism. How come no contemporaries of Baum ? those much closer in time and place to what he was writing about ? ever noticed this? The answer is that Baum merely authored a children's book, and it was only much later that someone invented a fanciful interpretation of it ? an interpretation that has become more and more layered and embellished over the years and has now become widely accepted as "fact" despite all evidence to the contrary. It isn't difficult to imagine that such a process has been applied to "Ring Around the Rosie" as well, especially since we humans have such a fondness for trying to make sense of the nonsensical, seeking to find order in randomness, and especially for discovering and sharing secrets. The older the secret, the better (because age demonstrates the secret has eluded so many others before us), and so we've read "hidden" meanings into all sorts of innocuous nursery rhymes: The dish who ran away with the spoon in "Hey Diddle, Diddle" is really Queen Elizabeth I (or Catherine of Aragon or Catherine the Great), or "Humpty Dumpty" and "The Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe" describe the "spread and fragmentation of the British Empire." (The process is aided by a general consensus that some nursery rhymes, such as "Old King Cole," quite likely were actually based on real historical figures.) ------------- You have to be very careful before assigning modern interpretations to old stories. I would like to see written evidence from historical contemporaries. BillK From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Aug 10 03:34:52 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 20:34:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20808040502g12b286c5w7240c4ab5dddb26d@mail.gmail.com> <159901c8f83c$53929260$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080726n68cb0d17i74b6ac171c5d5b53@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0d4b01c8fa9a$1a27c260$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano writes > Lee wrote: > > > We want representative democracy. The "real sovereignty" should > > reside in the mass of people, however deluded, electing somewhat > > more intelligent and hopefully more thoughtful specimens to debate > > and consider legislation. I presume we're all on the same page here. > > In general terms, yes. Even though of course this leaves out > only absolute, hereditary monarchies, and the devil is in the > details. And there have been and may still exist even peoples > opting for different systems that enjoyed or enjoy nevertheless > a widespread popular consensus, leaving others the options > of military intervention or at least cultural imperialism > deliberately aimed at undermining such consensus... Stalin was greatly beloved by the people, and any non-representative government can either have a monopoly on information, or enjoy sharing an identity with the nation as a whole to the point that questioning the leaders is perceived as disloyalty. We need not respect such a "consensus" in cases like that. "Beloved Leader." Ha! > > Unfortunately, certain nations in which religion is the dominant > > force will be slow to accept democracy (as opposed to rule by > > priests, imams, or other holy men. Is this what you were getting at? > > Mmhhh, say, as in the United State where self-selected and nominated > Justice Priests sitting in the Supreme Court have a final say on the local > and federal legislation based on obscure and unplausible interpreting of > a sacred document enshrined in the XVIII century? They're hardly self-selected, unless the "ruling class" here is infinitely more devious than I suspect. Or than almost anyone suspects. They're only one branch of the governments, as you know, and the legislature can simply pass new, very clearly written laws, and the judges would have no choice but to accept. In fact, one time Andrew Jackson just completely ignored them and got away with it. > Just joking, no offense intended. Oh, of course! :-) Don't worry! You can't offend *me* with any criticism of the West or criticism of the U.S.! I will not be offended by mere ideas, if you will allow me here to take a swipe at those who are. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Aug 10 05:07:16 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 22:07:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Problems with Special Relativity References: <012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com><0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com><00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><62c14240808071751n4bf22cbaledc3dccdaf4ba5b9@mail.gmail.com> <006a01c8fa3f$4e589150$82064797@archimede> Message-ID: <0d6001c8faa7$6ab3cd70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Serafino writes (From: "scerir" Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 9:45 AM) > After 100 years there are still uncertainties, conceptual > uncertainties in SR. Perhaps. But an analogous *pedagogical* situation would be to say to a student trying to master Newtonian Mechanics, "of course, there are discrepancies, and so you perhaps should not spend a whole lot of time trying to understand things like the formulas for centripetal acceleration, Newton's proof that a sphere of material behaves as though its mass were concentrated at one point, and so on." It seems to me very important to try to understand what a theory is *saying* before focusing very much attention on not-well-understood subtleties. For example, I believe that were I to just shut out all these questions and conceptual difficulties you're bringing up *while* I am thinking of the various well-known paradoxes, I should try to remain completely inside the SR theory, and endeavor to understand it on its own terms. Then *later*, with another part of my mind, in a different mood perhaps, attend to: > (The solution of these conceptual difficulties may also > solve, at least partially, the conceptual divergence between > SR and QT?) I understood, of course, that there is an enormous clash between General Relativity and QT, but about SR and QT? I thought Dirac successfully extended SR to quantum theory. > The first question might be: Is there too much relativism > in SR [1]? The second might be: Is it correct to say that, > according to SR, one-way velocities are devoid of physical > interest [2][3]? For [2] you give as reference "A.Einstein, "Relativity, The Special, The General Theory", Methuen, London, 1920, see page 18. A similar statement also by H.Poincar?." Well, I read that Einstein passage, entitled "VII The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity", and he shows there that the *Galilean* relativity is indeed incompatible, and he goes on to say that in reality, however, a new theory, that he is going to introduce in chapter VIII called "Special Relativity", is "a logically rigid theory [that] can be arrived at". Place the phrase "Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore" in Google search, and it takes one to pages in "The Tests of Time" that has most of section VII, including the page 18 you refer to. Page 18 has the simple equation w = c - v, for reference. Einstein at this point is merely introducing the whole thing to a beginning reader. > The third might be: Given that SR define a "relative" simultaneity > is it possible to define an "absolute" simultaneity [4]? It seems to me that perhaps, yes, this is the case, for one case I know of. Let's stipulate that all velocities are to be brought to zero relative to the CMB, then why not? Say you are somewhere between the galaxies and so am I, a mere what? 1 light year? I don't know the physics, but there has to be some minimal separation between us so that we may both be at rest wrt the CMB, and yet be--- not "moving" exactly, relative to each other--- but merely noticing that over small intervals of time there is becoming more space between us because of the expansion of the universe. In such a circumstance, it should be possible for us to calibrate our clocks based upon signals from someone exactly half way between us who is also at rest with respect to the CMB. Is this what you could be getting at? Otherwise, I have no idea of what anyone could be thinking of, in terms of establishing "absolute" simultaneity. It's no longer a concept easily graspable by me. > One-way velocities are rather natural properties of physical > objects - like photons going from a point to another point. > It seems strange, or maybe paradoxical, that one-way velocities > are not reflected in the conceptual basis of a theory. Even in > the conceptual basis of an operational theory like SR. I have no idea what you mean by "one-way velocities", though you do say in your footnote > [3] One could also say that one-way velocity of light > has never been measured, since SR assumes one clock > and a mirror and ... a two-way velocity of light. > (To measure a one-way velocity it is usually said one > would need two clocks, and they have to be synchronised, > and again synchronisation is a tricky concept and a > conventional choice in SR. I do not think this is correct > anymore.) >From my understanding of what I read in Taylor and Wheeler's very fine book "Spacetime Physics" http://www.amazon.com/Spacetime-Physics-Edwin-F-Taylor/dp/0716723271 there is no conceptual problem at all in setting up synchronization. I think that all elementary SR books go into that. Furthermore, in the book "Gravitation and Intertia" http://www.indiaplaza.in/books/science/0691033234/all/gravitation-and-inertia.htm sadly out of print in the West (!), Wheeler and Ciufolini even manage to do in it General Relativity. > But there are different, or more general approaches [5]. > According to which the usual SR is just an important, special > case of a broader class of theories. These theories are also > consistent with the existent experimental results. The usual > Lorentz Transformations are just an important but special case > of a broader class of transformations, sometimes called Equivalent > Transformations (and among them the Inertial Transformations). > The Equivalent Transformations contain a free parameter reflecting > the well-known clock synchronisation conceptual arbitrariness. Do explain. As I described above for the special case of no motion with respect to CMB, whenever there is no relative motion just inside the Special Theory of Relativity, you and someone else get your clock signals from someone halfway between you who is also not moving relative to you. (Actually, just the two of you can do it with a slightly more complicated protocol, as of course you know, if you send several signals back and forth). Why is this problematic? > Lorentz Transformations are recovered for a particular value > of that parameter. Actually all performed SR experiments > (Michelson, aberration, etc.) seem to be insensitive to the > choice of that parameter. > > Two points somehow relevant here (since we are discussing the > Bell's spaceships paradox). > - The length of a moving rod can only be obtained by marking > the simultaneous position of its both end points. Therefore it > depends on the definition of simultaneity of (distant) events. Which I thought was easily explained in elementary texts. (Thanks to your reminder, I retract any wrong impressions I've given people about simultaneity being entirely a useless concept; it's merely entirely useless and meaningless--- according to traditional SR---only if there is relative velocity between observers.) The length is measured by using rods and clocks at rest with respect to each other, as, again, of course you know. > A theory which defines the "absolute" (and not the relative) > simultaneity of distant events would help a lot! And then SR would be flat wrong. We really have evidence of that? I'll reply to the remainder of your post in another thread. Best regards, Lee > - Imagine Bell's spaceships, and their dynamics exactly as in > that paradox. Imagine each spaceship has its own clock, > synchronised with a clock on Earth. We can say that, since > spaceship A and B have at every instant of time exactly the > same velocity, their clocks accumulate exactly the same delay > with respect to the clock on Earth. So two events simultaneous > on Earth - taking place at points near which spaceships A & B > are passing - must be simultaneous also for the travellers of > A & B. We are facing here an "absolute" simultaneity which cannot > be explained by Lorentz Transformations (but can be explained > via Equivalent Transformations). > > Paradoxical aspects of SR sometimes may have something to do > with the conceptual uncertainties of the theory. > > [1] The best source is this one (maybe). F. Selleri (ed.), > "Open Questions in Relativistic Physics", Apeiron, > Montreal, 1998. > [2] A.Einstein, "Relativity, The Special, The General > Theory", Methuen, London, 1920, see page 18. A similar > statement also by H.Poincar?. > [3] One could also say that one-way velocity of light > has never been measured, since SR assumes one clock > and a mirror and ... a two-way velocity of light. > (To measure a one-way velocity it is usually said one > would need two clocks, and they have to be synchronised, > and again synchronisation is a tricky concept and a > conventional choice in SR. I do not think this is correct > anymore.) > [4] "Absolute simultaneity" does not mean "absolute time"! > [5] Only to mention here papers by Reichenbach, Jammer, > Mansouri & Sexl (1977), Croca, Selleri, etc. From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Aug 10 05:43:20 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:43:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR References: <012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com><0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com><00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer> "Jeff Davis" >Such an observer would see the entire assembly shrink >proportionately along its length. No breakage. I am absolutely positively 100% certain the string will break, I might even be correct; at least that's what my intuition insists is true. Look at it from the point of view of an observer at one end of the string. Suppose a fellow at the far end of the string has a clock and sends a pulse of LASER light to you every 10 seconds and suppose you also have a clock and it's synchronized with his, so you know how long it took the light to reach you, hence you know how far away the other end of the string is. The other fellow also reports from time to time on how fast he is moving relative to some fixed point that both of you can both see. An instant after you start moving you receive a report from the fellow at the other end of the string saying he hasn't started moving yet. Because of this you predict that when you make the next distance measurement you will find that the distance has decreased, but when the next LASER pulse arrives you find that the distance is just the same. You can only conclude that sometime after the last report the other fellow started to accelerate and did so faster than you did. When he sends his next report you find he has indeed started to move but he still isn't moving as fast as you are, and yet the distance is the same as before. The fellow at the other end of the string must still be accelerating faster than you and in fact he always will be. Of course an observer at the other end of the string could make similar observations and conclude that you are accelerating faster than he is. The two observers disagree on who started moving first, but both agree that the other end of the string is accelerating faster than their end; and that pulls the string apart. John K Clark From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Aug 10 07:46:39 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:46:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: <002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com> <0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com> <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: John, I'm trying to visualize this. Help me out with one clarification, if you will. Two ships connected by a ten meter string. (Not thirty meters.) Ships and string set to travel parallel to the line of the ships and string. Two fellows at either end of the string with laser lights and clocks prepared to make measurements. To help me visualize this, when you say below "Look at it from the point of view of an observer at one end of the string", which end of the string are you thinking of, the trailing or the leading end? And I take it the string has some stretch to it, so that a variation in length in either the shrinking or stretching sense, will be measurable, with neither sagging nor instantaneous breakage upon stretching, yes? Jeff On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:43 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Jeff Davis" > >> Such an observer would see the entire assembly shrink >> proportionately along its length. No breakage. > > I am absolutely positively 100% certain the string will > break, I might even be correct; at least that's what my > intuition insists is true. > > Look at it from the point of view of an observer at one end > of the string. Suppose a fellow at the far end of the string > has a clock and sends a pulse of LASER light to you every 10 seconds and > suppose you also have a clock and it's synchronized with his, so you know > how long it took the light to reach you, hence you know how far away the > other end of the string is. The other fellow also reports from time to time > on how fast he is moving relative to some fixed point that both of you can > both see. > > An instant after you start moving you receive a report from > the fellow at the other end of the string saying he hasn't started moving > yet. Because of this you predict that when you make the next distance > measurement you will find that > the distance has decreased, but when the next LASER pulse arrives you find > that the distance is just the same. You can only conclude that sometime > after the last report the other fellow started to accelerate and did so > faster > than you did. > > When he sends his next report you find he has indeed started to move but he > still isn't moving as fast as you are, and yet the distance is the same as > before. The fellow at the other end of the string must still be > accelerating faster than you and in fact he always will be. > > Of course an observer at the other end of the string could > make similar observations and conclude that you are accelerating faster than > he is. The two observers disagree > on who started moving first, but both agree that the other > end of the string is accelerating faster than their end; and that pulls the > string apart. > John K Clark > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Aug 10 14:48:05 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:48:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Henri Bergson - on time/space/consciousness Message-ID: <004901c8faf8$196a7620$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> Does anyone have thoughts on Bergson's philosophy regarding perception, concrete duration and abstract time as might relate to radical life extension (whereby time is not ticking/linear) and/or AGI and neural enhancements (where consciousness may take leaps)? Some links that might be relevant: Guerlac, S. (2006) Thinking In Time synopsis: http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=4469 Endnote[7] at: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/numenta_artificial_intelligence.php Paragraph 20 at: http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/03/27/ai.html "Morphic Computing" Abstract: http://iimss-08.kesinternational.org/index.php Thx, Natasha Natasha Vita-More BFA, MS, MPhil/PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Faculty of Technology, School of Computers, Communication and Electronics University of Plymouth, UK Arts and Design - NBIC+ Convergence H+ Europe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Aug 10 17:24:45 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:24:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com><0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com><00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: <001401c8fb0e$1808c140$0301a8c0@MyComputer> > which end of the string are you thinking of, the trailing or > the leading end? In most of my verbiage I was talking about the trailing end because that's a little harder to visualize, and to be consistent the string must break from both viewpoints. As long as we start out with the string being taut the guy at the leading end would reason that he will always be moving faster than the guy at the other end so the string will break; and the guy at the trailing end would reason that the fellow at the other end will always be accelerating faster than he is so the string will break. > I take it the string has some stretch to it Yes, that would certainly be true of a real string. John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Aug 11 04:21:28 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:21:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The imams and advanced bioscience in Iran Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080810231940.024ea348@satx.rr.com> While Our Scientists Struggle with Ethics, the Islamic World Forges Ahead JIM AL-KHALILI, PHD - The Guardian (U.K.) Dr. Jim Al-Khalili is a professor of physics at the University of Surrey, in the U.K. While our scientists struggle with ethics, the Islamic world forges ahead Stem cell researchers are branded by the Catholic church as playing God, but Iran's geneticists are unhindered by doctrine In recent days I have been asked on three separate occasions whether I think physicists are going to destroy the world the moment they switch on the Large Hadron Collider - the huge underground particle accelerator in Geneva - later this year. They ask if, as has been reported, the energies it will produce when beams of near light-speed subatomic particles are smashed together will create mini black holes that will swallow up the whole planet. Add to this the more rational worries many people have about the global catastrophe of climate change if we don't act fast enough to curb our reliance on fossil fuels, or about GM crops producing Frankenstein food, hybrid embryo research producing Frankenstein babies, and nuclear power leaving future generations a legacy of toxic radioactive waste, and one is left with the impression that the average person is pretty scared about the rate of current scientific advances. Of the above doom-laden list, the only issue I am unable to provide any sort of reassurance on is climate change, where I am just as worried as everyone else. The rest, I would argue, are based on unfounded fears arising from a misunderstanding of the science involved. It is of course quite right that the implications - ethical or otherwise - of all manner of scientific research are high on the agenda of government decision-making and research funding. Science ethics is even being taught as part of new science curriculums in UK schools. While the issue of ethics in medical research has always been around, it can only be healthy that we are beginning to apply the same standards to other areas of science, not just so that scientists themselves think more responsibly, but to encourage them to explain what they do to the rest of society, particularly if they work in academia and are funded by public money. For many, concerns with some scientific research are linked with the unease about living in a nanny state that they feel often passes through legislation and enacts policies without real consensual debate. So I would like to share with you what was, for me, a quite surprising example of the ultimate nanny state making some remarkably sensible decisions. On a recent visit to Iran, I was allowed unrestricted access to the Royan Institute in Tehran where, by all accounts, world-class work in genetics, infertility treatment, stem cell research and animal cloning is carried out in an atmosphere of openness quite dramatically at odds with my expectations. Much of the work at the Royan is therapeutic and centred on infertility treatment. But their basic research in genetics was remarkably advanced, despite the restrictions on many of the researchers' travel to international meetings and the difficulties in publishing their work in the leading international journals. What struck me most was the way the authorities overseeing the research seem to have dealt with the ethical minefields of parts of the work, in stark contrast with the howls of protest from some quarters in the UK in the run-up to the human embryo research bill that went through parliament recently. At the Royan I spoke to one of the imams who sits on their ethics committee. He explained that every research project proposed must be justified to his committee to ensure that it does not conflict with Islamic teaching. Thus, while issues such as abortion are still restricted (it is allowed only when the mother's life is in danger), research on human embryos is allowed. In this country the Catholic church has branded research on human embryonic stem cells immoral and says tinkering with life in this way is tantamount to playing God. So I was taken aback by the Iranian imam who pointed out, quite rightly, that all that is produced in this research is just a clump of cells and not a foetus, and so what was all the fuss about? It is these stem cells that then differentiate into the specialist cells that are used to grow healthy tissue to replace that either damaged by trauma, or compromised by disease. Among the conditions that scientists believe may eventually be treated by stem cell therapy are Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, strokes, arthritis, diabetes, burns and spinal cord damage. The fundamental question is whether the original single zygote (the fertilised egg) is defined as a human being. If so, then it can be argued that it is morally wrong to destroy the embryo, as is done of course once the stem cells are harvested. Many in the Catholic church do indeed believe that the moment of fertilisation is also the beginning of human life - a notion not shared in Islam. The embryo-is-a-human argument is based on the idea that the fertilised egg contains everything that is needed to replicate and that this is sufficient. But is this "potential" of becoming a human being really enough? I mean why stop there? Surely the unfertilised egg also has the potential of becoming a human, as indeed does each and every sperm cell (a notion immortalised in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life). But I would argue that this is more than just a metaphysical issue. An embryo just a few days old is no more than a bundle of homogeneous cells in the same membrane, which do not form a human organism because they do not function in a coordinated way to regulate and preserve a single life. So while each individual cell is "alive", it only becomes part of a human organism when there is substantial cell differentiation and coordination, which occurs around two weeks after fertilisation. Until that time, for instance, there is still the chance that the embryo can split into two, to form identical twins. If each embryo develops into an individual person, how can the undivided embryo be said to have a separate existence? A sensible definition of the beginning of human life is that it takes place sometime during the foetus's development. For many, both religious and non-religious, this is defined as when consciousness switches on. This crucial stage lies long after that of the embryonic stem cells with their "potential", rather it is when that potential is fulfilled. But too strong a link with consciousness can lead to the absurd situation of questioning the rights to life of a newborn baby if one subscribes to the view, held by some neuroscientists, that it is not really conscious. According to Islamic teaching, I discovered, the foetus becomes a full human being only when it is "ensouled" at 120 days from the moment of conception, and so the research at Royan on human embryonic stem cells is not seen as playing God, as it takes place at a much earlier stage. Thus, while there is much that the west finds unpalatable about life under Islamic rule, when it comes to genetics they are not held back by their religious doctrine. Like a number of other developing Islamic countries, such as Malaysia, Iran's scientific research is moving forward in leaps and bounds. I had hoped to visit one of its nuclear research facilities, but given the current political climate and Israel's threats of military action, it was no big surprise that my film crew and I were denied access at the last minute. Nevertheless, whatever criticisms we may have of the regime in Iran, I was left in no doubt that its researchers can hold their heads high. And we in the UK might learn a lesson or two from them before we complain too quickly about our own nanny state. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 09:24:39 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:24:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Brave New World (was Re: "Toward a Type 1 civilization") In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080808115022.02395008@satx.rr.com> References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20808040502g12b286c5w7240c4ab5dddb26d@mail.gmail.com> <159901c8f83c$53929260$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080726n68cb0d17i74b6ac171c5d5b53@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080808115022.02395008@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <580930c20808110224n3f90ab29t69d7849f8ff878bc@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Huxley did offer an alternative, thirty later, in the utopian novel ISLAND. I heard he did. In fact, he is even apologetic on his "youth nihilism" in the preface to a subsequent edition of BNW. But while I am curious, I doubt that the "solution" he claimed to have later reached to be anything more than some kind of re-heated, bland humanism. Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 09:26:19 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:26:19 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Brave New World (was Re: "Toward a Type 1 civilization") In-Reply-To: <9ff585550808081102u3295dbebqf7d96dddc653082a@mail.gmail.com> References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20808040502g12b286c5w7240c4ab5dddb26d@mail.gmail.com> <159901c8f83c$53929260$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080726n68cb0d17i74b6ac171c5d5b53@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080808115022.02395008@satx.rr.com> <9ff585550808081102u3295dbebqf7d96dddc653082a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20808110226r15cb524bn204dc1b1478dd406@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Michael LaTorra wrote: > So while Huxley did conceive the possibility > of a utopian counterpart to his dystopian BRAVE NEW WORLD, he really had no > clue how such a society could be organzied and operated. Why, fully-deployed transhumanism was not really there yet, was it? :-) Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 09:51:44 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:51:44 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The imams and advanced bioscience in Iran In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080810231940.024ea348@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080810231940.024ea348@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <580930c20808110251w478cbe06ha41c682926943aad@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Damien Broderick < http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/31/genetics.ethicsofscience >While > Our Scientists Struggle with Ethics, the Islamic World Forges Ahead > JIM AL-KHALILI, PHD - The Guardian (U.K.) Let us say that, as I already had the opportunity to remark in Biopolitica. Il nuovo paradigma , there are obscurantisms that are more obscure than others... :-) The truth is that the only way to stop really technoscientific development is to enforce a world ban, and while this appears to be difficult enough for nuclear technology in spite of the popular scare for global destruction and the converging interests of the nuclear club's members, its real implementation for bio research would require a level of omnipresent control that would make *1984* a joke, *pace* Kass and Fukuyama. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 12:26:43 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:26:43 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00c801c8ea7d$10be55e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <26DB6C7C27E94664A095488F8D0AE6C5@Catbert> <148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808060919g17475181xc2cf48c4baf51a46@mail.gmail.com> <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080330v722acac5m5ca31e73426f4c53@mail.gmail.com> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: >> but I think that for the purpose of the present discussion we >> can consider my position as limited to *value* judgment, such >> as those considering the different "contributions" of civilisations >> to what one considers, e.g., the achievements of our species. > > I'm not sure I understand. I mean: let's drop the issue of whether 2+2=4 is a cultural construct, and limit ourselves to the fact that "important", "beautiful", "fair", "crucial" are. > It's too bad you (probably wisely) cannot enter into an > epistemological discussion, because in a number of ways, > the "superiority" of one culture over another is as factual > as night and day. As I said, though, there is a sliding scale... One needs however a scale to say that, a scale which necessarily does not drop from the sky. Where we agree is on the fact that cultures and civilisations are not "equal", as some naive and politically correct "multiculturalism" would maintain. Where my position is different is that I think that each civilisation is "superior" from its own point of view - which does not prevent me in the least, as a member of a specific culture where some values and not others have course, to participate to such unavoidable "bias". > To take an obviously much more extreme example, the > same argument might be directed to parents who consider themselves > "superior" to their three-year-olds. > It is indeed chauvinistic for them to actually go so far as > to use force (!) to prevent these children from playing > in the streets. Yes. But not matter how frustrated children may be, parents could never (and should not, for that matter) refrain from pursuing their *own* point of view on the issue. How could they do otherwise? If you stop thinking and acting on the basis of a given perspective, you are not thinking and acting of the basis of somebody's else's, you have simply changed your own. > Yes, perhaps only our language here is different. It sounds > as though you and I would tend to take the same actions > and support the same policies. Probably, or at least in most cases. Only, I think one can spare the need of thinking to be "on the side of the angels" or of some intrinsic disembodied truth. For instance, getting back to the crucial importance of the European contribution to what... most European and Western contemporaries would consider as important, such conclusion may well be somewhat inevitable, but is nevertheless perfectly legitimate, because no judgment could ever be formed without adopting a criterium first, as arbitrary as it may be. And speaking of transhumanism, e..g., I think that perfectly consistent bioluddists are not "misguided" - sometimes they understand very well the terms of the alternative - but simply make a number of choices that are fundamentally different and opposite to my own. Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 12:30:16 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:30:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: <20080808175051.GA19460@ofb.net> References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20808040502g12b286c5w7240c4ab5dddb26d@mail.gmail.com> <159901c8f83c$53929260$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080726n68cb0d17i74b6ac171c5d5b53@mail.gmail.com> <20080808175051.GA19460@ofb.net> Message-ID: <580930c20808110530m183af7e5ve69ee7402986182e@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 04:26:44PM +0200, Stefano Vaj wrote: > >> Japan has copied in a remarkably close fashion constitutional >> technicalities from the western world. Yet, out of indirect >> information and personal experience I am under the impression that >> China is much more deeply westernised these days, as far as the real >> power structures and society working are concerned, in spite of the > > Westernised how? At a cultural and mentality level. Anedoctical evidence, however, please do not challenge me to offer examples of in-depth sociological or anthropological or economic studies. :-) Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 12:44:25 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:44:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: <0d4b01c8fa9a$1a27c260$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20808040502g12b286c5w7240c4ab5dddb26d@mail.gmail.com> <159901c8f83c$53929260$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080726n68cb0d17i74b6ac171c5d5b53@mail.gmail.com> <0d4b01c8fa9a$1a27c260$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808110544g37163981ia1f35cfd7b454aac@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stefano writes >> Mmhhh, say, as in the United State where self-selected and nominated >> Justice Priests sitting in the Supreme Court have a final say on the local >> and federal legislation based on obscure and unplausible interpreting of >> a sacred document enshrined in the XVIII century? > > They're hardly self-selected, unless the "ruling class" here is infinitely > more devious than I suspect. Or than almost anyone suspects. Well, self-selected at least in the sense that they are inevitably educated and trained and filtered through law schools and the court system by previous exponents of, and affiliates to, the US legal tradition, and then cherry-picked/nominated, as opposed to elected, and for life. Please understand that as a jurist myself I do no underestimate the deep differences that may exist among such "clergy", the contaminations of ideas from the outside world, or its potential for endogenous evolution. But this is also true for the Pope and the catholic cardinals, and it is sometimes funny to remark how a Swiftian metaphore may be applicable in a not-too-forced way to what we may consider perfectly secular, transparent and "democratic" institutions. :-) Stefano Vaj From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Aug 11 22:48:14 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:48:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] speaking of "transhuman" and life extension Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080811173945.02375f70@satx.rr.com> The term "transhuman" is key to this 30-year old sf anthology, compiled when my American pal Jack Dann (now, ironically, resident in Australia) and I were about half our present ages, and Robert Ettinger was already about our current age... * Title: Immortal: Short Novels of the Transhuman Future * Editor: Jack Dann * Year: 1978-05-00 * ISBN-10: 0-06-010962-9 * ISBN-13: 978-0-06-010962-2 * Publisher: Harper & Row * vii ? Introduction: The Transhuman Condition ? (1978) ? essay by R. C. W. Ettinger * 1 ? Chanson Perpetuelle ? (1978) ? novella by Thomas M. Disch * 57 ? The Doctor of Death Island ? [Archipelago] ? (1978) ? novella by Gene Wolfe * 111 ? The Renewal ? (1978) ? novella by Pamela Sargent * 187 ? Transfigured Night ? (1978) ? novella by George Zebrowski * 221 ? Further Reading (Immortal) ? (1978) ? essay by Jack Dann From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Aug 12 03:38:37 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:38:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The imams and advanced bioscience in Iran References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080810231940.024ea348@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <006b01c8fc2d$74117c50$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien posted the interesting essay at > While > Our Scientists Struggle with Ethics, the Islamic World Forges Ahead > JIM AL-KHALILI, PHD - The Guardian (U.K.) which I wish to comment upon, because of the truly fundamental yet rather subtle issues raised. "Dr. Jim Al-Khalili is a professor of physics at the University of Surrey, in the U.K" uses "our" in the sense of "Western". > While our scientists struggle with ethics, the Islamic world forges ahead > Stem cell researchers are branded by the Catholic church as playing > God, but Iran's geneticists are unhindered by doctrine > ... I would like to share with you what was, for me, a quite > surprising example of the ultimate nanny state making some > remarkably sensible decisions. A nanny-state? Iraq? Nonsense: if one Ibn al Faswah breaks his leg, becomes poor and destitute, and cannot feed his children, no nanny-state rushes to his aid. The author means a tyrannical state, in our terms, where dissent is crushed. > What struck me most was the way the authorities overseeing the > research seem to have dealt with the ethical minefields of parts of > the work, in stark contrast with the howls of protest from some > quarters in the UK in the run-up to the human embryo research bill > that went through parliament recently. A key reason, as he points out below, is that there isn't the "point of conception" problem in Islam. I think also, though, that a large part of the reason is that the imams have far more serious things (to them) about which to preach and scold the people and the world. > In this country the Catholic church has branded research on human In the U.K? Why isn't he talking about the Anglican church? > The fundamental question is whether the original single zygote (the > fertilised egg) is defined as a human being [as taking a life is bad > in Islam too]. If so, then it can be argued that it is morally wrong > to destroy the embryo, as is done of course once the stem cells > are harvested. Many in the Catholic church do indeed believe that > the moment of fertilisation is also the beginning of human life - a > notion not shared in Islam. We are blind to the "opportunity costs" of practically everything: out of sight is out of mind. Because we cannot imagine the lovely woman that a certain little fetus would have grown up to be, we see no loss whatsoever in destroying that fetus, and by the same logic, we see utterly no harm in people who can afford it failing to rescue further others from non-existence. > The embryo-is-a-human argument is based on the idea that the > fertilised egg contains everything that is needed to replicate and > that this is sufficient. But is this "potential" of becoming a human > being really enough? I mean why stop there? Surely the unfertilised > egg also has the potential of becoming a human, as indeed does each > and every sperm cell (a notion immortalised in Monty Python's The > Meaning of Life). The moral argument, unfortunately, becomes confused with the correct arguments against taking human life that have nothing to do with morality, namely, the necessity from an economic and progressive point of view of ensuring that individuals are safe in their persons from murder. And related to the latter is the uncomfortable (and in my view praiseworthy) guilt that the mentally healthy among us have against *defecting* against others, e.g., someone who could have defected against you, but you struck first. Thus there are three aspects to this as I see it now: (1) moral sanction against taking an entity's life (2) social and economic justifications for not doing so (3) our natural genetically and culturally induced feelings against defecting against someone by killing them Selfishly wanting to have no children (when odds are they'd be very happy and productive members of society), since it has nothing to do with (1) above, does not strike me as truly immoral. Nor would it be immoral for me to destroy wealth (e.g. buying up fine buildings and burning them down), even though that would causally eventually keep some people from getting sick or dying. Yet are we really entirely free of moral concern? If your parents had chosen to remain childless, the world would be a worse place because of the special way you enrich the lives of those who know you. Unlike those with less active imaginations, I sorely miss one Eric J. Carpenter, who would have become one of my very best friends but for the selfish or socially badly motivated decisions of his parents. That we are good friends in certain parallel universes is some consolation, but not a whole lot. Peace, those of you who'd lecture me on overpopulation! Along with a number here, and along with Julian Simon, I don't worry at all about that. Not among highly productive intensely free-market capitalist countries. Let's not go there in *this* thread, please. Passing on to (3), defection, I do feel badly that I have in a sense defected against my children by not having any. They suffer reduced experience, reduced runtime, and solely because of my selfish decision. I believe I would act much differently given another chance. > If each embryo develops into an individual person, how can the > undivided embryo be said to have a separate existence? The writer resorts to a rather weak argument here. There are far better ways to dispatch the silly notion that a human life goes from "off" to "on" at a certain milli-second. > A sensible definition of the beginning of human life is that it takes > place sometime during the foetus's development. For many, both > religious and non-religious, this is defined as when consciousness > switches on. Rubbish. He doesn't seem to mind at all that the Iranians (see below) pick 120 days. The Japanese use to pick three months, if I recall correctly. Up until then, the Japs were legally able to kill their newborns. I'll bet the author would be very uncomfortable with the logical extension of his belief here. (As an extreme libertarian on this issue, the *laws*, which are separate from moral issues now and then, should have no say about internal family matters until some admittedly arbitrary point is reached wherein the child becomes known and becomes a part of society, just the way we say that those under age 18 or whatever may not operate motor vehicles. For *legal* purposes, you do have to draw lines somewhere.) > According to Islamic teaching, I discovered, the foetus becomes a > full human being only when it is "ensouled" at 120 days from the > moment of conception, and so the research at Royan on human > embryonic stem cells is not seen as playing God, as it takes place > at a much earlier stage. Thus, while there is much that the west finds > unpalatable about life under Islamic rule, when it comes to genetics > they are not held back by their religious doctrine. He's dead right about that, certainly. Lee > Like a number of other developing Islamic countries, such as > Malaysia, Iran's scientific research is moving forward in leaps and > bounds. I had hoped to visit one of its nuclear research facilities, > but given the current political climate and Israel's threats of > military action, it was no big surprise that my film crew and I were > denied access at the last minute. Nevertheless, whatever criticisms > we may have of the regime in Iran, I was left in no doubt that its > researchers can hold their heads high. And we in the UK might learn a > lesson or two from them before we complain too quickly about our own > nanny state [sic]. From spike66 at att.net Tue Aug 12 04:20:29 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:20:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200808120449.m7C4mfKm019401@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > ...The notion that all a > country has to do to become wealthy is eliminate taxes > strikes me as ridiculous... Some megalomaniac dictator, perhaps...? ... > Stathis Papaioannou That gives me an idea: elect as our leader a microlomaniac dictator. She does all the things the megalomaniac dictator would like to do, but is given one trillionth of the actual power. spike From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Aug 12 04:40:06 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:40:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Handle With Care" - NYT Article Message-ID: <006f01c8fc35$7f06d6c0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/science/12ethics.html?_r=2&8dpc&oref=slogi&oref=slogin August 12, 2008 Handle With Care By CORNELIA DEAN Last year, a private company proposed "fertilizing" parts of the ocean with iron, in hopes of encouraging carbon-absorbing blooms of plankton. Meanwhile, researchers elsewhere are talking about injecting chemicals into the atmosphere, launching sun-reflecting mirrors into stationary orbit above the earth or taking other steps to reset the thermostat of a warming planet. This technology might be useful, even life-saving. But it would inevitably produce environmental effects impossible to predict and impossible to undo. So a growing number of experts say it is time for broad discussion of how and by whom it should be used, or if it should be tried at all. Similar questions are being raised about nanotechnology, robotics and other powerful emerging technologies. There are even those who suggest humanity should collectively decide to turn away from some new technologies as inherently dangerous. "The complexity of newly engineered systems coupled with their potential impact on lives, the environment, etc., raise a set of ethical issues that engineers had not been thinking about," said William A. Wulf, a computer scientist who until last year headed the National Academy of Engineering. As one of his official last acts, he established the Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society there. Rachelle Hollander, a philosopher who directs the center, said the new technologies were so powerful that "our saving grace, our inability to affect things at a planetary level, is being lost to us," as human-induced climate change is demonstrating. Engineers, scientists, philosophers, ethicists and lawyers are taking up the issue in scholarly journals, online discussions and conferences in the United States and abroad. "It's a hot topic," said Ronald C. Arkin, a computer scientist at Georgia Tech who advises the Army on robot weapons. "We need at least to think about what we are doing while we are doing it, to be aware of the consequences of our research." So far, though, most scholarly conversation about these issues has been "piecemeal," said Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. "It leaves the door open for people to do something that is going to cause long-term problems." That's what some environmentalists said they feared when Planktos, a California-based concern, announced it would embark on a private effort to fertilize part of the South Atlantic with iron, in hopes of producing carbon-absorbing plankton blooms that the company could market as carbon offsets. Countries bound by the London Convention, an international treaty governing dumping at sea, issued a "statement of concern" about the work and a United Nations group called for a moratorium, but it is not clear what would have happened had Planktos not abandoned the effort for lack of money. "There is no one to say 'thou shalt not,' " said Jane Lubchenco, an environmental scientist at Oregon State University and a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. When scientists and engineers discuss geoengineering, it is obvious they are talking about technologies with the potential to change the planet. But the issue of engineering ethics applies as well to technologies whose planet-altering potential may not emerge until it is too late. Dr. Arkin said robotics researchers should consider not just how to make robots more capable, but also who must bear responsibility for their actions and how much human operators should remain "in the loop," particularly with machines to aid soldiers on the battlefield or the disabled in their homes. But he added that progress in robotics was so "insidious" that people might not realize they had ventured into ethically challenging territory until too late. Ethical and philosophical issues have long occupied biotechnology, where institutional review boards commonly rule on proposed experiments and advisory committees must approve the use of gene-splicing and related techniques. When the federal government initiated its effort to decipher the human genome, a percentage of the budget went to consideration of ethics issues like genetic discrimination. But such questions are relatively new for scientists and engineers in other fields. Some are calling for the same kind of discussion that microbiologists organized in 1975 when the immense power of their emerging knowledge of gene-splicing or recombinant DNA began to dawn on them. The meeting, at the Asilomar conference center in California, gave rise to an ethical framework that still prevails in biotechnology. "Something like Asilomar might be very important," said Andrew Light, director of the Center for Global Ethics at George Mason University, one of the organizers of a conference in Charlotte, N.C., in April on the ethics of emerging technologies. "The question now is how best to begin that discussion among the scientists, to encourage them to do something like this, then figure out what would be the right mechanism, who would fund it, what form would recommendations take, all those details." But an engineering Asilomar might be hard to bring off. "So many people have their nose to the bench," Dr. Arkin said, "historically a pitfall of many scientists." Anyway, said Paul Thompson, a philosopher at Michigan State and former secretary of the International Society for Environmental Ethics, many scientists were trained to limit themselves to questions answerable in the real world, in the belief that "scientists and engineers should not be involved in these kinds of ethical questions." And researchers working in geoengineering say they worry that if people realize there are possible technical fixes for global warming, they will feel less urgency about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. "Even beginning the discussion, putting geoengineering on the table and beginning the scientific work could in itself make us less concerned about all the things that we need to start doing now," Dr. Light said. On the other hand, some climate scientists argue that if people realized such drastic measures were on the horizon, they would be frightened enough to reduce their collective carbon footprint. Still others say that, given the threat global warming poses to the planet, it would be unethical not to embark on the work needed to engineer possible remedies - and to let policy makers know of its potential. But when to begin this kind of discussion? "It's a really hard question," Dr. Thompson said. "I don't think anyone has an answer to it." Many scientists don't like talking about their research before it has taken shape, for fear of losing control over it, according to David Goldston, former chief of staff at the House Science Committee and a columnist for the journal Nature. This mind-set is "generally healthy," he wrote in a recent column, but it is "maladapted for situations that call for focused research to resolve societal issues that need to be faced with some urgency." And then there is the longstanding scientific fear that if they engage with the public for any reason, their work will be misunderstood or portrayed in inaccurate or sensationalized terms. Francis S. Collins, who is stepping down as head of the government human genome project, said he had often heard researchers say "it's better if people don't know about it." But he said he was proud that the National Human Genome Research Institute had from the beginning devoted substantial financing to research on privacy, discrimination and other ethical issues raised by progress in genetics. If scientific research has serious potential implications in the real world, "the sooner there is an opportunity for public discussion the better," he said in a recent interview. In part, that is because some emerging technologies will require political adjustments. For example, if the planet came to depend on chemicals in space or orbiting mirrors or regular oceanic infusions of iron, system failure could mean catastrophic - and immediate - climate change. But maintaining the systems requires a political establishment with guaranteed indefinite stability. As Dr. Collins put it, the political process these days is "not well designed to handle issues that are not already in a crisis." Or as Mr. Goldston put it, "with no grand debate over first principles and no accusations of acting in bad faith, nanotechnology has received only fitful attention." Meanwhile, there is growing recognition that climate engineering, nanotechnology and other emerging technologies are full of "unknown unknowns," factors that will not become obvious until they are put into widespread use at a scale impossible to turn back, as happened, in a sense, with the atomic bomb. At its first test, some of its developers worried - needlessly - that the blast might set the atmosphere on fire. They did not anticipate the bombs would generate electromagnetic pulses intense enough to paralyze electrical systems across a continent. Bill Joy, a founder of Sun Microsystems, cited the bomb in a famous 2000 article in the magazine Wired on the dangers of robots in which he argued that some technologies were so dangerous they should be "relinquished." He said it was common for scientists and engineers to fail "to understand the consequences of our inventions while we are in the rapture of discovery" and, as a result, he said, "we have yet to come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21st-century technologies - robotics, genetic engineering and nanotechnology - pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. They are so powerful they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses." He called it "knowledge-enabled mass destruction." But in an essay in the journal Nature last year, Mary Warnock, a philosopher who led a committee formed to advise the British government after the world's first test-tube baby was born there in 1978, said when people fear "dedicated scientists and doctors may pursue research that some members of society find repugnant" the answer is not to allow ignorance and fear to dictate which technologies are allowed to go forward, but rather to educate people "to have a broad understanding of science and an appreciation of its potential for good." In another Nature essay, Sheila Jasanoff, a professor of science and technology studies at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, said a first step was for scientists and engineers to realize that in complex issues, "uncertainty, ignorance and indeterminacy are always present." In what she described as "a call for humility," she urged researchers to cultivate and teach "modes of knowing that are often pushed aside in expanding scientific understanding and technological capacity" including history, moral philosophy, political theory and social studies of science - what people value and why they value it. Dr. Hollander said the new ethics center would take up issues like these. "Do we recognize when we might be putting ourselves on a negative technological treadmill by moving in one direction rather than another?" she said. "There are social questions we should be paying attention to, that we should see as important. "I mean we as citizens, and that includes people in the academy and engineers. It includes everybody." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Aug 12 07:07:53 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:07:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Critter's Dilemma on the African Plain References: <566616.97944.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007c01c8fc4a$2aec2e40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart wrote (Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:31 PM) > Ignorance and defection both are failures to cooperate, so to > speak. Although for precision I would prefer to simply call them alternative > options. Remember that all three moves are very precisely defined. Defection > does not have to be at all violent or aggressive or even intentional. Well, that really seems to do violence to the original meaning of the *game* theory in which one is trying to win by causing another to lose. I have searched through several pages of Google links without apparently finding any usage that does not involve both a conscious decision and a definite adversarial stance. In fact, almost all the links for "game theory defect" that I've seen go straight to the classic PD. Therefore, you are using the term in a very non-standard way so far as I can see. > I define it as the incurring of a non-neglible economic cost upon > the other player by any measure of utility one desires, whether it > be space, time, dollars, calories, offspring, or Darwinian fitness. So if I rent an apartment, I may be defecting against whoever it is that would have come along next wanting the apartment, and who may have to settle for something he or she doesn't like as well? And if the population control zealots are right, then we are all defecting against one another by our mere presence; and if I enter a crowded theatre, then clearly I am, once again by your usage, defecting against the other patrons. > With that in mind, you are right that some people would consider the incurring > of a cost upon them, especially if they didn't get any benefit out of it, to be > "aggression" of a sort. Indeed "cost" and "benefit" are completely open to > interpretation because they are for the most part subjective. People who would consider me to be defecting because I'm in a car that's preceding them in a traffic jam, and conclude that this was "aggression" of a sort, are really overreacting. So the "some people" you refer to here, while they do exist, I hardly consider to be rational or sane types. > This subjectivity of perceived cost and benefit leads to seemingly irrational > behavior. Like the notorious gunslinger John Wesley Hardin who allegedly shot a > man for snoring. Hardin certainly must have rationalized the snorer as costing > him something worthy of some fairly brutal retaliation. Well, it was aesthetically unappealing---so naturally we might not be surprised that he shot the snorer. I wouldn't call that irrational at all. What's irrational about it? Vlad the Destroyer got a lot of respect from his people for very similar actions. It's simply low down, mean, unscrupulous, homicidal, and psychopathic, and people like that must be first of all (1) hated, and hated passionately by us all, and (2) seized, tried, (to make sure we got the right guy), and executed. And if it will cut down on the probability of other psychopaths taking similar action, I wouldn't even mind having his head displayed on the end of a pole, the bastard. > Similarly people sometimes rationalize cooperating with defectors. "My friend > always intends to pay me back whenever I loan him money, he is just never able > to because he is unlucky." Or paying for cable when you never watch TV. In > these cases "retaliation" is as non-violent as saying no to your friend or > getting your cable disconnected. Of course as non-violent as it is, there is > liable to be resistance from both the friend and the cable company to your > retaliation. "Retaliation"? *I* am retaliating against the cable company because *they* serve me up a product I don't any longer find appealing or worth the cost? Then it must mean to you that Defection (on your usage) is often praiseworthy. On the other hand, your usage is so broad here that I could be defecting against the other customers who use that cable company if I *don't* unsubscribe. > So yes defection is always aggressive just sometimes in a very > passive or defensive way. Aggressive too. Well, so entering a crowded theater is not only defecting against the other patrons, but committing an act of aggression. I dare say, few people are going to go along with your usage of words, so few, that you simply will not be understood. > Disagreement or challenge is only defection when it costs me > something and banter on a chat list seldom does. What about a lot of silly posts (from your POV) that cost you time and effort to wade through? Why is that not defection (according to you)? And since defection is always aggression, I am almost surely committing an act of aggression towards someone who reads my post, since surely some people will wish they hadn't. > Besides I was hoping for some peer review or > criticism from the scholarly types on the list. I am after all forwarding this > as a scientific theory. So please keep trying to give voice to any "bad > feelings" you might have about it. Oh, well, all right. In that case, I guess I should just let fly and tell you what I really think :-) Trying only to strive for the truth, not *trying* to be aggressive, best regards, sincerely, Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Aug 12 07:47:45 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:47:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00c801c8ea7d$10be55e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <26DB6C7C27E94664A095488F8D0AE6C5@Catbert> <148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808060919g17475181xc2cf48c4baf51a46@mail.gmail.com> <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080330v722acac5m5ca31e73426f4c53@mail.gmail.com> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano writes > I mean: let's drop the issue of whether 2+2=4 is a cultural construct, > and limit ourselves to the fact that "important", "beautiful", "fair", > "crucial" are. Right, okay. >> because in a *number* of ways, [emphasis added by me now] >> the "superiority" of one culture over another is as factual >> as night and day. As I said, though, there is a sliding scale... > > One needs however a scale to say that, a scale which necessarily does > not drop from the sky. Where we agree is on the fact that cultures and > civilisations are not "equal", as some naive and politically correct > "multiculturalism" would maintain. Where my position is different is > that I think that each civilisation is "superior" from its own point > of view - which does not prevent me in the least, as a member of a > specific culture where some values and not others have course, to > participate to such unavoidable "bias". Of course, the terms "superior" and "inferior" standing without qualifiers are necessarily very rough. The Christian soldiers of Spain marching into the valley of Mexico were awe-struck at the huge city and its architectural accomplishments. But not for an instant did they doubt that they were Spanish, and therefore superior, not even to mention Christian. Yet unless one of them was grossly dishonest, he would have to admit that in *some ways* the Aztecs were their superiors. >> Yes, perhaps only our language here is different. It sounds >> as though you and I would tend to take the same actions >> and support the same policies. > > Probably, or at least in most cases. Only, I think one can spare the > need of thinking to be "on the side of the angels" or of some > intrinsic disembodied truth. Oh, I myself don't ever make that particular mistake, to my knowledge. Really. For example, unlike the "enlightened liberal" who sees penal institutions and places to arrogantly reform and "correct" the objectively improper behavior of the broken or misguided prisoner, I see the prisoners as my equals. They have one set of values and I (and we!) have another set. So it's merely them or us. I really do avoid the words "better" or "superior" or such when speaking of us vs. them, and---to take the current situation---it makes me *very* uncomfortable to hear people talking about Arabic culture as inferior. In tribal conflicts, "we" will want to defeat them, and they'll want to defeat us, but that's it. If someone of my tribe starts talking about us being "superior" in the abstract, without, for example, specifying that our horses are faster or that we can throw spears further than they can, I'll want to correct him. Because, just as you say, it's not true. > For instance, getting back to the crucial importance of the European > contribution to what... most European and Western contemporaries would > consider as important, such conclusion may well be somewhat > inevitable, but is nevertheless perfectly legitimate, because no > judgment could ever be formed without adopting a criterion first, as > arbitrary as it may be. If one side has machine guns, and the other side spears, then I know who'll be superior at war making. The Japanese too, could easily see after 1853 that they needed to get up to speed. And it was objectively true (on my usage of words, sorry) that they were technologically backward. > And speaking of transhumanism, e.g., I think that perfectly > consistent bioluddists are not "misguided" - sometimes they understand > very well the terms of the alternative - but simply make a number of > choices that are fundamentally different and opposite to my own. Totally agree. Lee From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 10:28:26 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:28:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Handle With Care" - NYT Article In-Reply-To: <006f01c8fc35$7f06d6c0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> References: <006f01c8fc35$7f06d6c0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <580930c20808120328t7822bd0dg983a7fcf63d28694@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > Rachelle Hollander, a philosopher who directs the center, said the new > technologies were so powerful that "our saving grace, our inability to > affect things at a planetary level, is being lost to us," as human-induced > climate change is demonstrating. There are two main objections to the suggestion that the inability to affect things at a planetary level is a "saving grace", a myth the echo of which is not unheard of even in the H+ and/or singularitarian world: - Firstly, the cat is out of the bag. Unless we are willing to exterminate a significant percentage of the world population and regress all or most of it at a pre-industrial level, there is no way that "nature" can get back in the place of technology and planning. But even there, it would remain unclear how far back we should go. After all, the anthropic removal of a substantial part of the world forest, the alteration of hydro-geological balances, the extinction of some species and the selection of others with the related impact on the earth ecology started all with the neolithic revolution. - Secondly, and more importantly, where do they pick their blind faith that the "mother nature" does, or at least would, cater for a static, irenic, happy planetary balance, and that our species would be forever the darling of it? For all we know at this stage, perfectly natural processes might be at work that would evolve changes of scenario incompatible with our survival, and while "do not touch what you do not understand", or "if it works, don't fix it" may be sound principles in everydaty life, geo-engineering may well be our only way out of them; or unintended consequences of our presence and activities may have already protected us from very undesirable developments. Within current obsession with existential risks - a trend which has some undeniable advantages for the penetration of transhumanist ideas - it is remarkable that even for prophets of doom like Martin Rees, who believes this to be our "last century", the anthropic risks count for a very small percentage amongst the most likely causes of imminent extinction for our species. Stefano Vaj Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 12:08:32 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:08:32 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <26DB6C7C27E94664A095488F8D0AE6C5@Catbert> <148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808060919g17475181xc2cf48c4baf51a46@mail.gmail.com> <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080330v722acac5m5ca31e73426f4c53@mail.gmail.com> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Oh, I myself don't ever make that particular mistake, to my knowledge. > Really. For example, unlike the "enlightened liberal" who sees penal > institutions and places to arrogantly reform and "correct" the objectively > improper behavior of the broken or misguided prisoner, I see the > prisoners as my equals. They have one set of values and I (and we!) > have another set. So it's merely them or us. Absolutely. Of course, ad personam arguments do exist, meaning that if you can find a common ground with a criminal, or, say, with a neoluddite :-), you can show them the "error of their ways", namely in terms of inconsistency with one part or another of *their own* worldview. But at the end of the day, different views and choices cannot always and entirely be reduced to rational mistakes. In fact, when I see "moderate", "sensible", "responsible" transhumanists going out of their way in seek of general acceptance, or loudly complaining to be perceived as revolutionary,I am under the impression that they are the first who do no accept that the idea that somebody may in fact be actually averse to our, or their, ideas, not out of ignorance or bias, but simply because they actually... do not like them. > If one side has machine guns, and the other side spears, then I > know who'll be superior at war making. Interestingly, exactly this argument was raised in a recent thread in the Italian H+ mailing list. Let us say that on one side there is a colonel giving his platoon machine guns, on the other side a powerful shaman that can make his men invulnerable with an enchantment and throw lethal curses, and that soldiers and tribesmen go to battle. While we could in principle admit that the soldier and the tribesmen simply inhabit different realities, the first reality seems to have some obvious Darwinian edge, as far as competition amongst realities goes, on the second, namely in the sense that in the clash of the two the second tends to be overcome and disappear. Or, even though theoretically the shaman might go as far as to claim that he is the one who actually won the battle, this is what happens in your and my shared reality, the only we can sensibly speak of and care for. This, I believe, has strong implications for the transhumanist view of technoscience. One need not be a naive XIX century positivist to see or admit that technoscience is a *superior* (in the qualified sense discussed above) form of magic, in comparison with other forms known to our and other cultures. Stefano Vaj From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 12:22:42 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:22:42 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The imams and advanced bioscience in Iran In-Reply-To: <006b01c8fc2d$74117c50$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080810231940.024ea348@satx.rr.com> <006b01c8fc2d$74117c50$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: 2008/8/12 Lee Corbin : >> A sensible definition of the beginning of human life is that it takes >> place sometime during the foetus's development. For many, both religious and >> non-religious, this is defined as when consciousness switches on. > > Rubbish. He doesn't seem to mind at all that the Iranians (see > below) pick 120 days. The Japanese use to pick three months, > if I recall correctly. Up until then, the Japs were legally able > to kill their newborns. I'll bet the author would be very uncomfortable with > the logical extension of his belief here. Peter Singer follows his arguments where they logically lead and concludes that infanticide isn't as bad as we generally think it is. For this intellectual honesty he has sometimes been vilified. It's a difficult problem: I want to be rational and consistent, support abortion, but I don't want to kill babies! -- Stathis Papaioannou From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 12:23:51 2008 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:23:51 -0300 Subject: [ExI] "Handle With Care" - NYT Article References: <006f01c8fc35$7f06d6c0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <0e8001c8fc76$48fed5a0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Olga Boulin>Similar questions are being raised about nanotechnology, robotics and other powerful emerging technologies. >There are even those who suggest humanity should collectively decide to >turn away from some new >technologies as inherently dangerous. [rant mode on] Why there are allways people who'll never learn that it's not possible to close a can of worms once opened? The history tells us that every technology, once attained, will be used. And then there's terraforming. We do it one way or the other since we made the change from hunters to farmers. And it's totally chaotic and unplanned and usually with a lot of collateral. Why not do it in a more rational way? Damn luddites... [rant mode off] From pharos at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 12:25:35 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:25:35 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808060919g17475181xc2cf48c4baf51a46@mail.gmail.com> <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080330v722acac5m5ca31e73426f4c53@mail.gmail.com> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > But at the end of the day, different views and choices cannot always > and entirely be reduced to rational mistakes. In fact, when I see > "moderate", "sensible", "responsible" transhumanists going out of > their way in seek of general acceptance, or loudly complaining to be > perceived as revolutionary,I am under the impression that they are the > first who do no accept that the idea that somebody may in fact be > actually averse to our, or their, ideas, not out of ignorance or bias, > but simply because they actually... do not like them. > http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/20000/2000/200/20718/20718.strip.print.gif BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 13:24:01 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:24:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The imams and advanced bioscience in Iran In-Reply-To: <006b01c8fc2d$74117c50$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080810231940.024ea348@satx.rr.com> <006b01c8fc2d$74117c50$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808120624u596694dbw13e63956695c2c27@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Rubbish. He doesn't seem to mind at all that the Iranians (see > below) pick 120 days. The Japanese use to pick three months, > if I recall correctly. Up until then, the Japs were legally able > to kill their newborns. I'll bet the author would be very uncomfortable with > the logical extension of his belief here. Yes. I understand this practice was called "mabiki" (literally referring to the "culling of the weaker plants of rice") and was adopted both for eugenic and, more rarely, birth-control purposes well into the XX century. Midwives were in charge of that, and they used to present routinely the newborn to the father's examination, asking politely if he or she should "stay" or "go". All in all, it does not appear very different from pre-Christian traditional European practices. Francis Crick, the co-Nobelist with Watson for the discovery of DNA, raised in turn some scandal in France in 1970 indicating during an interview that he favoured a legal re-definition of one's "birth" allowing for a two-days period aimed at making possible a more in-depth medical examination, and possible eugenic selection, of newborns. Needless to say, amniocentesis, villocentesis and new upcoming technologies are steadily reducing the relevance of legal infanticide for eugenic purposes. The issue remains for possible euthanasic purposes. Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Aug 12 13:26:09 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:26:09 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808060919g17475181xc2cf48c4baf51a46@mail.gmail.com> <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080330v722acac5m5ca31e73426f4c53@mail.gmail.com> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20808120626n579cddefs369d7e3342e1e365@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:25 PM, BillK wrote: http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/20000/2000/200/20718/20718.strip.print.gif > :-)))) Stefano Vaj From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Tue Aug 12 14:11:58 2008 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:11:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] The imams and advanced bioscience in Iran In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <821512.72019.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> The article Damian posted said that in the UK the Catholic church was leading opposition to embryo research. Lee asked why the Catholic church, and why didn't the author mention the Anglican church? Well, the short answer is that most of the opposition to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (latest legislation affecting embryo research, reproductive medicine and abortion) that you see in the UK media has come from Catholic priests and politicians who are playing to the religious/moral majority crowd. There may be many Anglican priests who have issues with the new legislation, but either they're too busy with the whole gay priests, women bishops, and all the other potentially schism-causing issues paralysing the Anglican Communion, or their voices have been drowned out by Catholic priests in the media. It is interesting to note that in terms of weekly churchgoers, the Catholic and Anglican churches are almost level in the UK. Most "Anglicans" only go to church for a Christmas service or a christening/ wedding/ funeral. The article is from a UK newspaper, so presumably the writer didn't feel the need to mention the details of the UK politics of embryo research, as anyone reading that newspaper's articles on the Iranian viewpoint would probably have read the same newspaper's coverage of the UK political debates. Currently leading a facebook group encouraging people to support the HFE Bill is the UK transhumanist association's Darren Reynolds. He's getting people to lobby their politicians and write to newspapers (and all your other staples of citizen activism) to say that the new legislation is well thought-out and will work well (makes a change for government legislation eh?) Tom Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Aug 12 19:56:20 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:56:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "Handle With Care" - NYT Article In-Reply-To: <0e8001c8fc76$48fed5a0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> References: <006f01c8fc35$7f06d6c0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <0e8001c8fc76$48fed5a0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080812143820.023cb0d8@satx.rr.com> At 09:23 AM 8/12/2008 -0300, Henrique Moraes Machado ranted contra luddites: >And then there's terraforming. We do it one way or the other since >we made the change from hunters to farmers. And it's totally chaotic >and unplanned and usually with a lot of collateral. Why not do it in >a more rational way? Because... (I have a cold so my brain isn't working with any degree of agility, so make allowances...): The way things were before humans intervened was "totally chaotic and unplanned and usually with a lot of collateral," but remembering that "chaotic" implies regularities and patterns not immediately evident. The global ecosphere evolved in this state. Humans then simplified chunks of the landscape and the pattern was to some extent broken or put on hold, but tended to reassert itself eventually. If a biome has evolved to use large-scale lightning-caused fires to renew itself, human interventions that seem "rational" are liable to cause far worse conflagrations at longer intervals. Monocropping looks rational until a plague comes along and wipes out everything, instead of just blighting some of the crop. What seems to me rational (or meta-rational) is to start from a fairly cautious awareness of how little is really understood of the interactions in nature, especially the modified nature we're surrounded by, and that position probably more closely resembles the attitude of a 21st century "luddite" who goes to the dentist and uses a cellphone than it does a 20th century technocrat for whom everything could be done in a series of rational, top-down, fiat five-year plans. (Not that I imagine you'd favor the latter, of course.) We should be careful not so much concerning what we wish for, as in regard to the means by which we try to bring those wishes into reality. Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 13 00:44:28 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Critter's Dilemma on the African Plain In-Reply-To: <007c01c8fc4a$2aec2e40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <996897.89631.qm@web65415.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Stuart wrote (Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:31 PM) > > > Ignorance and defection both are failures to cooperate, so to > > speak. Although for precision I would prefer to simply call them > alternative > > options. Remember that all three moves are very precisely defined. > Defection > > does not have to be at all violent or aggressive or even intentional. > > Well, that really seems to do violence to the original meaning of > the *game* theory in which one is trying to win by causing another > to lose. I have searched through several pages of Google links > without apparently finding any usage that does not involve both > a conscious decision and a definite adversarial stance. In fact, > almost all the links for "game theory defect" that I've seen go > straight to the classic PD. Yeah I know. But it is a brand new game and I had to call the moves something. If you prefer, you can call the moves Snap, Crackle, and Pop instead of Cooperate, Ignore, and Defect. As long as you keep the payoffs the same, the math and the game still work. Furthermore you can easily see that PD is a subgame of CD. All one has to do is eliminate the Ignore (Crackle?) option. But I wouldn't, it is much more advantageous to be a critter than a prisoner. > Therefore, you are using the term in a very non-standard way > so far as I can see. Yes. I think I gave fair warning of that in my initial post. > > I define it as the incurring of a non-neglible economic cost upon > > the other player by any measure of utility one desires, whether it > > be space, time, dollars, calories, offspring, or Darwinian fitness. > > So if I rent an apartment, I may be defecting against whoever it > is that would have come along next wanting the apartment, and > who may have to settle for something he or she doesn't like as > well? And if the population control zealots are right, then we are > all defecting against one another by our mere presence; and if > I enter a crowded theatre, then clearly I am, once again by your > usage, defecting against the other patrons. Those are interesting examples that show that you have been thinking about CD. While we may quibble over whether an opportunity cost is an actual cost or not, in terms of utility, (how can you lose something you don't yet have?) in a general sense you right. By virtue of having to compete for apartments, seats in a theater, jobs, or ecological niches, we ARE mutually defecting (popping) on one another. That is what intraspecies competition is all about. All that defection flying around can be somewhat depressing but then you come to realize that it is a fate shared by all living things, so at least we have company in our misery. And even top predators feel the sting of intraspecies competition sometimes more so then they do interspecies competition. Just ask the deposed male lion who loses his territory, pride, life, and youngest cubs to a young upstart, inevitably, every generation like clockwork. Of course by virtue of intelligence, humanity is capable creating economies, laws, and other cooperative systems that lessen the spite of competition. So out of all the critters of earth, we have the most cause for hope and optimism. > People who would consider me to be defecting because I'm in a car > that's preceding them in a traffic jam, and conclude that this was > "aggression" of a sort, are really overreacting. So the "some people" > you refer to here, while they do exist, I hardly consider to be rational > or sane types. Well if one car length on a crowded freeway is considered a non-neglible cost to someone, they must be really impoverished, so much so that all the money in the world will not make them rich. > Well, it was aesthetically unappealing---so naturally we might not > be surprised that he shot the snorer. I wouldn't call that irrational > at all. What's irrational about it? Vlad the Destroyer got a lot of > respect from his people for very similar actions. The irrationality lies in how unbalanced the retaliation was compared to the initial defection. It is like a hundred tats for a tit. > It's simply low down, mean, unscrupulous, homicidal, and psychopathic, > and people like that must be first of all (1) hated, and hated passionately > by us all, and (2) seized, tried, (to make sure we got the right guy), and > executed. And if it will cut down on the probability of other psychopaths > taking similar action, I wouldn't even mind having his head displayed on > the end of a pole, the bastard. Well, Lee, if you leave justice to the state, you may be disappointed. By his own admission, John Wesley Hardin killed 44 men. He was eventually caught and tried. According to Wikipedia: "Hardin was tried and sentenced to prison but entered prison with a pre-law degree he had earned along with his brother. He finished his law degree while incarcerated. After serving 17 years in prison Hardin was released, pardoned for any outstanding offenses, and began practicing law as an attorney in El Paso, Texas." Of course, those who live by the sword do die by the sword, and at the age of 42, Hardin was shot in the back of the head by a *private citizen* who was later aquited by a hung jury. So the justice of CD is harder to escape than state law enforcement. Which is fortunate for those critters who don't have states. > "Retaliation"? *I* am retaliating against the cable company because > *they* serve me up a product I don't any longer find appealing or > worth the cost? Then it must mean to you that Defection (on your > usage) is often praiseworthy. On the other hand, your usage is so > broad here that I could be defecting against the other customers who > use that cable company if I *don't* unsubscribe. Would the cable company consider your unsubscribing to be a non-neglible cost? Would other cable subscribers see you *not* unsubscribing as a non-neglible cost to them? > > So yes defection is always aggressive just sometimes in a very > > passive or defensive way. > > Aggressive too. Well, so entering a crowded theater is not only > defecting against the other patrons, but committing an act of > aggression. I dare say, few people are going to go along with > your usage of words, so few, that you simply will not be > understood. If it's opening night of an eagerly anticipated movie, you probably won't get a seat, *unless* you agressively pursue your goal of seeing the movie that night. You have to get there early, get a place in line, and defend your place in line from all attempts to cut in front of you. In other words, you pay a price in time, stress, and aggravation that far exceeds the ticket price of $6.00. Sorry, I don't make the rules. I just try to understand them. > > Disagreement or challenge is only defection when it costs me > > something and banter on a chat list seldom does. > > What about a lot of silly posts (from your POV) that cost you time > and effort to wade through? Why is that not defection (according > to you)? And since defection is always aggression, I am almost > surely committing an act of aggression towards someone who reads > my post, since surely some people will wish they hadn't. No poster forces anyone to read their post. If someone does and afterwards regrets spending the time to read it, they have essentially defected on themselves. Kind of like flushing their own money down the toilet. That is not to say that anybody who *knowingly* posts garbage to the list is not defecting on the list, just that one critter's garbage can be another critter's lunch. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A portion of mankind take pride in their vices and pursue their purpose; many more waver between doing what is right and complying with what is wrong." - Horace From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Aug 13 05:16:08 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:16:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Handle With Care" - NYT Article References: <006f01c8fc35$7f06d6c0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <00da01c8fd04$1ca9dd90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Olga posted http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/science/12ethics.html?_r=2&8dpc&oref=slogi&oref=slogin that contained "...a California-based concern, announced it would embark on a private effort to fertilize part of the South Atlantic with iron, in hopes of producing carbon-absorbing plankton blooms that the company could market as carbon offsets. Countries bound by the London Convention, an international treaty governing dumping at sea, issued a "statement of concern" about the work and a United Nations group called for a moratorium, but it is not clear what would have happened had Planktos not abandoned the effort for lack of money." We may be right on target for Niven and Pournelle's predictions in their book "Fallen Angels", in which by overcompensating against global warming, environmentalist zealots bring about an ice age, and generate a glacier that in North America reaches all the way down to Milwalkee and Winnipeg. I echo the opinions of others here that we don't know enough about what is happening or about what "we" can do, to start furiously taking action. Bjorn Lomborg suggests that by getting as wealthy as we can now, we will be in a better position to take action if and and when it is needed later. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Aug 13 05:35:54 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:35:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <26DB6C7C27E94664A095488F8D0AE6C5@Catbert> <148f01c8f6da$e7799ef0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808060919g17475181xc2cf48c4baf51a46@mail.gmail.com> <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080330v722acac5m5ca31e73426f4c53@mail.gmail.com> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano writes > Lee wrote: > >> Oh, I myself don't ever make that particular mistake, to my knowledge. >> Really. For example, unlike the "enlightened liberal" who sees penal >> institutions and places to arrogantly reform and "correct" the objectively >> improper behavior of the broken or misguided prisoner, I see the >> prisoners as my equals. They have one set of values and I (and we!) >> have another set. So it's merely them or us. > > ... > Of course, ad personam arguments do exist, meaning that if you can > find a common ground with a criminal, or, say, with a neoluddite :-), > you can show them the "error of their ways", namely in terms of > inconsistency with one part or another of *their own* worldview. Yes, exactly! It's a fascinating project to imagine oneself cooped up with Adolf Hitler in a two person cell for many years. You could start with "hath not a Jew eyes" and go from there! Of course, as a collectivist there will probably remain insoluble differences in his outlook and values compared to yours. But they may be minimized. What I also wonder about, along the same fantastical lines, is whether there would tend to be an irresistible drift of one's own opinions towards the views of someone else, provided that they continued to argue and think coherently. It's happening a tiny bit to me at work, I must confess, with someone who could not be more opposed to all our views here, an extremely religious individual who thinks that everything you and I and the people here believe to be "progress", he believes to be a decline. The Renaissance, for example, was a great step downwards. > But at the end of the day, different views and choices cannot always > and entirely be reduced to rational mistakes. In fact, when I see > "moderate", "sensible", "responsible" transhumanists going out of > their way in seek of general acceptance, or loudly complaining to be > perceived as revolutionary,I am under the impression that they are the > first who do no accept that the idea that somebody may in fact be > actually averse to our, or their, ideas, not out of ignorance or bias, > but simply because they actually... do not like them. Right. > While we could in principle admit that the [modern armed] soldier and > the tribesmen simply inhabit different realities, the first reality seems to have > some obvious Darwinian edge, as far as competition amongst realities > goes, on the second, namely in the sense that in the clash of the two > the second tends to be overcome and disappear. Yes, just as the "different reality" in which Neanderthals became dominant seems now not to be part of reality at all, or as when two planets coalesced between Venus and Mars instead of one (well, one big one and one very small one). But there's not much use in going around emphasizing that it's only in our reality that the Earth-Moon formed, just as there is no use in suggesting any realism adhering to the shaman's views, views which incidentally ended up getting a lot of his own people killed. Really. > Or, even though theoretically the shaman might go as far as to claim > that he is the one who actually won the battle, this is what happens > in your and my shared reality, the only we can sensibly speak of and > care for. > > This, I believe, has strong implications for the transhumanist view of > technoscience. One need not be a naive XIX century positivist to see > or admit that technoscience is a *superior* (in the qualified sense > discussed above) form of magic, in comparison with other forms known > to our and other cultures. Yes, but aren't you speaking of XX positivism? Sorry---you might be unfamiliar with the English term. It's used to mean the Vienna Circle evolved instrumentalist philosophy that rules out of bounds or meaningless anything that cannot be scientifically measured. The XIX century scientific materialists are closer to us than many of the XX century philosophers. Not sure what you meant. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Aug 13 05:41:37 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:41:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The imams and advanced bioscience in Iran References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080810231940.024ea348@satx.rr.com> <006b01c8fc2d$74117c50$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <00e901c8fd07$9f5a41f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > [Lee wrote] > >> He doesn't seem to mind at all that the Iranians pick 120 days. >> The Japanese use to pick three months, if I recall correctly. >> Up until then, the Japs were legally able to kill their newborns. >> I'll bet the author would be very uncomfortable with >> the logical extension of his belief here. > > Peter Singer follows his arguments where they logically lead and > concludes that infanticide isn't as bad as we generally think it is. I have to agree, though to waste a human, especially when so much literal work has been invested in one, is just terrible. But whether or not families should be able to do it without being attacked from outside is the separate question. > For this intellectual honesty he has sometimes been vilified. It's a > difficult problem: I want to be rational and consistent, support > abortion, but I don't want to kill babies! The obvious solution :-) is for you and me never to kill babies! And unless we are pretty sure they'll turn out to be worthless or worse citizens, we should in fact sponsor them. But we should also mind our own business when it comes to other people and *their* decisions. At least in free countries :-( Lee From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 09:08:28 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:08:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808060919g17475181xc2cf48c4baf51a46@mail.gmail.com> <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080330v722acac5m5ca31e73426f4c53@mail.gmail.com> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Yes, exactly! It's a fascinating project to imagine oneself cooped up > with Adolf Hitler in a two person cell for many years. You could start with > "hath not a Jew eyes" and go from there! Of course, as > a collectivist there will probably remain insoluble differences in > his outlook and values compared to yours. But they may be minimized. I do not know whether that is ironic, but as a practising lawyer I would say that actually a typical gimmick is to start from whatever admission or stipulation may be possible to obtain. A variant of the above approach is to play to the public, meaning that your opponent may well deny you the very modest "common ground" that, say, it is a good thing all other things being equal that knowledge be expanded, but by doing so he corners you in a position much less defensible than, say, the idea that genetic research should be forbidden. > What I also wonder about, along the same fantastical lines, is whether > there would tend to be an irresistible drift of one's own opinions towards > the views of someone else, provided that they continued to argue and > think coherently. It's happening a tiny bit to me at work, I must confess, > with someone who could not be more opposed to all our views here, > an extremely religious individual who thinks that everything you and > I and the people here believe to be "progress", he believes to be a > decline. The Renaissance, for example, was a great step downwards. No, I am not sure that argument in the long term makes you change your ideas. It may. Or it may help you (and your opponent) to think what you already think more radically and consistently. For instance, if he does not like the Renaissance, and can show good cause for it from its point of view, and I happen not to like the Renaissance either, if I am really opposed to his values this obviously calls for a revision of my previous opinion on the Renaissance. Accordingly, for a neoluddite debating with a transhumanist is not inevitably leading to its becoming a transhumanist, but at least is leading to his hating us for the right reasons... :-) > Yes, just as the "different reality" in which Neanderthals became dominant > seems now not to be part of reality at all, This is a good point, because at the end of the day even the most rabid multiculturalist should admit that when people sharing a given reality are totally extinct, such reality can hardly be said... to exist, unless perhaps as a anthropological and historical subject of study. :-) > Yes, but aren't you speaking of XX positivism? Sorry---you might be > unfamiliar with the English term. It's used to mean the Vienna Circle > evolved instrumentalist philosophy that rules out of bounds or > meaningless anything that cannot be scientifically measured. In fact, I am happy enough with the views of the Vienna Circle, Carnap and all the family... :-) > The XIX century scientific materialists are closer to us than many > of the XX century philosophers. Not sure what you meant. Certainly. I would say however that there was some degree of naive scientism, or "impatient reductionism" as Dennet puts it, in the view that everything, including, say, ethics, could quickly be decided by a little measuring and experimenting and that the world was just a nice, complicate clockwork mechanism. Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 09:25:37 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:25:37 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The imams and advanced bioscience in Iran In-Reply-To: <00e901c8fd07$9f5a41f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080810231940.024ea348@satx.rr.com> <006b01c8fc2d$74117c50$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00e901c8fd07$9f5a41f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808130225y71916448v1e3c7db5bfdf14ff@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > I have to agree, though to waste a human, especially when so > much literal work has been invested in one, is just terrible. > But whether or not families should be able to do it without > being attacked from outside is the separate question. I think three different positions may well coexist, as they are really on diffent planes: - the position favourable to the protection not only of an actual freedom of having children, but also of one's community's healthy demographic dynamic; - the idea that while it may well be a pity when some fellow citizen does not come into existence or does not wish to continue his or her existence, such feelings should not be legally enforced; - a personal disinclination for choosing as one's profession that of administering abortions, infanticides, capital sentences or euthanasias, as legal as they may be. Stefano Vaj From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 12:24:27 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:24:27 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808060919g17475181xc2cf48c4baf51a46@mail.gmail.com> <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080330v722acac5m5ca31e73426f4c53@mail.gmail.com> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: 2008/8/13 Lee Corbin : > Yes, but aren't you speaking of XX positivism? Sorry---you might be > unfamiliar with the English term. It's used to mean the Vienna Circle > evolved instrumentalist philosophy that rules out of bounds or > meaningless anything that cannot be scientifically measured. "Meaningless" or "nonsense" in a rather technical sense. The logical positivists allowed that there could be statements which were neither empirical nor analytic, and therefore strictly nonsense, but nevertheless *interesting* nonsense. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 12:37:19 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:37:19 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The imams and advanced bioscience in Iran In-Reply-To: <00e901c8fd07$9f5a41f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080810231940.024ea348@satx.rr.com> <006b01c8fc2d$74117c50$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00e901c8fd07$9f5a41f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: 2008/8/13 Lee Corbin : > The obvious solution :-) is for you and me never to kill babies! > And unless we are pretty sure they'll turn out to be worthless > or worse citizens, we should in fact sponsor them. But we should also mind > our own business when it comes to other > people and *their* decisions. At least in free countries :-( But there will come a point where the baby is recognised as a person that doesn't want to be killed or otherwise mistreated, and ultimately that point will be arbitrary. -- Stathis Papaioannou From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 13:11:58 2008 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:11:58 -0300 Subject: [ExI] "Handle With Care" - NYT Article References: <006f01c8fc35$7f06d6c0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z><0e8001c8fc76$48fed5a0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <7.0.1.0.2.20080812143820.023cb0d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <0fcd01c8fd46$2bebf080$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> >> At 09:23 AM 8/12/2008 -0300, Henrique Moraes Machado ranted contra >> luddites: >>And then there's terraforming. We do it one way or the other since we made >>the change from hunters to farmers. And it's totally chaotic and unplanned >>and usually with a lot of collateral. Why not do it in a more rational >>way? Damien> Because... (I have a cold so my brain isn't working with any degree > of agility, so make allowances...): > The way things were before humans intervened was "totally chaotic and > unplanned and usually with a lot of collateral," but remembering that > "chaotic" implies regularities and patterns not immediately evident. The > global ecosphere evolved in this state. Humans then simplified chunks of > the landscape and the pattern was to some extent broken or put on hold, > but tended to reassert itself eventually. If a biome has evolved to use > large-scale lightning-caused fires to renew itself, human interventions > that seem "rational" are liable to cause far worse conflagrations at > longer intervals. Monocropping looks rational until a plague comes along > and wipes out everything, instead of just blighting some of the crop. Not really. I never thought monocropping to be really rational (culture rotation, on the other hand), or deforestation to make pastures either. But, "let's terraform the Sahara" sort of thing seems interesting. Damien> What seems to me rational (or meta-rational) is to start from a > fairly cautious awareness of how little is really understood of the > interactions in nature, especially the modified nature we're surrounded > by, and that position probably more closely resembles the attitude of a > 21st century "luddite" who goes to the dentist and uses a cellphone than > it does a 20th century technocrat for whom everything could be done in a > series of rational, top-down, fiat five-year plans. (Not that I imagine > you'd favor the latter, of course.) We should be careful not so much > concerning what we wish for, as in regard to the means by which we try to > bring those wishes into reality. What I really mean is that we cand base our action (or lack of) on fear (caution is ok but not fear). Like "Hey, let's not mess with nanotech because we can all end eaten by gray goo", or "Let's not turn on the LHC because it can create a back hole and destroy the world" or "Let's not research cloning and genetics and stem cells because we can end with designer babies" (just for the record, I'm in full favour of designer babies). These are the kind of frelling piece of dren luddites I ranted contra. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 13:24:52 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:24:52 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The imams and advanced bioscience in Iran In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080810231940.024ea348@satx.rr.com> <006b01c8fc2d$74117c50$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00e901c8fd07$9f5a41f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808130624p59690c8dr1870df752f827dff@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > But there will come a point where the baby is recognised as a person > that doesn't want to be killed or otherwise mistreated, and ultimately > that point will be arbitrary. Yes. The issue is: do we accept that some kind of community has a say about that, or rather we believe that a given view on this point should be generally enforced, notwithstanding different opinions of the people more directly connected to the (prospective or actual) baby? Needless to say, even if we accept the first option, we remain entitled to debate where to fix such point as far our community is concerned. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Aug 13 13:44:24 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 06:44:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Critter's Dilemma on the African Plain In-Reply-To: <607461.80092.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200808131532.m7DFWYvj012096@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > The Avantguardian ... > Subject: [ExI] Critter's Dilemma on the African Plain > > They say a picture is worth a thousand words so I have > compiled some wild life videos from Africa that I think > beautifully illustrate Critter's Dilemma in action... > Stuart LaForge Excellent Avant, thanks! I took my son to a wild animal park and noticed something puzzling. The zebra's stripes are vertical on his torso but horizontal on his legs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra The same sort of stripe pattern is seen on the tiger. The tiger at the zoo had was even more striking in this characteristic than this wiki photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger These two beasts are very far removed from a common ancestor, but this stripe orientation is seen in both. I thought it was cool as all hell. {8-] spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Aug 13 16:22:48 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:22:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Critter's Dilemma on the African Plain In-Reply-To: <200808131532.m7DFWYvj012096@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <607461.80092.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <200808131532.m7DFWYvj012096@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080813111906.025c4700@satx.rr.com> At 06:44 AM 8/13/2008 -0700, spike wrote: >I took my son to a wild animal park and noticed something puzzling. The >zebra's stripes are vertical on his torso but horizontal on his legs Why puzzling? Torso and legs and snout are tubes; the stripes circle the tubes in a sequence of bands. I seem to recall it's a diffusion growth pattern. Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Aug 13 17:04:33 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:04:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Before the Gunfire, Cyberattacks Message-ID: <1218647300_45981@s2.cableone.net> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/technology/13cyber.html?ref=europe ===================================================== August 13, 2008 Before the Gunfire, Cyberattacks By JOHN MARKOFF Weeks before bombs started falling on Georgia, a security researcher in suburban Massachusetts was watching an attack against the country in cyberspace. Jose Nazario of Arbor Networks in Lexington noticed a stream of data directed at Georgian government sites containing the message: ?win+love+in+Rusia.? Other Internet experts in the United States said the attacks against Georgia?s Internet infrastructure began as early as July 20, with coordinated barrages of millions of requests ? known as distributed denial of service, or D.D.O.S., attacks ? that overloaded and effectively shut down Georgian servers. Researchers at Shadowserver, a volunteer group that tracks malicious network activity, reported that the Web site of the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, had been rendered inoperable for 24 hours by multiple D.D.O.S. attacks. They said the command and control server that directed the attack was based in the United States and had come online several weeks before it began the assault. As it turns out, the July attack may have been a dress rehearsal for an all-out cyberwar once the shooting started between Georgia and Russia. According to Internet technical experts, it was the first time a known cyberattack had coincided with a shooting war. But it will likely not be the last, said Bill Woodcock, the research director of the Packet Clearing House, a nonprofit organization that tracks Internet traffic. He said cyberattacks are so inexpensive and easy to mount, with few fingerprints, they will almost certainly remain a feature of modern warfare. ?It costs about 4 cents per machine,? Mr. Woodcock said. ?You could fund an entire cyberwarfare campaign for the cost of replacing a tank tread, so you would be foolish not to.? Exactly who was behind the cyberattack is not known. The Georgian government blamed Russia for the attacks, but the Russian government said it was not involved. In the end, Georgia, with a population of just 4.6 million and a relative latecomer to the Internet, saw little effect beyond inaccessibility to many of its government Web sites, which limited the government?s ability to spread its message online and to connect with sympathizers around the world during the fighting with Russia. It ranks 74th out of 234 nations in terms of Internet addresses, behind Nigeria, Bangladesh, Bolivia and El Salvador. Cyberattacks have far less impact on such a country than they might on a more Internet-dependent nation, like Israel, Estonia or the United States, where vital services like transportation, power and banking are tied to the Internet. In Georgia, media, communications and transportation companies were also attacked, according to security researchers. Shadowserver saw the attack against Georgia spread to computers throughout the government after Russian troops entered the Georgian province of South Ossetia. The National Bank of Georgia?s Web site was defaced at one point. Images of 20th-century dictators as well as an image of Georgia?s president, Mr. Saakashvili, were placed on the site. ?Could this somehow be indirect Russian action? Yes, but considering Russia is past playing nice and uses real bombs, they could have attacked more strategic targets or eliminated the infrastructure kinetically,? said Gadi Evron, an Israeli network security expert. ?The nature of what?s going on isn?t clear,? he said. The phrase ?a wilderness of mirrors? usually describes the murky world surrounding opposing intelligence agencies. It also neatly summarizes the array of conflicting facts and accusations encompassing the cyberwar now taking place in tandem with the Russian fighting in Georgia. In addition to D.D.O.S. attacks that crippled Georgia?s limited Internet infrastructure, researchers said there was evidence of redirection of Internet traffic through Russian telecommunications firms beginning last weekend. The attacks continued on Tuesday, controlled by software programs that were located in hosting centers controlled by a Russian telecommunications firms. A Russian-language Web site, stopgeorgia.ru, also continued to operate and offer software for download used for D.D.O.S. attacks. Over the weekend a number of American computer security researchers tracking malicious programs known as botnets, which were blasting streams of useless data at Georgian computers, said they saw clear evidence of a shadowy St. Petersburg-based criminal gang known as the Russian Business Network, or R.B.N. ?The attackers are using the same tools and the same attack commands that have been used by the R.B.N. and in some cases the attacks are being launched from computers they are known to control,? said Don Jackson, director of threat intelligence for SecureWorks, a computer security firm based in Atlanta. He noted that in the run-up to the start of the war over the weekend, computer researchers had watched as botnets were ?staged? in preparation for the attack, and then activated shortly before Russian air strikes began on Saturday. The evidence on R.B.N. and whether it is controlled by, or coordinating with the Russian government remains unclear. The group has been linked to online criminal activities including child pornography, malware, identity theft, phishing and spam. Other computer researchers said that R.B.N.?s role is ambiguous at best. ?We are simply seeing the attacks coming from known hosting services,? said Paul Ferguson, an advanced threat researcher at Trend Micro, an Internet security company based in Cupertino, Calif. A Russian government spokesman said that it was possible that individuals in Russia or elsewhere had taken it upon themselves to start the attacks. ?I cannot exclude this possibility,? Yevgeniy Khorishko, a spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington, said. ?There are people who don?t agree with something and they try to express themselves. You have people like this in your country.? ?Jumping to conclusions is premature,? said Mr. Evron, who founded the Israeli Computer Emergency Response Team. Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Aug 13 17:59:09 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:59:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction Message-ID: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> On another list I said. > >My best guess is that physical state humans will not exist long > >after the singularity--something I can't see holding off even half > >way to the end of this century. > > >Then the question becomes how our intellectual descendants deal with > >the problems. I suspect at best humans will have the status of > >cats--in some ways an unnerving prospect considering what we do to > >cats. A person responded with a statement that religious objections will keep people from uploading. I said: I know at least 4 people that if they got their hands on the technology would upload the lot of the religious folks looking for the Rapture. I know it isn't ethical. Perhaps I should write a story about a police officer who enters a rapture simulation to offer a rescue to the people in it. Story background, the evil dweeb hacker from Perth Amboy saved a copy of their state vector when they were uploaded. Their bodies are preserved. The simulation runs at 100 times wall clock, so by the time (a week) the poor cop goes in to tell them they are in a fake heaven they have been there 2 subjective years. They are offered: 1) reloading into their bodies with existing memories. 2) termination and reloading of their memories prior to the uploading into their physical bodies. 3) continuation in their current uploaded environment with memories that they are in a fake heaven 4) same as 3 but erasing the memory of the cop's visit. 5) same as 3 or 4 but forked with the original body being put back on the street with no memory of two years in heaven. Did I miss anything? What would you do with such an offer? Heh heh Keith From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Aug 13 16:44:10 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:44:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Critter's Dilemma on the African Plain In-Reply-To: <200808131532.m7DFWYvj012096@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <607461.80092.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <200808131532.m7DFWYvj012096@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:44 AM, spike wrote: > I took my son to a wild animal park and noticed something puzzling. The > zebra's stripes are vertical on his torso but horizontal on his legs: I'm puzzled by why male zebras' stripes are black on white, while females are white on black... - Jef From pharos at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 19:57:53 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:57:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:59 PM, hkhenson wrote: >snip> > Story background, the evil dweeb hacker from Perth Amboy saved a copy > of their state vector when they were uploaded. Their bodies are > preserved. The simulation runs at 100 times wall clock, so by the > time (a week) the poor cop goes in to tell them they are in a fake > heaven they have been there 2 subjective years. > > They are offered: > > 1) reloading into their bodies with existing memories. > 2) termination and reloading of their memories prior to the uploading > into their physical bodies. > 3) continuation in their current uploaded environment with memories > that they are in a fake heaven > 4) same as 3 but erasing the memory of the cop's visit. > 5) same as 3 or 4 but forked with the original body being put back on > the street with no memory of two years in heaven. > > Did I miss anything? What would you do with such an offer? > The technical problem is, How do you define a 'heaven' simulation? I suspect every rapture believer has a different expectation of heaven, so the super AGI will have to do a bit of mind reading and build a different 'heaven' for each believer and populate it accordingly. A further problem is that many believer's expectation of heaven might be rather simplistic and would get boring very quickly. So the AGI has the further problem of keeping 'heaven' interesting, while still fitting in with the believer's expectations. (Otherwise 'heaven' changes into 'hell' in short order). So, assume the AGI manages to do this and create a fulfilling environment for everyone. Isn't this exactly what everyone wants? Believer or unbeliever? The poor cop would go in and never come out again. BillK P.S. Get those 73 virgins ready! ;) P.P.S. I've often wondered what they promise female suicide bombers? From pharos at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 20:23:29 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:23:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Critter's Dilemma on the African Plain In-Reply-To: References: <607461.80092.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <200808131532.m7DFWYvj012096@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > I'm puzzled by why male zebras' stripes are black on white, while > females are white on black... > :) The interesting point is why are the stripes black and white? Their environment is the brown - green plains of Africa. The answer is that their main predator, the lion, is color-blind. But who told the zebras !!?? Was there an early zebra scientist doing dangerous color tests on lions? BillK From scerir at libero.it Wed Aug 13 21:09:38 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:09:38 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Problems with Special Relativity References: <012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com><0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com><00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><62c14240808071751n4bf22cbaledc3dccdaf4ba5b9@mail.gmail.com><006a01c8fa3f$4e589150$82064797@archimede> <0d6001c8faa7$6ab3cd70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <000301c8fd88$e6058480$fa094797@archimede> Good points Lee. Time is short now, but I try to answer something here, and maybe something later. [Lee] But an analogous *pedagogical* situation would be to say to a student trying to master Newtonian Mechanics, "of course, there are discrepancies, and so you perhaps should not spend a whole lot of time trying to understand things like the formulas for centripetal acceleration, Newton's proof that a sphere of material behaves as though its mass were concentrated at one point, and so on." It seems to me very important to try to understand what a theory is *saying* before focusing very much attention on not-well-understood subtleties. For example, I believe that were I to just shut out all these questions and conceptual difficulties you're bringing up *while* I am thinking of the various well-known paradoxes, I should try to remain completely inside the SR theory, and endeavor to understand it on its own terms. ------ How to teach SR and how to learn SR are interesting subjects indeed. John Bell writes [1]: "The approach of Einstein differs from that of Lorentz in two major ways. There is a difference of philosophy, and a difference of style. The difference of philosophy is this. Since it is experimentally impossible to say which of two uniformly moving systems is *really* at rest, Einstein declares the notions "really resting" and "really moving" as meaningless. For him only the *relative* motion of two or more uniformly moving objects is real. Lorentz, on the other hand, preferred the view that there is indeed a state of *real* rest, defined by the "aether", even though the laws of physics conspire to prevent us identifying it experimentally. The facts of physics do not oblige us to accept one philosophy rather than the other. And we need not accept Lorentz's philosophy to accept Lorentzian pedagogy. Its special merit is to drive home the lesson that the laws of physics in any *one* reference frame account for all physical phenomena, including the observations of moving observers. And it is often simpler to work in a single frame, rather than to hurry after each moving object in turn. The difference of style is that instead of inferring the experience of moving observers from known and conjectured laws of physics, Eintein starts from the *hypothesis* that the laws will look the same to all observers in uniform motion. This permits a very concise and elegant formulation of the theory, as often happens when one big assumption can be made to cover several less big ones. There is no intention here to make any reservation whatever about the power and the precision of Einstein's approach. But in my opinion there is also something to be said for taking students along the road made by Fitzgerald, Larmor, Lorentz and Poincar?. The longer road sometimes gives more familiarity with the country." In my opinion what Bell is saying is more than reasonable. SR does not seem to me to explain things in the proper, physical ways. It seems to me there is too much conventional stuff. I suggest this example, which is - not by chance - an elaboration of Bell's spaceships paradox. Two twins, Alice and Bob, plan a journey that involves accelerating from their home inertial frame S into a new inertial frame S', moving at speed v. They use identical spaceships, each containing exactly the same amount of fuel, and parked on the x axis of their home reference frame S, separated by a distance L. They synchronize the clocks in their spaceships with a clock which remains in home reference frame S. They start their engines, at the same time (this is easy and possible) and both accelerate off to the right along the x axis. After using all their fuel in the same amount of time, both spaceships have reached the speed v, and are travelling inertially in the new reference frame S'. Alice and Bob know that their accelerations (I would say: their dynamics) were identical. There are, at this point, these possibilities. 1) Alice and Bob, knowing that their dynamics were IDENTICAL, think and believe that the clocks inside their spaceships registered the same time (since the start), and that they have the same age. What they think seems, from a logical point of view, and perhaps from a natural (nature's choice) point of view, completely reasonable and true. 2) Alice and Bob this time unfortunately know SR. Their thinking is then counterintuitive. Despite of the fact that they experienced the SAME dynamics they know that their pre-synchronized clocks went out of synchrony during their travel. Quantitatively this de-synchronization turns out to be (from Lorentz Transf.) dt = - gamma v L / c^2 (in reference frame S') where gamma = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-1/2 L = the initial distance between the spaceships c = light velocity v = (inertial) velocity of reference frame S' over S. Obviously the above de-synchronization corresponds to a differential aging of the twins. (It is perhaps uncertain if they can read different times on their pre-synchronized clocks or if they can read different times on their clocks only when their clocks are re-synchronized.) [1] John Bell, 'How to Teach Special Relativity', in 'Progress in Scientific Culture', vol.1, n.2, Summer 1978. From mlatorra at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 21:29:59 2008 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:29:59 -0600 Subject: [ExI] TIME magazine, 1966 "THE FUTURISTS: Looking Toward A.D. 2000" Message-ID: <9ff585550808131429j53dd83f2nfbcf3c4f2cfaa740@mail.gmail.com> THE FUTURISTS: Looking Toward A.D. 2000 TIME magazine, Friday, Feb. 25, 1966 Article http://preview.tinyurl.com/5nraqb Some futurists like to make predictions about homey details of living. The kitchen, of course, will be automated. An A.D. 2000 housewife may well make out her menu for the week, put the necessary food into the proper storage spaces, and feed her program to a small computer. The experts at Stanford Research Institute visualize mechanical arms getting out the preselected food, cooking and serving it. Similarly programmed household robots would wash dishes, dispose of the garbage (onto a conveyer belt moving under the street), vacuum rugs, wash windows, cut the grass. Edward Fredkin, founder of Cambridge's Information International Inc., has already developed a computer-cum-mechanical-arm that can "see" a ball thrown its way and catch it. Soon, Fredkin expects his gadget to be able to play a mean game of pingpong. As for shopping, the housewife should be able to switch on to the local supermarket on the video phone, examine grapefruit and price them, all without stirring from her living room. But among the futurists, fortunately, are skeptics, and they are sure that remote shopping, while entirely feasible, will flop?because women like to get out of the house, like to handle the merchandise, like to be able to change their minds. Not everything that is possible will happen?unless people want it. One thing they almost certainly will want is electronic "information retrieval": the contents of libraries and other forms of information or education will be stored in a computer and will be instantly obtainable at home by dialing a code. In automated industry, not only manual workers, but also secretaries and most middle-level managers will have been replaced by computers. The remaining executives will be responsible for major decisions and long-range policy. Thus, society will seem idle, by present standards. According to one estimate, only 10% of the population will be working, and the rest will, in effect, have to be paid to be idle. This is not as radical a notion as it sounds. Even today, only 40% of the population works, not counting the labor performed by housewives or students. Already, says Tempo's John Fisher, "we are rationing work. By 1984, man will spend the first third of his life, or 25 years, getting an education, only the second one-third working, and the final third enjoying the fruits of his labor. There just won't be enough work to go around. Moonlighting will become as socially unacceptable as bigamy." By 2000, the machines will be producing so much that everyone in the U.S. will, in effect, be independently wealthy. With Government benefits, even nonworking families will have, by one estimate, an annual income of $30,000-$40,000 (in 1966 dollars). How to use leisure meaningfully will be a major problem, and Herman Kahn foresees a pleasure-oriented society full of "wholesome degeneracy." There are some who gloomily expect a society run by a small elected elite, presiding over a mindless multitude kept happy by drugs and circuses, much as in Huxley's Brave New World. But most futurists believe that work will still be the only way to gain responsibility and power. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 14 00:02:59 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:02:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Handle With Care" - NYT Article References: <006f01c8fc35$7f06d6c0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z><0e8001c8fc76$48fed5a0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <7.0.1.0.2.20080812143820.023cb0d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <016801c8fda1$2eeaa230$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien B. writes > Henrique Moraes Machado ranted contra luddites: > >>And then there's terraforming. We do it one way or the other since >>we made the change from hunters to farmers. And it's totally chaotic >>and unplanned and usually with a lot of collateral. Why not do it in >>a more rational way? > > Because... (I have a cold so my brain isn't working with any degree > of agility, so make allowances...): No allowances! All falsehoods will be exposed, denounced and extirpated, and all arguments subjected to ruthless scrutiny by the faithful to advance the Darwinian elimination of the weak! > The way things were before humans intervened was "totally chaotic and > unplanned and usually with a lot of collateral," but remembering that > "chaotic" implies regularities and patterns not immediately evident. I don't believe so. Firstly, "chaotic" ought to retain its standard meaning, and secondly, even in non-linear dynamics, grievously misnamed "chaos" (by some miscreant as yet unidentified) there do not necessarily have to be regularities or patterns. There *may* be, is the most that can be said. > The global ecosphere evolved in this state. Humans then simplified > chunks of the landscape and the pattern was to some extent broken or > put on hold, but tended to reassert itself eventually. Quite often, yes, but there are many catastrophes in nature quite without the existence of the so-called "artificial" endeavors of man. > If a biome has evolved to use large-scale lightning-caused fires to > renew itself, human interventions that seem "rational" are liable to > cause far worse conflagrations at longer intervals. Yes, quite so! There may even be an element of cultural chauvinism, for a lot of forested North America was regularly burned down by the natives. > What seems to me rational (or meta-rational) is to start from a > fairly cautious awareness of how little is really understood of the > interactions in nature, especially the modified nature we're > surrounded by, Yes, quite so! > and that position probably more closely resembles the > attitude of a 21st century "luddite" who goes to the dentist and uses > a cellphone than it does a 20th century technocrat for whom > everything could be done in a series of rational, top-down, fiat > five-year plans. Yes, beware of central planning. If there is one lesson the XX century should have taught, that's it. > (Not that I imagine you'd favor the latter, of course.) We should > be careful not so much concerning what we wish for, as in regard > to the means by which we try to bring those wishes into reality. > > Piety is good. No apologies needed! :-) Lee From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Aug 14 01:31:11 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:31:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Critter's Dilemma on the African Plain In-Reply-To: References: <607461.80092.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <200808131532.m7DFWYvj012096@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240808131831k12a57140q1e2554102319852@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:23 PM, BillK wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > > I'm puzzled by why male zebras' stripes are black on white, while > > females are white on black... > The interesting point is why are the stripes black and white? > Their environment is the brown - green plains of Africa. > > The answer is that their main predator, the lion, is color-blind. > But who told the zebras !!?? > Was there an early zebra scientist doing dangerous color tests on lions? > No, it was zebra fashionistas who wanted to appear slimmer and therefor less appetizing. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Aug 14 01:57:01 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:57:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> Message-ID: <62c14240808131857v6aadbfd4gf5a4e7ce3d811eeb@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 3:57 PM, BillK wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:59 PM, hkhenson wrote: > > Did I miss anything? What would you do with such an offer? > > The technical problem is, How do you define a 'heaven' simulation? > > But the question was: what would _you_ do with such an offer? I think I would opt for continuing in the simulation with full knowledge of the simulation. I would also like to spawn another self that remains blissfully unaware (having had all memory of the cop redacted) The more difficult decision is what to do with the meat body: Return consciousness to it unaware of the simulation, essentially ignorant of an otherwise accessible parallel world - or to wake it up with a copy of the fully-aware simulation self. I think I'd have to opt for the full awareness of reality-as-I-understand-it-so-far. That's the most consistent and "real" version of awareness (no inexplicable holes in recent personal/subjective experience). I would then attempt to take up the following "professions" - ignorant-sim-self goes on doing whatever it may be that the heaven software generates for bliss. Aware-sim-self monitors the blissfully ignorant instance as a form of introspective self-reflection or perhaps as a different entity altogether (divorcing identity-equality with something like "I don't even know you anymore") The flesh-based self may live a carefree existence with the knowledge that some form of identity persists beyond the normal realm of physical mortality issues and will likely try to convince others to adopt a similar state of being. I wouldn't go so far as to call is proselytizing, but in the same way I invited my friends to use gmail, I might suggest people try the sim existence known as 'heaven' for themselves and make their own choice. The idea behind this is to establish a greater network of relationships in both worlds. That strikes me as obvious: increased membership increases potential complexity and therefore more interesting possibility. Does aware-sim-self get to have contact with aware-meat-self? That might make possible some interesting conversations. Well, at least as interesting as those conversations we might have with those friends who know us well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 14 03:36:09 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:36:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Eurocentric Bias in Human Achievement In-Reply-To: <0a1e01c8f886$a2879600$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <200808140337.m7E3bc9V025935@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Henrique Moraes Machado (CI) ... > > I like to agree with James Burke on this. What made european > civilisation dominate the world was the way it constantly > changes and reinvents (see the excellent documentary "The Day > The Universe Changed")... James Burke does an excellent job of interpreting history's critical points in terms not of wars or elections but rather as scientific discoveries and technological developments. This approach is second nature to most of the readers of this forum, but when Burke's Connections first appeared in 1978 it was a novel way to approach historical interpretation. spike From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 14 04:07:38 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:07:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] french transhumanists, was RE: MEDIA: "Evolution Haute Couture" In-Reply-To: <009a01c8f96b$6e892e00$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> Message-ID: <200808140436.m7E4Zl8Y027603@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Participating Artists: Paula GaetanoAdi (Argentina) Mauro Annunziato & Piero Pierucci (Italy) James Auger Jimmy Loizeau (UK) Brandon Ballengee(USA) Laura Beloff (Finland) David Bowen (USA) Oron Catts Ionat Zurr (Australia) Adrian David Cheok (Singapore) Carlos Corpa (Spain) Critical Art Ensemble (USA) Joe Davis (USA) Marta de Menezes (Portugal Louis-Philippe Demers (Canada) Erwin Driessens & Maria Verstappen (The Netherlands) Tagny Duff (Canada) Arthur Elsenaar Remko Scha (The Netherlands) Julie Freeman (UK) George Gessert (USA) Ken Goldberg (USA) Isa Gordon (USA) Andy Gracie (UK) Paul Granjon (Wales) Mateusz Herczka (Sweden) Floris Kaayk (The Netherlands) Verena Kamini (Canada) Leonel Moura (Portugal) Orlan (France) Nicolas Reeves (Canada) Julia Reodica (USA) Ken Rinaldo (USA) Marcel.l?Ant?nez Roca (Spain) Kathleen Rogers (UK) Phill Ross (USA) SymbioticA The Potter Lab (Australia) and (USA) Stelarc (Australia) Paul Thomas (Australia) Tanja Visosevic & Guy Ben-Ary (Australia) Bill Vorn (Canada) Natasha Vita-More (USA) Adam Zaretsky (USA) Question please: in transhumanist functions in general, I perceive a curious lack of participation by the French. On typical lists, I see plenty of Italian, Gene and his friends are German, Anders and his friends from Sweden, plenty of Brits, Australians, yanks, Brazilians, other South Americans, Spanish, Portugese, other Europeans, but few French. Why? Is anyone here living in France or from there? There is a reason I ask. Today I saw some teen internet chatter with its usual phonetic spellings (How R U, etc) and it made me think of a curious French habit: they keep on spelling after they finished talking. So when French youth banter on the internet, do they slaughter the French spellings even worse than the English typing people? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 14 04:35:34 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:35:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] knowledge at hand Message-ID: <019801c8fdc7$552582a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> How appealing is "knowledge at hand", anyway, i.e., being able to remember the order of the eight planets and their approximate distances? Or to know off the top of your head the first three rows of the periodic chart, to say nothing of remembering history and dates? Anyway, the following has many interesting implications not directly related to the point I just made: http://www.wired.com/print/medtech/health/magazine/16-05/ff_wozniak In the first place, Ebbinghaus has been forgotten, and the professional educators won the battle, unfortunately, with the psychologists. Lee From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Aug 14 04:39:15 2008 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:39:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Ben Goertzel at The Future and You Message-ID: <470a3c520808132139u7349eb67l40332bfbcc6dc065@mail.gmail.com> http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/ben_goertzel_at_the_future_and_you/ Ben Goertzel, noted scientist, author, futurist and pioneer in the field of Artificial Intelligence, was the featured guest of the August 13, 2008 Episode of The Future and You. Topics he discusses include: Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), the singularity, transhumanism, human immortality and how long he expects to live, and why (like the show's host Stephen Euin Cobb) he is a founding member of the Order of Cosmic Engineers. The Future and You (Wikipedia) is an award-winning podcast hosted by Stephen Euin Cobb. The show's host interviews a variety of authors, scientists, celebrities and "pioneers of the future" as to what they believe both the near future and distant future will be like for individuals as well as for humanity in general. Highlights of the interview include: The mechanism of human empathy seems to have been identified, and so can be reproduced in AI; even AI that is radically different in its thinking from human beings. Doctor Goertzel explains that this empathy is not based on emotion, and he emphasizes that he does not want to create an AI which is governed by its emotions. He stresses that the human mind does not qualify as a completely 'General Intelligence' but lies somewhere on the spectrum between AGI on one end and 'Narrow AI' on the other. This is one of several reasons why he does not expect AGI to be achieved by mimicking the workings of the human brain. He describes how our brains fool us into believing that we understand our actions and decisions when we don't. And why modeling an AI too closely on the human brain might make it too, vulnerable to false notions. He also says, 'I think virtual worlds are going to be absolutely critical to the development of Artificial General Intelligence.' As well as 'Right now connecting AI's to virtual worlds is probably the best way to get an AI to have a general human-like embodied experience.' From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 14 05:10:28 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:10:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Critter's Dilemma on the African Plain References: <996897.89631.qm@web65415.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01ac01c8fdcc$3f6b4710$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart writes > [Lee wrote] > >> I have searched through several pages of Google links >> without apparently finding any usage that does not involve both >> a conscious decision and a definite adversarial stance. In fact, >> almost all the links for "game theory defect" that I've seen go >> straight to the classic PD. > > Yeah I know. But it is a brand new game and I had to call the moves something. > If you prefer, you can call the moves Snap, Crackle, and Pop instead of > Cooperate, Ignore, and Defect. Why don't you come up with terms that (a) are not already well-defined in exactly the same context, (b) are not silly and hard to remember? Thinking up a good name for these moves of yours is even more important than thinking up appropriate names for programming variables (which is *plenty* important). >> Therefore, you are using the term in a very non-standard way >> so far as I can see. > > Yes. I think I gave fair warning of that in my initial post. I evidently read too fast. How would you feel if I said at the beginning of a post that "not all the terms I'm going to use here have their standard meanings", and then proceeded to state 1. John Kennedy was the first president of the United States 2. Stuart L. is an asshole 3. The United States has one of the lowest per capita incomes in the entire world where, it turns out, that by "president" I mean "Catholic president", and by "asshole" I mean "intelligent guy", and by "lowest" I mean "highest"? > By virtue of having to compete for apartments, seats in a theater, > jobs, or ecological niches, we ARE mutually defecting (popping) > on one another. That is what intraspecies competition is all about. Okay, if you're going to stick with "snap", "crackle", and "pop", (I sincerely suggest you stay away from "defect" and "cooperate", but "ignore" I guess fits), then please provide very careful definitions with examples (and counter-examples). Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 14 05:19:01 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:19:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <14a301c8f70e$cf747da0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808060919g17475181xc2cf48c4baf51a46@mail.gmail.com> <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080330v722acac5m5ca31e73426f4c53@mail.gmail.com> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano writes > Lee wrote: > >> Yes, exactly! It's a fascinating project to imagine oneself cooped up >> with Adolf Hitler in a two person cell for many years. You could start with >> "hath not a Jew eyes?" and go from there! Of course, as a collectivist >> there will probably remain insoluble differences in his outlook and values >> compared to yours. But they may be minimized. > > I do not know whether that is ironic, Just out of curiosity, how could that be read ironically? I did mean every word. > but as a practising lawyer I would say that actually a typical > gimmick is to start from whatever admission or stipulation may > be possible to obtain. I'm just thinking of ordinary debates. If you and I disagree on something, don't we necessarily try to find statements that the other is forced to agree with, that lead him or her towards our way of thinking? > A variant of the above approach is to play to the public, meaning that > your opponent may well deny you the very modest "common ground" that, > say, it is a good thing all other things being equal that knowledge be > expanded, but by doing so he corners you in a position much less > defensible than, say, the idea that genetic research should be > forbidden. I like to think that I'm thinking that I'm merely in a two-person conversation, but of course I have noticed that my style does change on account of our audience. But here, are you implying that your adversary will be lying when he denies you a "common ground" that in his heart he does readily accept? I could never stand the very idea of "debate" in high school, it seemed somehow very dishonest and wicked to argue a point that you did not believe. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 14 05:23:27 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:23:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The imams and advanced bioscience in Iran References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080810231940.024ea348@satx.rr.com> <006b01c8fc2d$74117c50$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00e901c8fd07$9f5a41f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <01b801c8fdce$5abd39e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > Lee [wrote] > >> The obvious solution :-) is for you and me never to kill babies! >> And unless we are pretty sure they'll turn out to be worthless >> or worse citizens, we should in fact sponsor them. But we >> should also mind our own business when it comes to other >> people and *their* decisions. At least in free countries :-( > > But there will come a point where the baby is recognised as a person > that doesn't want to be killed or otherwise mistreated, and ultimately > that point will be arbitrary. Yes, quite so. But so is the age at which drinking is allowed, the age one must first attain to be elected president, and numerous other arbitrary lines. This stems, of course, from the fact that we must often make binary decisions (e.g. "yes" or "no") about phenomena that lie on a continuum. So no harm in that; in fact, it's downright necessary. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 14 05:27:57 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:27:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Handle With Care" - NYT Article References: <006f01c8fc35$7f06d6c0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z><0e8001c8fc76$48fed5a0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm><7.0.1.0.2.20080812143820.023cb0d8@satx.rr.com> <0fcd01c8fd46$2bebf080$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <01c601c8fdcf$0ee4ea80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Henrique writes > Damien [B. wrote] > >> If a biome has evolved to use >> large-scale lightning-caused fires to renew itself, human interventions >> that seem "rational" are liable to cause far worse conflagrations at >> longer intervals. Monocropping looks rational until a plague comes along >> and wipes out everything, instead of just blighting some of the crop. > > Not really. I never thought monocropping to be really rational (culture > rotation, on the other hand), or deforestation to make pastures either. > But, "let's terraform the Sahara" sort of thing seems interesting. I'd want to know more about crop rotation and everything before I'd chime in on this one. But I totally agree with your sentiment, and I think with your orientation. We can *try* terraforming this or that, until we find out that there is something wrong with it. It's the same generally in life: do experiment, but do try to be careful. Lee > What I really mean is that we cand base our action (or lack of) on fear > (caution is ok but not fear). Like "Hey, let's not mess with nanotech > because we can all end eaten by gray goo", or "Let's not turn on the LHC > because it can create a back hole and destroy the world" or "Let's not > research cloning and genetics and stem cells because we can end with > designer babies" (just for the record, I'm in full favour of designer > babies). From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 14 05:37:18 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:37:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Critter's Dilemma on the African Plain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200808140539.m7E5cmab021772@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: Re: [ExI] Critter's Dilemma on the African Plain > > The interesting point is why are the stripes black and white? > Their environment is the brown - green plains of Africa. > > The answer is that their main predator, the lion, is color-blind. > But who told the zebras !!?? > Was there an early zebra scientist doing dangerous color > tests on lions? > > > BillK This puzzled me as well, but I had an insight. The zebra isn't using the stripes as camoflage, since the zebras generally hang together in a herd. It isn't difficult to find a herd of anything, but there may be a survival strategy that would suggest black and white stripes. If a lion were running beside a running zebra, the stripes might actually make it more difficult to see exactly where to strike. It might actually become confusing to the persuing predator, with the stripes creating a jumbly mess. The lion might perceive something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_Descending_a_Staircase,_No._2 So if that is the case, then the reason the stripes are black and white is to *maximize* the contrast between the two colors and also the contrast with the green and brown background. Evolution is soooo kewallll. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Aug 14 11:30:46 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:30:46 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> Message-ID: <580930c20808140430p438ed9daq3891e9a1c2589ec5@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 7:59 PM, hkhenson wrote: > On another list I said. >> >My best guess is that physical state humans will not exist long >> >after the singularity--something I can't see holding off even half >> >way to the end of this century. >> >Then the question becomes how our intellectual descendants deal with >> >the problems. I suspect at best humans will have the status of >> >cats--in some ways an unnerving prospect considering what we do to >> >cats. What is really "human" and what is "extinction" or "survival"? After a fashion, a measure of how successful a species is in Darwinian terms is how fast it "disappears" - being replaced by its evolutionary successors. Nietzsche himself says: "The species, seen from a distance, is something as insubstantial as the individual. The 'conservation of the species' is only a consequence of the growth of the species, that is of a victory on the species, in the path towards a stronger species. [...] It is exactly with respect to every living being that it could be best shown that it does everything that it can not to protect itself, but to become more than what it is". Accordingly, there is no real reason why we should not reserve our emotional investment in the human *clade* rather than, and as opposed to, the "mankind" at any given moment of time. And again, it is at the end of the say arbitrary to limit our vision of such clade in terms of an uninterrupted sequence of DNA replicators, the "children of the mind" being conceivably deserving to be considered as our children as well as our biological offspring. Thus, I am always dismayed to see high-profile... transhumanists, of all possible thinkers, seeing the advent or success of general AI as some kind of existential risk. Existence of whom?, one wonders, given that our own existence is facing the much more urgent risk (or rather certainty) of ageing-induced death. Unless of course one really believes one's personal survival to be about to be directly threatened by giant Robot-Gods in the business of stealing one's steaks or hunting down old-fashioned "human beings" for sport's sake, Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Aug 14 12:00:10 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:00:10 +0200 Subject: [ExI] french transhumanists, was RE: MEDIA: "Evolution Haute Couture" In-Reply-To: <200808140436.m7E4Zl8Y027603@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <009a01c8f96b$6e892e00$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> <200808140436.m7E4Zl8Y027603@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20808140500p7ac36d0bmfcc3e243a65b5a5f@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 6:07 AM, spike wrote: > Question please: in transhumanist functions in general, I perceive a curious > lack of participation by the French. Good question. What I can tell you is that the French landscape has always been all but devoid of intellectuals close to transhumanist and posthumanist ideas, or interested thereto. To name a few, see Yves Christen (*Les ann?es Faust, ou La science face au vieillissement*, Sand, Paris 1991), R?mi Sussan (Les utopies posthumaines : Contre-culture, cyberculture, culture du chaos), Guillaume Faye (Archeofuturisme , L'Aencre, Paris 1991), Charles Campetier ( Avec les robots, par d?l? le bien et le mal ). One could also remember Lyotard and his intellectual progeny or rich, original Web initiatives such as http://www.lesmutants.com. On the other hand, part for their language, part for their politics, French transhumanism and precursors or supporters thereof are probably among the least connected with the American movement and exponents, to the point that the WTA spokeperson for the francophone world used to be, if I am not mistaken,... a Canadian of African origins. At the Associazione Italiana Transumanisti we are glad however to count in our ranks Alberto Masala, who, while being Italian, is active in the recently established Web site at http://www.transhumanistes.com, au centre d'une possible Association Fran?aise Technoprogressiste. If our general discussions on the possibility of establishing some kind of umbrella organisation or federation at an European level coalesce, this might contribute to a higher degree of penetration and visibility of French transhumanism. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Aug 14 12:15:20 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:15:20 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080330v722acac5m5ca31e73426f4c53@mail.gmail.com> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > I'm just thinking of ordinary debates. If you and I disagree > on something, don't we necessarily try to find statements > that the other is forced to agree with, that lead him or her > towards our way of thinking? Yes, exactly. Arguments ad personam are always more compelling than arguments ad rem. We look for some common ground, identify it, and then try to show that our opponent's conclusions are inconsistent with it. > > > I like to think that I'm thinking that I'm merely in a two-person > conversation, but of course I have noticed that my style does > change on account of our audience. But here, are you implying > that your adversary will be lying when he denies you a "common > ground" that in his heart he does readily accept? No. I mean that he may be reluctant to refuse a common ground that *is* common to most of our public (say, the jurors, the TV spectators to a political debate, the other guests at a sitting dinner), thus offering you leverage, or that if he does deny it he corners himself in a position that may be less popular or acceptable ("science is per se sinful") than his original stance may have been ("stem cell research should be regulated"). I could never stand the very idea of "debate" in high school, it seemed > somehow very dishonest and wicked to argue a point > that you did not believe. > Funnily enough, I have heard of such debating matches, Athenian sophist-style, in US high schools, but the very concept is totally unknown of in Europe, including in the training of practising lawyers! But perhaps it is just that all that has become second nature for us, so we need not being educated in it... :-) Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 14 23:07:37 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:07:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> Message-ID: <01ee01c8fe63$2da0a7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > > >My best guess is that physical state humans will not exist long > > >after the singularity--something I can't see holding off even half > > >way to the end of this century. > > > > >Then the question becomes how our intellectual descendants deal with > > >the problems. I suspect at best humans will have the status of > > >cats--in some ways an unnerving prospect considering what we do to > > >cats. > > I know at least 4 people that if they got their hands on the > technology would upload the lot of the religious folks looking for > the Rapture. I know it isn't ethical. Yes it is ethical! And for a very clear reason, (see below). > Perhaps I should write a story about a police officer who enters > a rapture simulation to offer a rescue to the people in it. Evidently only a very few people will keep in mind, as I do, the possibility of doing *both*. In fact, I would upload everyone on Earth right now if I could, simply in order to save billions of lives should the worst occur. From my point of view, it would be very unethical to expose countless people to unknown hazards, such as Gamma Ray bursts, if I could do something about it. Moreover, let's not forget that as they're presently constituted, and on the present hardware they're running on (i.e. the Earth), many are going to die very soon. Around 100,000 religious people perish every single day. Or do you want to upload their brain tumors and heart conditions too? How about a compromise: everyone starts to feel a little better, the truly despondent and suicidal start to feel a lot better, and though they continue to be reported on the news, no one actually hears about anyone they know being involved in traffic accidents, accidental deaths, wars, or disease. And for those who are reading too fast, I would not be affecting the people who live here and their lives right here *at all*. No reason they can't live uploaded while they continue to live here too. > Story background, the evil dweeb hacker from Perth Amboy saved a copy > of their state vector when they were uploaded. Their bodies are > preserved. The simulation runs at 100 times wall clock, so by the > time (a week) the poor cop goes in to tell them they are in a fake > heaven they have been there 2 subjective years. > > They are offered: > > 1) reloading into their bodies with existing memories. > 2) termination and reloading of their memories prior to the uploading > into their physical bodies. > 3) continuation in their current uploaded environment with memories > that they are in a fake heaven > 4) same as 3 but erasing the memory of the cop's visit. > 5) same as 3 or 4 but forked with the original body being put back on > the street with no memory of two years in heaven. > > Did I miss anything? What would you do with such an offer? > Heh heh :-) Okay, so you do mean duplicates in step. Then indeed that's what I'd go for. Otherwise---leaving just 1) through 4), I'd definitely pick 1). Knowledge is good. Besides, it is not kind to wipe out someone's memory, even for two years, especially if wasn't unpleasant. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Aug 15 05:26:17 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:26:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction (correction) References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <01ee01c8fe63$2da0a7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <023b01c8fe97$db6e12c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Yesterday I wrote > In fact, I would upload everyone on Earth right now if I could, > simply in order to save billions of lives should the worst > occur. From my point of view, it would be very unethical > to expose countless people to unknown hazards, such as > Gamma Ray bursts, if I could do something about it. > > Moreover, let's not forget that as they're presently > constituted, and on the present hardware they're > running on (i.e. the Earth), many are going to die > very soon. Around 100,000 religious people perish > every single day. I got that very rough number by dividing 6 billion by a factor of 2 to get the religious "types", then dividing by 70 (three score and ten), and then by 365. By coincidence, tonight I began reading Aubrey De Grey's "Ending Aging", which appears to be a very fine book, and on page 8 he writes I'll start with some numbers. Around 150,000 people die each day worldwide---that's nearly two per second---and of those, about two-thirds die of aging. That's right: 100,000 people. First, it's startling that one third of today's dead people can be classified as having died prematurely. Secondly, I should revise my figure, since Keith stipulated that we were uploading the religious. Seventy-five thousand or more religious people die each day, and that's a shame. Who wouldn't non-destructively upload them? Lee From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Aug 15 06:46:37 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:46:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] My big project and you? Message-ID: Hello Extropes! I have been working on a very BIG project that covers the topics of science, nanotechnology, cryonics and artificial intelligence. But I need your help, to find out more about it please email me at everythingmovie at gmail.com - I will then send you an email with all the details! Thank you, I very much look forward to hearing from you. Your friend now and in the future, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Aug 15 08:01:03 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 01:01:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <01ee01c8fe63$2da0a7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <01ee01c8fe63$2da0a7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <48A537BF.8030501@mac.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > Keith writes > >> > >My best guess is that physical state humans will not exist long >> > >after the singularity--something I can't see holding off even half >> > >way to the end of this century. >> > >> > >Then the question becomes how our intellectual descendants deal with >> > >the problems. I suspect at best humans will have the status of >> > >cats--in some ways an unnerving prospect considering what we do to >> > >cats. >> >> I know at least 4 people that if they got their hands on the >> technology would upload the lot of the religious folks looking for >> the Rapture. I know it isn't ethical. > > Yes it is ethical! And for a very clear reason, (see below). > >> Perhaps I should write a story about a police officer who enters >> a rapture simulation to offer a rescue to the people in it. > > Evidently only a very few people will keep in mind, > as I do, the possibility of doing *both*. In fact, I > would upload everyone on Earth right now if I could, > simply in order to save billions of lives should the worst > occur. From my point of view, it would be very unethical > to expose countless people to unknown hazards, such as > Gamma Ray bursts, if I could do something about it. So you don't believe people should have the right to decide whether they want to be uploaded or even backed up? Are you sure you want to go there? I can see arguments for such a position but it flies in the face of freedom of choice. It is a particular instance of the elitist authoritarian assumption that you know better and that you should implement your decision "for their own good". > > Moreover, let's not forget that as they're presently > constituted, and on the present hardware they're > running on (i.e. the Earth), many are going to die > very soon. Yes and that is quite sad. But giving them a choice and simply imposing your choice on them are very different things. > Around 100,000 religious people perish > every single day. Or do you want to upload their > brain tumors and heart conditions too? How about > a compromise: everyone starts to feel a little better, > the truly despondent and suicidal start to feel a lot > better, and though they continue to be reported on > the news, no one actually hears about anyone they > know being involved in traffic accidents, accidental > deaths, wars, or disease. > > And for those who are reading too fast, I would not be > affecting the people who live here and their lives right > here *at all*. No reason they can't live uploaded while > they continue to live here too. I still would want you to ask permission first. - samantha From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Aug 15 16:08:33 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:08:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Guy films space shuttle launch from passing airliner Message-ID: Almost no novel information content, but bound to stir the imaginations of some on this list. - Jef From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Aug 15 23:58:11 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 01:58:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <48A537BF.8030501@mac.com> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <01ee01c8fe63$2da0a7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <48A537BF.8030501@mac.com> Message-ID: <580930c20808151658s11fda171q1c7dd5774171b2b8@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > So you don't believe people should have the right to decide whether they > want to be uploaded or even backed up? Are you sure you want to go there? > I can see arguments for such a position but it flies in the face of freedom > of choice. It is a particular instance of the elitist authoritarian > assumption that you know better and that you should implement your decision > "for their own good". I am very wary of things done "for my own good", and I think people are, or should be, perfectly free to suicide, or wait for some occurrence independent from their will to terminate their life. The point however is: what harm exactly involves a non-destructive copy of the data that an individual is made of, as far as she, or her "freedom of choice", are concerned? A harm to "Copyright"? "Privacy"? "Right to Uniqueness"? And what real difference would it make in comparison with a Turing-"good enough" reconstruction/emulation of its identity that be performed without resorting to procedures such as a brain scan? Stefano Vaj From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Aug 16 15:45:05 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:45:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Non-Profit Message-ID: <005401c8ffb7$0e1a6cd0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> Does anyone have a non-profit organization to sponsor me in applying for a small grant? The grant would be for a few thousand dollars which would pay a programmer for designing a hypermediated mindmap ("map"). The context of the map would be a multi-media piece. The map would contain a basic mind map (software at no-cost) and a stylish interface design for including small bits of video and audio. End product is CD or DVD. The map's content is about what I call the "transitional human." The foci of experience of the map will be to feature traces and connections between the transitional human over a 40 year time frame of artistic uses of technology in augmenting human body/brain -- through immersive, interactive design (including robotics, soft AI, etc.), video (back to Nam June Paik and even Duchamp to Stelarc) into biotechnological design (including Kac, Vita-More, cryonics, etc.) -- toward the convergence of NBIC. The purpose is to develop a media piece which will be used as a research device and a knowledge base in building a field for the "transitional human." **Please email me privately, off-list. I look forward to hearing form you, Thank you, Natasha Natasha Vita-More BFA, MS, MPhil, PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Faculty of Technology, School of Computers, Communication and Electronics University of Plymouth, UK Arts and Design - NBIC+ Convergence H+ Europe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Aug 17 04:41:06 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:41:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Test In-Reply-To: References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Test Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Aug 17 07:56:24 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:56:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History Channel this Thursday! In-Reply-To: References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <616CB754911544989106AEE062D49228@GinaSony> My animation (the dermal display) http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/dermaldisplay.htm is going to be on TV! And it's the History Channel too, one of my favorites. Watch the show called "The Works" (Tattoos episode) on the History Channel this Thursday! 10PM 9C. It's supposed to be in the later part of the episode. This is the first time having my work on a TV show! Here is the shows url: http://www.history.com/minisites/the-works Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Aug 17 12:27:57 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 08:27:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History Channel this Thursday! In-Reply-To: <616CB754911544989106AEE062D49228@GinaSony> References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com> <616CB754911544989106AEE062D49228@GinaSony> Message-ID: <40973.12.77.168.172.1218976077.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > My animation (the dermal display) > http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/dermaldisplay.htm is going to be on TV! And > it's the History Channel too, one of my favorites. Watch the show called "The Works" > (Tattoos episode) on the History Channel this Thursday! 10PM 9C. It's supposed to be > in the later part of the episode. This is the first time having my work on a TV > show! Here is the shows url: http://www.history.com/minisites/the-works > Hooray for our Nanogirl! :) Now you make me wish I had a TV.. ;) Keep on keeping on, Gina! We're all here for you. Regards, MB From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Aug 17 17:16:45 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:16:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History Channel this Thursday! In-Reply-To: <40973.12.77.168.172.1218976077.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com> <616CB754911544989106AEE062D49228@GinaSony> <40973.12.77.168.172.1218976077.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080817120813.0248cc00@satx.rr.com> At 08:27 AM 8/17/2008 -0400, Gina wrote: > My animation (the dermal display) > http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/dermaldisplay.htm is going to > be on TV! >..This is the first time having my work on a TV show! Y'know, I could have sworn I'd seen it used on TV before, maybe as part of an Aussie series that Emlyn and I took part in some years ago--but that was too long ago since you only created the display in 2005. Damien Broderick From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Aug 17 17:32:11 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:32:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History Channel thisThursday! In-Reply-To: <616CB754911544989106AEE062D49228@GinaSony> References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com> <616CB754911544989106AEE062D49228@GinaSony> Message-ID: <008201c9008f$2ebf6bb0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> Congratulations! Natasha Vita-More BFA, MS, MPhil/PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Faculty of Technology, School of Computers, Communication and Electronics University of Plymouth, UK Arts and Design - NBIC+ Convergence H+ Europe _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Gina Miller Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 2:56 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History Channel thisThursday! My animation (the dermal display) http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/dermaldisplay.htm is going to be on TV! And it's the History Channel too, one of my favorites. Watch the show called "The Works" (Tattoos episode) on the History Channel this Thursday! 10PM 9C. It's supposed to be in the later part of the episode. This is the first time having my work on a TV show! Here is the shows url: http://www.history.com/minisites/the-works Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sondre-list at bjellas.com Sun Aug 17 20:49:53 2008 From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (Sondre Bjellas) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:49:53 +0200 Subject: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History Channel this Thursday! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080817120813.0248cc00@satx.rr.com> References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com> <616CB754911544989106AEE062D49228@GinaSony> <40973.12.77.168.172.1218976077.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <7.0.1.0.2.20080817120813.0248cc00@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001e01c900aa$cdbe2240$693a66c0$@com> Congratulations! Here is something I want to share with all of you on this list, you need Silverlight plug-in to play it back, but it shows an awesome multi-touch application built by a good friend of mine: http://silverlight.interknowlogy.com/Videos/VitruView/default.html (I'm a bit ashamed that I've only completed 50% of Damien's 'The Spike' book...) - SOndre -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 7:17 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History Channel this Thursday! At 08:27 AM 8/17/2008 -0400, Gina wrote: > My animation (the dermal display) > http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/dermaldisplay.htm is going to > be on TV! >..This is the first time having my work on a TV show! Y'know, I could have sworn I'd seen it used on TV before, maybe as part of an Aussie series that Emlyn and I took part in some years ago--but that was too long ago since you only created the display in 2005. 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 Aug 17 21:38:30 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:38:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Spike In-Reply-To: <001e01c900aa$cdbe2240$693a66c0$@com> References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com> <616CB754911544989106AEE062D49228@GinaSony> <40973.12.77.168.172.1218976077.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <7.0.1.0.2.20080817120813.0248cc00@satx.rr.com> <001e01c900aa$cdbe2240$693a66c0$@com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080817163700.022cb2e8@satx.rr.com> At 10:49 PM 8/17/2008 +0200, Sondre wrote: >(I'm a bit ashamed that I've only completed 50% of Damien's 'The Spike' >book...) As long as it was the second half you completed, you haven't missed the important material. Damien Broderick From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Aug 17 22:51:20 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:51:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: <002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com> <0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com> <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: John, I've been thinking about this on and off for the last week, and am more or less ready to respond. However, it won't do any good if I don't understand your approach, and I'm puzzled... You write: > An instant after you start moving you receive a report from the fellow at the other end of the string saying he hasn't started moving yet. I don't understand. According to the setup both acceleration profiles are identical. You and your counterpart at the other end of the string know this. So why then would you get such a message, absent a failure in the pre-programmed implementation of the two acceleration profiles? I'm guessing that you're suggesting a simultaneity issue. But before addressing the matter I'd like to be clear. And those follow on actions (quoted below) taken in response to and following the initial message , appear to be uncoordinated with the other ship, and to thoroughly deviate from the originally-planned acceleration profile, and APPEAR to contradict the problem setup. Anyway, can you help me out here? Jeff > Because of this you predict that when you make the next distance measurement you will find that the distance has decreased, but when the next LASER pulse arrives you find that the distance is just the same. You can only conclude that sometime after the last report the other fellow started to accelerate and did so faster than you did. > > When he sends his next report you find he has indeed started to move but he still isn't moving as fast as you are, and yet the distance is the same as before. The fellow at the other end of the string must still be accelerating faster than you and in fact he always will be. > Of course an observer at the other end of the string could make similar observations and conclude that you are accelerating faster than he is. The two observers disagree on who started moving first, but both agree that the other end of the string is accelerating faster than their end; and that pulls the string apart. On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:43 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Jeff Davis" > >> Such an observer would see the entire assembly shrink >> proportionately along its length. No breakage. > > I am absolutely positively 100% certain the string will > break, I might even be correct; at least that's what my > intuition insists is true. > > Look at it from the point of view of an observer at one end > of the string. Suppose a fellow at the far end of the string > has a clock and sends a pulse of LASER light to you every 10 seconds and > suppose you also have a clock and it's synchronized with his, so you know > how long it took the light to reach you, hence you know how far away the > other end of the string is. The other fellow also reports from time to time > on how fast he is moving relative to some fixed point that both of you can > both see. > > An instant after you start moving you receive a report from > the fellow at the other end of the string saying he hasn't started moving > yet. Because of this you predict that when you make the next distance > measurement you will find that > the distance has decreased, but when the next LASER pulse arrives you find > that the distance is just the same. You can only conclude that sometime > after the last report the other fellow started to accelerate and did so > faster > than you did. > > When he sends his next report you find he has indeed started to move but he > still isn't moving as fast as you are, and yet the distance is the same as > before. The fellow at the other end of the string must still be > accelerating faster than you and in fact he always will be. > > Of course an observer at the other end of the string could > make similar observations and conclude that you are accelerating faster than > he is. The two observers disagree > on who started moving first, but both agree that the other > end of the string is accelerating faster than their end; and that pulls the > string apart. > John K Clark > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Aug 17 23:59:27 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:59:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History Channel this Thursday! In-Reply-To: <40973.12.77.168.172.1218976077.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com><616CB754911544989106AEE062D49228@GinaSony> <40973.12.77.168.172.1218976077.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <8ED37B4B55114965A3D3B7E68AB526E1@GinaSony> Thank you MB, I appreciate that! Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com This health stuff blog: http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: MB To: ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 5:27 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History Channel this Thursday! > My animation (the dermal display) > http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/dermaldisplay.htm is going to be on TV! And > it's the History Channel too, one of my favorites. Watch the show called "The Works" > (Tattoos episode) on the History Channel this Thursday! 10PM 9C. It's supposed to be > in the later part of the episode. This is the first time having my work on a TV > show! Here is the shows url: http://www.history.com/minisites/the-works > Hooray for our Nanogirl! :) Now you make me wish I had a TV.. ;) Keep on keeping on, Gina! We're all here for you. Regards, MB _______________________________________________ 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 nanogirl at halcyon.com Mon Aug 18 00:10:05 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:10:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History Channel this Thursday! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080817120813.0248cc00@satx.rr.com> References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com><616CB754911544989106AEE062D49228@GinaSony><40973.12.77.168.172.1218976077.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <7.0.1.0.2.20080817120813.0248cc00@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Well if you ever do spot it let me know! That's actually happened before, in a print publication. Some one said "oh I just saw your animation in --------bleep----big huge major magazine name here------ , you must be very excited" - but I had no idea! No one had asked my permission to print my images that were taken from my website, which as you know, is a no no. So it does happen, but anyway, I am so excited. I couldn't sleep last night, I was like a kid before Christmas! Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com This health stuff blog: http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Damien Broderick To: ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History Channel this Thursday! At 08:27 AM 8/17/2008 -0400, Gina wrote: > My animation (the dermal display) > http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/dermaldisplay.htm is going to > be on TV! >..This is the first time having my work on a TV show! Y'know, I could have sworn I'd seen it used on TV before, maybe as part of an Aussie series that Emlyn and I took part in some years ago--but that was too long ago since you only created the display in 2005. Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ 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 nanogirl at halcyon.com Mon Aug 18 00:10:40 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:10:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History ChannelthisThursday! In-Reply-To: <008201c9008f$2ebf6bb0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com><616CB754911544989106AEE062D49228@GinaSony> <008201c9008f$2ebf6bb0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> Message-ID: <5F2D877B81B14F4AAFBF0D3F4E43633B@GinaSony> Thank you Natasha! Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com This health stuff blog: http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History ChannelthisThursday! Congratulations! Natasha Vita-More BFA, MS, MPhil/PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Faculty of Technology, School of Computers, Communication and Electronics University of Plymouth, UK Arts and Design - NBIC+ Convergence H+ Europe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Gina Miller Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 2:56 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History Channel thisThursday! My animation (the dermal display) http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/dermaldisplay.htm is going to be on TV! And it's the History Channel too, one of my favorites. Watch the show called "The Works" (Tattoos episode) on the History Channel this Thursday! 10PM 9C. It's supposed to be in the later part of the episode. This is the first time having my work on a TV show! Here is the shows url: http://www.history.com/minisites/the-works Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Aug 18 01:06:33 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:36:33 +0930 Subject: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History Channel this Thursday! In-Reply-To: <40973.12.77.168.172.1218976077.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com> <616CB754911544989106AEE062D49228@GinaSony> <40973.12.77.168.172.1218976077.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <710b78fc0808171806i3762c260v415711f7f34ff687@mail.gmail.com> 2008/8/17 MB : > Hooray for our Nanogirl! :) Now you make me wish I had a TV.. ;) On a tangent, a quick rant about TV... There's *so* much online video to watch these days (Youtube is just the start...), but it has this problem that you watch this stuff on a PC. Sitting at your desk is no place to watch a movie, and even a laptop makes it a fairly solitary experience (two people can watch on a laptop, after that it gets hard), plus the screen is small and the sound is poor. You really want to be able to watch a lot of stuff in your living room, on the big screen. Along these lines, I recently got rid of my old CRT TV, and put an old PC in the livingroom. It's an Athlon 2000, 500 mb ram, circa 2001 vintage? It was one of my kid's machines, but too long in the tooth for kid's stuff (games need good equipment). The point is, it's old and crappy, but does this job remarkably well. The machine is already on the wireless lan, but I added in a TV card for digital TV (actually it's a usb based device, not an internal card, can't recommend that enough). I'm in Australia so I had to get something suitable for Aussie digital TV, which uses an obscure and poorly supported standard (dvb-t), but you can still get something economical. Just for completeness, the actual piece of hardware is the USB TinyTwin from DigitalNow, a tiny aussie company. Nice hardware, decent viewing software and drivers, but interoperating with other stuff is a pain in the butt, and the doco is dreadful but non-existant, much as you'd expect from that kind of company. It's here: http://www.digitalnow.com.au/product_pages/TinyTwin.html . Cost me about $130. The TinyTwin plugged straight into my old antenna cable, no antenna mods required, and gives far better reception. Digital TV is great. So, that replaced our TV, with the addition that we now get the HD free to air channels. Lovely. And I can record TV for the first time in years. But wait, there's more... We can now watch youtube on the "tv" just by pulling up a browser. The machine is running straight XP, and it's now got a wireless mouse and keyboard (cost maybe $30?), but even with large fonts the machine can be a pain in the butt to operate; I have to go up close with the mouse and keyb so I can see properly. I can live with that for now though. The machine also runs Azureus, for bittorrent. Essential. 'Nuff said. Although I think Miro might be able to do its job, must investigate... Which brings me to Miro. http://www.getmiro.com/ . About 5000 channels of free content. It's what community tv always needed. Most channels are ridiculous, but there's some excellent stuff there; check out Free Culture TV (a bit brown bread but ok), or for excellence, Citizen Engineer (which to be fair is also on their own site http://www.citizenengineer.com/ or youtube). Hardware hacking as a tv show, really fabulous stuff. Anyway, the nice thing about Miro is that it's like a video podcast model, but uses (modified?) bittorrent for distribution, which means waiting for downloads, but some decent video quality. Another recent discovery for me was http://www.hulu.com/, lots of major network US tv shows. You can't watch it if you don't have a US ip address unfortunately. On a totally unrelated note, however, has anyone seen Hotspot Shield? It's a free vpn that encrypts your traffic up to the point where it comes out of their servers. It's meant for protecting you in open wireless hotspots, but can be useful for other things. Sounds complicated, but it's easy; on windows, you just install it, run it, and then say "connect" when you want to use it, and voila. It does have the side effect of giving you a US ip address, for what that's worth. Did I forget to mention that it's free, and that I can't notice any performance impact on streaming video? And there's the Aussie government broadcaster ABC, with its online service "iView", here: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/iview/. No ip address checks, good programming. And all this is without mentioning dodgy Chinese based sites that show all kinds of awesome shows directly in the browser, because there's no way good law abiding extros would use those. There's more every day. I can't imagine that I'll ever subscribe to pay tv with the amount of interesting stuff that's online now, and the free to air broadcast tv becomes increasingly less attractive. I don't rent DVDs any more either, and I tried Quickflix (aussie clone of Netflix), but dumped it; removable media is so last week people. So for peanuts, I have this multimedia extravaganza in the living room, and I increasingly can't remember what was good about broadcast TV. Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Aug 18 05:42:34 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:12:34 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc0808172242v29c9eb05y1c8d033eb18b8941@mail.gmail.com> 2008/8/14 hkhenson : > On another list I said. > >> >My best guess is that physical state humans will not exist long >> >after the singularity--something I can't see holding off even half >> >way to the end of this century. >> >> >Then the question becomes how our intellectual descendants deal with >> >the problems. I suspect at best humans will have the status of >> >cats--in some ways an unnerving prospect considering what we do to >> >cats. > > A person responded with a statement that religious objections will keep > people from uploading. I said: > > I know at least 4 people that if they got their hands on the > technology would upload the lot of the religious folks looking for > the Rapture. I know it isn't ethical. Perhaps I should write a > story about a police officer who enters a rapture simulation to offer > a rescue to the people in it. > > Story background, the evil dweeb hacker from Perth Amboy saved a copy > of their state vector when they were uploaded. Their bodies are > preserved. The simulation runs at 100 times wall clock, so by the > time (a week) the poor cop goes in to tell them they are in a fake > heaven they have been there 2 subjective years. > > They are offered: > > 1) reloading into their bodies with existing memories. > 2) termination and reloading of their memories prior to the uploading > into their physical bodies. > 3) continuation in their current uploaded environment with memories > that they are in a fake heaven > 4) same as 3 but erasing the memory of the cop's visit. > 5) same as 3 or 4 but forked with the original body being put back on > the street with no memory of two years in heaven. > > Did I miss anything? What would you do with such an offer? > > Heh heh > > Keith The faithful, especially that variety, tend not to run on rationality; they prefer I think to be guided by gut instinct. Also, when you don't have any way to measure merit in a group, you have to structure in other ways, notably by baser measures of status (political ability will be the thing). And, they are absolutely awesome at ignoring the elephant in the livingroom; they wont feel bound by such simplistic things as the bald truth. I read somewhere that cults go through this kind of process, and you get this refining process happen, where, when the objective world intrudes, those on the fence can lose faith and leave, but the truly devoted become even more devoted, more closed to the outside world, plus overall the consensus moves away from reality by the simple fact of losing the least committed people. Given that an upload of the rapture is going to be giving these people what they want, and will feel good at a gut level, I'd guess that they would do 3, but in a slight variation; they'd likely string the cop up from the nearest rafter, then go on as if he'd never been there, *or*, use him as an example of the lies the devil will tell, and become even more committed to their worldview. Also, the people who are in power in the group of uploads would have established themselves well and truly after 2 years, and would not be the kinds of people to greet the prospect of losing their positions with glee. So you'd get opposition to change from the top. As a final addendum, some would choose to leave the sim (I would guess they'd mostly be the least powerful people in the group, lowest on the status ladder, and possibly previous power holders who recently lost status), and the rest would choose to stay. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon Aug 18 07:35:19 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:35:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0808172242v29c9eb05y1c8d033eb18b8941@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <707620.33470.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 8/18/08, Emlyn wrote: >The faithful, especially that variety, tend not to run on rationality; >they prefer I think to be guided by gut instinct. Also, when you don't >have any way to measure merit in a group, you have to structure in other >ways, notably by baser measures of status (political ability will be the >thing). And, they are absolutely awesome at ignoring the elephant in the >livingroom; they wont feel bound by such simplistic things as the bald >truth. Emlyn I'm confused. You don't appear to be a person that believes in faith so how do you base your opinion? I believe myself someone of high rationality and still think that my gut reactions are worth some debate. It could be simply mean that I've had many experiences that have led me to believe my opinions have some merit. Bald truth is mathematical unless it has not yet been computed therefore if someone simply ignores the elephant in the room is because "they choose" and/or "don't know" that it is there, is this what you mean? >I read somewhere that cults go through this kind of process, and you get >this refining process happen, where, when the objective world intrudes, >those on the fence can lose faith and leave, but the truly devoted become >even more devoted, more closed to the outside world, plus overall the >consensus moves away from reality by the simple fact of losing the least >committed people. Are you talking about cults or societies? Just curious Anna __________________________________________________________________ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Aug 18 12:50:41 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:50:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0808172242v29c9eb05y1c8d033eb18b8941@mail.gmail.com> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <710b78fc0808172242v29c9eb05y1c8d033eb18b8941@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <41821.12.77.168.254.1219063841.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Emlyn writes: > I read somewhere that cults go through this kind of process, and you > get this refining process happen, where, when the objective world > intrudes, those on the fence can lose faith and leave, but the truly > devoted become even more devoted, more closed to the outside world, > plus overall the consensus moves away from reality by the simple fact > of losing the least committed people. > Emlyn, this is very clear. Mind if I quote you on another list? Regards, MB From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Aug 18 16:35:43 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:35:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <707620.33470.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <710b78fc0808172242v29c9eb05y1c8d033eb18b8941@mail.gmail.com> <707620.33470.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080818113046.0260a700@satx.rr.com> At 12:35 AM 8/18/2008 -0700, Anna Taylor wrote: > >I read somewhere that cults go through this kind of process, and > you get >this refining process happen, where, when the objective > world intrudes, >those on the fence can lose faith and leave, but > the truly devoted become >even more devoted, more closed to the > outside world, plus overall the >consensus moves away from reality > by the simple fact of losing the least >committed people. > >Are you talking about cults or societies? He's talking about what Leon Festinger named "cognitive dissonance" and the ways people find to minimize its discomfort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm It's most easily observed in cults where spectacular prophecies go wrong, but also operates in large societies. Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Aug 18 20:31:47 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:31:47 -0400 Subject: [ExI] (no subject) References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com><616CB754911544989106AEE062D49228@GinaSony><40973.12.77.168.172.1218976077.squirrel@www.main.nc.us><7.0.1.0.2.20080817120813.0248cc00@satx.rr.com><001e01c900aa$cdbe2240$693a66c0$@com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080817163700.022cb2e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <002601c90171$75bca7c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Me: >> An instant after you start moving you receive >>a report from the fellow at the other end of >>the string saying he hasn't started moving yet. "Jeff Davis" > I don't understand. According to the setup both acceleration > profiles are identical. You and your counterpart at the > other end of the string know this. So why then would you > get such a message Light does not move at an infinite speed, so any message I receive must have originated sometime in the past; hence if I receive a message from the other end of the string the instant I start moving it is going to say that end hasn't started moving yet. John K Clark From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 01:17:51 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:47:51 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080818113046.0260a700@satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0808172242v29c9eb05y1c8d033eb18b8941@mail.gmail.com> <707620.33470.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080818113046.0260a700@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0808181817v28bd8ab2sf80309b7b19c0dbe@mail.gmail.com> 2008/8/19 Damien Broderick : > At 12:35 AM 8/18/2008 -0700, Anna Taylor wrote: > >> >I read somewhere that cults go through this kind of process, and you get >> > >this refining process happen, where, when the objective world intrudes, >> > >those on the fence can lose faith and leave, but the truly devoted become >> > >even more devoted, more closed to the outside world, plus overall the >> > >consensus moves away from reality by the simple fact of losing the least >> > >committed people. >> >> Are you talking about cults or societies? > > He's talking about what Leon Festinger named "cognitive dissonance" and the > ways people find to minimize its discomfort: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance > > http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm > > It's most easily observed in cults where spectacular prophecies go wrong, > but also operates in large societies. > > Damien Broderick Yes, exactly. So both, nice catch Anna. Generally, I do think you have to beware of people gathered in groups. Onwards! -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 01:19:08 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:49:08 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <41821.12.77.168.254.1219063841.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <710b78fc0808172242v29c9eb05y1c8d033eb18b8941@mail.gmail.com> <41821.12.77.168.254.1219063841.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <710b78fc0808181819j5f7b7c08rd704a537991ed6a3@mail.gmail.com> 2008/8/18 MB : > Emlyn writes: > >> I read somewhere that cults go through this kind of process, and you >> get this refining process happen, where, when the objective world >> intrudes, those on the fence can lose faith and leave, but the truly >> devoted become even more devoted, more closed to the outside world, >> plus overall the consensus moves away from reality by the simple fact >> of losing the least committed people. >> > > > Emlyn, this is very clear. Mind if I quote you on another list? > > Regards, > MB You're welcome to quote me, cool. As to it being clear, on re-reading it I notice it's all one big sentence, so I'm not sure I agree with you :-) -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 01:30:57 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:00:57 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080818113046.0260a700@satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0808172242v29c9eb05y1c8d033eb18b8941@mail.gmail.com> <707620.33470.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080818113046.0260a700@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0808181830o3c0d0fd1s8b92cb4785f19634@mail.gmail.com> 2008/8/19 Damien Broderick : > At 12:35 AM 8/18/2008 -0700, Anna Taylor wrote: > >> >I read somewhere that cults go through this kind of process, and you get >> > >this refining process happen, where, when the objective world intrudes, >> > >those on the fence can lose faith and leave, but the truly devoted become >> > >even more devoted, more closed to the outside world, plus overall the >> > >consensus moves away from reality by the simple fact of losing the least >> > >committed people. >> >> Are you talking about cults or societies? > > He's talking about what Leon Festinger named "cognitive dissonance" and the > ways people find to minimize its discomfort: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance > > http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm > > It's most easily observed in cults where spectacular prophecies go wrong, > but also operates in large societies. > > Damien Broderick > Actually I figured out where I read about this, it was in a post of Eliezer's on http://www.overcomingbias.com : http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/12/evaporative-coo.html He talks about not just cognitive dissonance, but the other effect I eluded to, the whittling away of the moderates. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 01:36:19 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:06:19 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <707620.33470.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <710b78fc0808172242v29c9eb05y1c8d033eb18b8941@mail.gmail.com> <707620.33470.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0808181836s3ddc22e2ocafae36597cb1b8f@mail.gmail.com> 2008/8/18 Anna Taylor : > --- On Mon, 8/18/08, Emlyn wrote: > >>The faithful, especially that variety, tend not to run on rationality; >they prefer I think to be guided by gut instinct. Also, when you don't >have any way to measure merit in a group, you have to structure in other >ways, notably by baser measures of status (political ability will be the >thing). And, they are absolutely awesome at ignoring the elephant in the >livingroom; they wont feel bound by such simplistic things as the bald >truth. > > Emlyn I'm confused. You don't appear to be a person that believes in faith so how do you base your opinion? I believe myself someone of high rationality and still think that my gut reactions are worth some debate. It could be simply mean that I've had many experiences that have led me to believe my opinions have some merit. Bald truth is mathematical unless it has not yet been computed therefore if someone simply ignores the elephant in the room is because "they choose" and/or "don't know" that it is there, is this what you mean? I'm definitely an Atheist, yes. But we all live on an amount of faith, so of course I have experience of it from the inside like all people. Even if that faith is something along the lines of "the universe behaves in a generally self similar way from moment to moment", it's still faith in a sense. I'd argue there's a qualitative difference between that and "there's a big guy running the show who loves us all and wants to punish us for our sins". Now on rereading my paragraph above, I'd say I'm unfairly singling out those of faithful. You could apply it to any group of people united by a cause, I guess. I think fundamentalist religious people (which was where this thread started) are a particularly good example, but they are definitely not the only example. Eliezer talks about cults a bit on http://www.overcomingbias.com, using the Objectivists as an example of a "rationality" based cult, a good counterexample if you're tired of people picking on the religious. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 19 03:19:34 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Etymology of Critter's Dilemma In-Reply-To: <01ac01c8fdcc$3f6b4710$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <695554.48790.qm@web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Why don't you come up with terms that (a) are not already > well-defined in exactly the same context, (b) are not silly > and hard to remember? Thinking up a good name for these > moves of yours is even more important than thinking up > appropriate names for programming variables (which is > *plenty* important). I have considered your thoughts on the matter and decided to leave the moves as they are for the following reasons: 1. In the game theory of PD, defection is defined simply as "betrayal". CD doesn't alter that, it just defines the word more precisely in a larger context. 2. Critter's Dilemma is a direct evolutionary descendant of Prisoner's Dilemma and I feel I would be defecting on Axelrod, Nash, and other sources of my inspiration if I change the names of the moves. I would rather do violence to the definition of a word than to the memory of great thinkers. 3. The correspondence principle requires it. Similar to the way that quantum mechanics or special relativity reduces to classical mechanics in the limit of high or low energies respectively, so too shall Critter's Dilemma reduce to Prisoner's Dilemma in the limit of coercive systems like prisons, gladiatorial arenas, and non-free markets. > Okay, if you're going to stick with "snap", "crackle", and "pop", > (I sincerely suggest you stay away from "defect" and "cooperate", > but "ignore" I guess fits), then please provide very careful definitions > with examples (and counter-examples). 1. Cooperate: To have a net positive effect on another player by bestowing a non-neglible benefit (i.e. an increase in utility) upon the other player for whatever reason. Since rational players seek to maximize their own benefit, cooperation is to conform to the intentions of the other player irregardless of whether it is due to ones own intent, circumstance, coercion, or deception. Examples of cooperation include submitting to authority, paying for something (whether the price is fair or not), getting eaten by a predator, hosting squatters on ones land, or participating in a team effort. Counter-examples include cheating on your spouse, preying on an animal, defending yourself in a fight, withdrawing from a team effort, or hiding from the other player. Sometimes cooperation is smart and sometimes it is isn't. 2. Ignore: To have a neglible effect or no effect at all on the other player in terms of utility. To ignore another critter is to neither help nor hinder their intentions in terms of cost or benefit. Since rational players evolved to maximize their benefit and minimize their costs, ignorance will often go unnoticed by the other player. Examples include avoiding the other player, being unaware of another player without accidently affecting them, tolerating the other player, being unable to affect them, or hiding from them. Counter-examples include giving the other player something or taking something from them. Sometimes ignoring the other player is smart and sometimes it is not. 3. Defect: To incur a non-neglible cost upon the other player for whatever reason. Since all rational agents (i.e. critters) seek to minimize cost, defection is a betrayal or thwarting of the intentions of the other player. Examples include all manner of violence, stealing, cheating, extortion, vandalism, defending oneself from attack, active denial, competing in a race or other form of competition, taking revenge, seeking justice, suing someone, rebelling against or undermining authority, drinking their last beer, or simply eating them. Counter-examples include taking one for the team, letting sleeping dogs lie, or being someone's bitch. Sometimes defecting is smart and sometimes it is not. Stuart LaForge "A portion of mankind take pride in their vices and pursue their purpose; many more waver between doing what is right and complying with what is wrong." - Horace From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Aug 19 04:42:30 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:42:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <01ee01c8fe63$2da0a7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <48A537BF.8030501@mac.com> Message-ID: <028f01c901b6$7a7b33e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes > [Lee wrote] > >> I would [non-destructively] upload everyone on Earth right now >> [i.e. make copies of them that run on more secure hardware] if I >> could, simply in order to save billions of lives should the worst >> occur. From my point of view, it would be very unethical >> to expose countless people to unknown hazards, such as >> Gamma Ray bursts, if I could do something about it. > > So you don't believe people should have the right to decide whether they > want to be uploaded or even backed up? Are you sure you want to go > there? I can see arguments for such a position but it flies in the face > of freedom of choice. While I'd never phrase it that way, yes, I do agree that people should have "the right" to decide, much in the way that people ought to be free to kill themselves (under suitable protocols) if they wish. But very few people have expressly stated that they absolutely do not want to be backed up. So if it was a button labeled "back up all Earth people now", and my only choice was to press or not press, I'd press. > It is a particular instance of the elitist authoritarian > assumption that you know better and that you should > implement your decision "for their own good". There is a continuum here. A favorite example of a friend of mine is this: you're stranded on a desert island with a number of people who seem to be much more delirious than you are, and you alone can read Latin. A cask of water washes ashore that says (in Latin) "Danger. Botulism. Do not drink.". Now here is where my friend and I differed. He says that you unconditionally rush over to the barrel of water and release it into the sand. I say that you take this action *only* if you are absolutely convinced that there exists an objective reason why your knowledge is superior to theirs and your judgment is superior to theirs. So sometimes, in extreme cases, you *do* implement decisions for other people's own good. But in normal daily life, my two provisos above are absent. >> Around 100,000 [75,000] religious people perish >> every single day. Or do you want to upload their >> brain tumors and heart conditions too? How about >> a compromise: everyone starts to feel a little better, >> the truly despondent and suicidal start to feel a lot >> better, and though they continue to be reported on >> the news, no one actually hears about anyone they >> know being involved in traffic accidents, accidental >> deaths, wars, or disease. >> >> And for those who are reading too fast, I would not be >> affecting the people who live here and their lives right >> here *at all*. No reason they can't live uploaded while >> they continue to live here too. > > I still would want you to ask permission first. Are there cases that would cause you to change your mind? I.e., you're the sole astronaut returning from a deep space mission at nearly the speed of light, and you know that impending death to all life on Earth is following you in, only minutes away. You can only contact one Lee Corbin, and you know (from the above) exactly what he will do if he finds out about this, and is given by you the secret password that will enable him to upload everyone. You going to tell, and cause that so-called "right to decide" by six billion people to be overridden? Or are you going to keep flying, and let us all perish? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Aug 19 04:24:43 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:24:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <160001c8f908$5f5527d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808080330v722acac5m5ca31e73426f4c53@mail.gmail.com> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano writes > Arguments ad personam are always more compelling than arguments ad rem. Ah. So thanks for removing a misunderstanding I had. I was inferring that "ad personam" and "ad hominem" were the same thing. :-) [1] > > are you implying that your [so-called] adversary > > [in a discussion] will be lying when he denies you > > a "common ground" that in his heart he does readily accept? > > No. I mean that he may be reluctant to refuse a common ground > that *is* common to most of our public (say, the jurors, the TV > spectators to a political debate, the other guests at a sitting dinner), > thus offering you leverage, I'm not so sure about that. I imagine, per your examples, that I'm in a conversation at a dinner party conversation. I may very well choose to defend unpopular and sometimes even incomprehensible positions that may give my (so-called) adversary an advantage in making my positions seem untenable. But so long as I am free to reply and free to respond, I don't really care. > or that if he does deny it he corners himself in a position that may > be less popular or acceptable ("science is per se sinful") than his > original stance may have been ("stem cell research should be regulated"). I confess, say, to wishing to persuade the others at the dinner party that, say, the Earth is very underpopulated, or that people should choose being frozen over certain death. It has no bearing on me how unacceptable the other guests may find this, unless the situation is so extreme (e.g. I've been invited to a religious service) that it would be impolite to pursue what I think is the truth. > > I could never stand the very idea of "debate" in high school, > > it seemed somehow very dishonest and wicked to argue a > > point that you did not believe. > > Funnily enough, I have heard of such debating matches, Athenian > sophist-style, in US high schools, but the very concept is totally > unknown of in Europe, including in the training of practising lawyers! > But perhaps it is just that all that has become second nature for us, > so we need not being educated in it... :-) Well, even if that is true, the less justification for "debate teams" in American high school I see the more I think about it. Lee [1] If for some bizarre reason Stefano turns out not to be correct on this point, I am *not* being sarcastic. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Aug 19 07:00:30 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:00:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] evading cognitive dissonance (was Re: Human extinction) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080818113046.0260a700@satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0808172242v29c9eb05y1c8d033eb18b8941@mail.gmail.com> <707620.33470.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080818113046.0260a700@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080819015807.023c4360@satx.rr.com> At 11:35 AM 8/18/2008 -0500, I mentioned: >what Leon Festinger named "cognitive dissonance" and the ways people >find to minimize its discomfort Here's a somewhat startling example--how people can accept and praise science while ignoring the parts that upset them: How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science DAVID MASCI, Senior Research Fellow - Pew Research The relationship between faith and science in the United States seems, at least on the surface, to be paradoxical. Surveys repeatedly show that most Americans respect science and the benefits it brings to society, such as new technologies and medical treatments. And yet, religious convictions limit many Americans' willingness to accept controversial scientific theories as well as certain types of scientific research, such as the potential use of embryonic stem cells for medical treatments. Science and religion have traditionally, and often incorrectly, been viewed as enemies. This perception has been fueled in part by a number of famous episodes in history that have pitted scientists, like Galileo and Darwin, against the prevailing religious establishments of their time. But more often than not, scientists and people of faith have operated not at cross purposes but simply at different purposes. Today the situation is much the same. Certainly, there are modern scientists who are actively hostile to religious belief. British biologist Richard Dawkins, for instance, in his best-selling book, The God Delusion, argues that many social ills - from bigotry to ignorance - can be blamed, at least in part, on religion. In addition, a significant number of scientists - roughly a third according to a 2006 Rice University survey of more than 750 professors in the natural sciences - do not believe in God, compared with only one-in-twenty in the general population. But regardless of their personal views, most scientists tend to view the two disciplines as distinct, with each attempting to answer different kinds of questions using different methods. The late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould famously referred to this complementary relationship as "non-overlapping magisteria." But there are times when the "magisteria" do overlap. The debate over the origins and development of life is the most compelling example of this. All but a small number of scientists regard Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection as an established fact. And yet, a substantial majority of Americans, many of whom are deeply religious, reject the notion that life evolved through natural forces alone. Indeed, according to a 2006 survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 42% of Americans reject the notion that life on earth evolved and believe instead that humans and other living things have always existed in their present form. Among white evangelical Protestants - many of whom regard the Bible as the inerrant word of God - 65% hold this view. Moreover, in the same poll, 21% of those surveyed say that although life has evolved, these changes were guided by a supreme being. Only a minority, about a quarter (26%) of respondents, say that they accept evolution through natural processes or natural selection alone. Interestingly, many of those who reject natural selection recognize that scientists themselves fully accept Darwin's theory. In the same 2006 Pew poll, nearly two-thirds of adults (62%) say that they believe that scientists agree on the validity of evolution. Moreover, Americans, including religious Americans, hold science and scientists in very high regard. A 2006 survey conducted by Virginia Commonwealth University found that most people (87%) think that scientific developments make society better. Among those who describe themselves as being very religious, the same number - 87% - share that opinion. So what is at work here? How can Americans say that they respect science and even know what scientists believe and yet still disagree with the scientific community on some fundamental questions? The answer is that much of the general public simply chooses not to believe the scientific theories and discoveries that seem to contradict long-held religious or other important beliefs. When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory. This reliance on religious faith may help explain why so many people do not see science as a direct threat to religion. Only 28% of respondents in the same Time poll say that scientific advancements threaten their religious beliefs. These poll results also show that more than four-fifths of respondents (81%) say that "recent discoveries and advances" in science have not significantly impacted their religious views. In fact, 14% say that these discoveries have actually made them more religious. Only 4% say that science has made them less religious. These data once again show that, in the minds of most people in the United States, there is no real clash between science and religion. And when the two realms offer seemingly contradictory explanations (as in the case of evolution), religious people, who make up a majority of Americans, may rely primarily upon their faith for answers. From pharos at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 08:06:19 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:06:19 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stefano writes > >> Arguments ad personam are always more compelling than arguments ad rem. > > Ah. So thanks for removing a misunderstanding I had. I was inferring that > "ad personam" and "ad hominem" > were the same thing. :-) [1] > I think you have to remember that Stefano is a lawyer. Legal argument is a strange beast that lives in a different world to normal life. Ad hominem is perfectly permissible in court, where it is called impeaching a witness. Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial. In normal critical thinking (outside the legal environment), there are several types of ad hominum argument. Ad hominem (also called argumentum ad hominem or personal attack) Including: ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) ad hominem circumstantial (also called ad hominem circumstantiae) ad hominem tu quoque (also called you too argument) argumentum ad rem is the relevant appeal to evidence and truth and thus means the opposite of *all* the irrelevant arguments (including ad hominum). Quote: While the previous kinds of arguments are all fallacies because they are not relevant to the truth of the conclusion, they are not therefore fallacies in every possible context. Beliefs are not always based on actual evidence of truth, but often on other reasons which may provide grounds for credibility, but not for truth. Thus the argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ab auctoritate are forms of the Genetic Fallacy that, in the context of belief, are not fallacies at all. Impeaching a witness in a legal case is an ad hominem argument, but as the credibility of the witness is reason for believing his testimony, attacking his credibility is relevant to the situation. ---- As Jef Allbright waould say. 'It depends on the context'. BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 12:21:34 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:21:34 +1000 Subject: [ExI] evading cognitive dissonance (was Re: Human extinction) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080819015807.023c4360@satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0808172242v29c9eb05y1c8d033eb18b8941@mail.gmail.com> <707620.33470.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080818113046.0260a700@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819015807.023c4360@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: 2008/8/19 Damien Broderick : > How the Public Resolves Conflicts > Between Faith and Science > DAVID MASCI, Senior Research Fellow - Pew Research > > When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular > religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue > to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary > scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time > magazine poll. Faith: the ability to knowingly believe a lie. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 12:26:17 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:26:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0808181836s3ddc22e2ocafae36597cb1b8f@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0808172242v29c9eb05y1c8d033eb18b8941@mail.gmail.com> <707620.33470.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0808181836s3ddc22e2ocafae36597cb1b8f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20808190526m277a55daqd3ff4f31d70f0874@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Emlyn wrote: > I'm definitely an Atheist, yes. But we all live on an amount of faith, > so of course I have experience of it from the inside like all people. > Even if that faith is something along the lines of "the universe > behaves in a generally self similar way from moment to moment", it's > still faith in a sense. I'd argue there's a qualitative difference > between that and "there's a big guy running the show who loves us all > and wants to punish us for our sins". > I do not think that the main difference is in the object of the belief. The difference is that "believers" - but it would be more appropriate to say "adherents to biblical religions" - think that you have an *ethical duty* to believe, say, in the existence of the proverbial Invisibile Pink Unicorn, if necessary against evidence to the contrary. The rest of humanity is not faith-impaired, but simply think that factual opinions are not the object of ethics, whose scope is restricted to acts and values (statements with "ought" rather than "is"). As an atheist, a pagan, a Zen guru, you remain well free to have "faith" in your good luck or the isotropy of the universe or in the final victory of transhumanism, but the first two examples reflect mere assumptions, the third a choice of values (you want it to happen, irrespective of the probability of its actual happening). Not any "faith" in the judeochristian or islamic sense. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 12:35:21 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:35:21 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <028f01c901b6$7a7b33e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <01ee01c8fe63$2da0a7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <48A537BF.8030501@mac.com> <028f01c901b6$7a7b33e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808190535r73338e3j435754468491840b@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > While I'd never phrase it that way, yes, I do agree that people should have > "the right" to decide, much in the > way that people ought to be free to kill themselves (under > suitable protocols) if they wish. Once more, what harm exactly a non-destructive "upload" would inflict on them or their freedom to self-determination, suicide included? This would not prevent them in the least to go out and shoot themselves in the head. Would we be denying them a hypothetical "right to oblivion"? But would we be ready to require that, say, a biographer should be authorised by the individual concerned to conserve or reconstruct information concerning the same? Because it is a just matter of quantity and accuracy of the information collected and reorganised, not really of nature. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 12:51:19 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:51:19 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808190551k763dc811k204eca4113504c29@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 6:24 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Ah. So thanks for removing a misunderstanding I had. I was inferring that > "ad personam" and "ad hominem" > were the same thing. :-) Why, according to my sources :-), - ad rem are arguments aimed at demonstrating a statement irrespective of the positions of the other party, - ad personam are arguments aimed at demonstrating a statement on the basis of the other party's postulates or admissions, - ad hominem arguments aimed at demonstrating a statement on the basis of the basis of the other party's personality (say, "he is a notorious liar, then what he says is wrong"). Needless to say, the first kind is not easily available, the second at best can show the inconsistency of the other party, the third is scarcely demonstrative of anything but of your ability to leverage the biases of the public. :-) > > I'm not so sure about that. I imagine, per your examples, that I'm > in a conversation at a dinner party. I may very well > choose to defend unpopular and sometimes even incomprehensible > positions that may give my (so-called) adversary an advantage in > making my positions seem untenable. But so long as I am free to > reply and free to respond, I don't really care. Sure. We are only speaking of effectiveness here. And if you are into marketing, propaganda, evangelism, or advocacy, rather than discussing for the pleasure of it, you have to care. :-) > > I confess, say, to wishing to persuade the others at the dinner party > that, say, the Earth is very underpopulated, or that people should > choose being frozen over certain death. It has no bearing on me > how unacceptable the other guests may find this, unless the situation > is so extreme (e.g. I've been invited to a religious service) that it > would be impolite to pursue what I think is the truth. By the way, one should not overestimate the effectiveness of carefully crafted, watered-down, personalised, perfectly "reasonable" arguments. People are more often charmed and fascinated than persuaded, and the shock effect involved in discovering people who *really*, openly think what is implied with horror by our critics may open new worlds to your listeners... :-) > > Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Tue Aug 19 14:54:06 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:54:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Emlyn wrote: > I'm definitely an Atheist, yes. But we all live on an amount of faith, > so of course I have experience of it from the inside like all people. > Even if that faith is something along the lines of "the universe > behaves in a generally self similar way from moment to moment", it's > still faith in a sense. I'd argue there's a qualitative difference > between that and "there's a big guy running the show who loves us all > and wants to punish us for our sins". Here's another angle on the subject of this thread and religious faith. Don't you think that it would be weird if humans evolved to where we are today if every baby's birth was excruciatingly painful? An assumption of excruciatingly painful births is what the US culture (and perhaps other cultures) hammers into the head of every pregnant woman, so no wonder when it comes to the time of her birthing, she is terrified out of her mind. But many other cultures (especially the less developed ones) treat birthing as natural; women are working out in the fields, they take a time out for a couple of hours and give birth to their babies and then they go back to the fields (!). Women's bodies were made for birthing, if one understands how the different muscles of uterus work together to bring the baby out. The circular muscles around the cervix that tightly hold the pregnancy must relax during birthing to allow the longitudinal muscles at the top of the uterus to gently push the baby down. All the woman need to do is deeply relax like in a trance and 'breathe' her baby out. To allow her body to do what it already knows how to do. But women in this (U.S.) culture are not taught that. I'm coming to a position that it is a long western myth that giving birth _must_ be painful. The myth is certainly helped along by Catholic traditions that call birthing 'Eve's curse' and treat it like her punishment for her 'sin'. Birthing is mostly painful because women are terrified about it. They are terrified because they are told it must be. And so their terror prevents their body from performing well the physical functions that it was evolved to do. And so the circle continues. I think that the biggest 'pain' I'll have in my own birthing of my baby girl will be asserting my position in a medical community that is structured for only interventionist birthing methods (in Boulder County, only about 20% of the women birth their babies without epidurals, for example). I want my own birthing should be a celebration of life, not a traumatic ordeal. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Aug 19 16:59:09 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:59:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> At 08:06 AM 8/19/2008 +0000, BillK wrote: > > Stefano writes > > > >> Arguments ad personam are always more compelling than arguments ad rem. > > > > Ah. So thanks for removing a misunderstanding I had. I was inferring that > > "ad personam" and "ad hominem" > > were the same thing. :-) [1] > >I think you have to remember that Stefano is a lawyer. >Legal argument is a strange beast that lives in a different world to >normal life. Objection! Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial! Stefano means "ad personam" and this has zero to do with "ad hominem". We went through this a month or so back. Oddly enough, wikipedia gets it wrong: No. It's showing that your claim flies in the face of the very process you use in an attempt to advance it. A coarse example of such an error (which an argumentum ad personam might rebut) is standing up in court and vehemently arguing at the top of your voice that the blow you received to the throat has rendered you voiceless. Damien Broderick From santostasigio at yahoo.com Tue Aug 19 16:38:02 2008 From: santostasigio at yahoo.com (giovanni santost) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <225744.87707.qm@web31301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Amara, Yes you are completely right (often you are). There are so many of these horrible myths in religions, in particular in the main 3 Semitic ones. Religion's superstition should be considered the biggest enemy of transhumanism (and we should work harder to fight such an enemy). The essence of western religions is? based on the myth of the inevitability of pain, suffering and death.The myth of everlasting life in a christian still and sanitized Heaven (beside being the biggest scam ever) is worse than death itself to me. Talking about peaceful alternative birthing methods, did you look into the water birthing idea ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_birth Best wishes, Giovanni PS When the baby is due? --- On Tue, 8/19/08, Amara Graps wrote: From: Amara Graps Subject: [ExI] Human extinction To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2008, 9:54 AM On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Emlyn wrote: > I'm definitely an Atheist, yes. But we all live on an amount of faith, > so of course I have experience of it from the inside like all people. > Even if that faith is something along the lines of "the universe > behaves in a generally self similar way from moment to moment", it's > still faith in a sense. I'd argue there's a qualitative difference > between that and "there's a big guy running the show who loves us all > and wants to punish us for our sins". Here's another angle on the subject of this thread and religious faith. Don't you think that it would be weird if humans evolved to where we are today if every baby's birth was excruciatingly painful? An assumption of excruciatingly painful births is what the US culture (and perhaps other cultures) hammers into the head of every pregnant woman, so no wonder when it comes to the time of her birthing, she is terrified out of her mind. But many other cultures (especially the less developed ones) treat birthing as natural; women are working out in the fields, they take a time out for a couple of hours and give birth to their babies and then they go back to the fields (!). Women's bodies were made for birthing, if one understands how the different muscles of uterus work together to bring the baby out. The circular muscles around the cervix that tightly hold the pregnancy must relax during birthing to allow the longitudinal muscles at the top of the uterus to gently push the baby down. All the woman need to do is deeply relax like in a trance and 'breathe' her baby out. To allow her body to do what it already knows how to do. But women in this (U.S.) culture are not taught that. I'm coming to a position that it is a long western myth that giving birth _must_ be painful. The myth is certainly helped along by Catholic traditions that call birthing 'Eve's curse' and treat it like her punishment for her 'sin'. Birthing is mostly painful because women are terrified about it. They are terrified because they are told it must be. And so their terror prevents their body from performing well the physical functions that it was evolved to do. And so the circle continues. I think that the biggest 'pain' I'll have in my own birthing of my baby girl will be asserting my position in a medical community that is structured for only interventionist birthing methods (in Boulder County, only about 20% of the women birth their babies without epidurals, for example). I want my own birthing should be a celebration of life, not a traumatic ordeal. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado _______________________________________________ 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 stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 17:08:30 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:08:30 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808191008u7fcff9d4id65acf80f414dadc@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:06 AM, BillK wrote: > I think you have to remember that Stefano is a lawyer. > Legal argument is a strange beast that lives in a different world to > normal life. Why, I am impressed... :-) Seriously, however, there is some common ground between court or arbitration advocacy and any presentation or debate aimed at promoting the views of the speaker. Say, transhumanist views... :-) Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 17:26:51 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:26:51 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:06 AM 8/19/2008 +0000, BillK wrote: > >> > Stefano writes >> > >> >> Arguments ad personam are always more compelling than arguments ad rem. >> > >> > Ah. So thanks for removing a misunderstanding I had. I was inferring >> > that >> > "ad personam" and "ad hominem" >> > were the same thing. :-) [1] >> >> I think you have to remember that Stefano is a lawyer. >> Legal argument is a strange beast that lives in a different world to >> normal life. > > Objection! Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial! > > Stefano means "ad personam" and this has zero to do with "ad hominem". We > went through this a month or so back. > > Oddly enough, wikipedia gets it wrong: > Wikipedia wrong? Shurely not? :) But it is not just wikipedia if your version is correct. How about going back to the Latin? Argumentum ad hominem - Argument against the man (person). A fallacy consisting of criticizing a person rather than that person's ideas or argument, usually on the assumption that the the idea/argument is more or less sound depending on the qualities of the person endorsing it. Argumentum ad personam - Argument to the person. General form of Argumentum ad hominem (or ad feminam to distinguish women). BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Aug 19 17:50:22 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:50:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080819124905.0258ab78@satx.rr.com> At 05:26 PM 8/19/2008 +0000, BillK wrote: >How about going back to the Latin? > > > >Argumentum ad personam - Argument to the person. General form of >Argumentum ad hominem (or ad feminam to distinguish women). Reprise of June post: http://www.dianahsieh.com/misc/fallacies.html ad personam: appealing to the misrepresented self-interest of those one is trying to convince. From pharos at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 18:49:48 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:49:48 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080819124905.0258ab78@satx.rr.com> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819124905.0258ab78@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Reprise of June post: > > http://www.dianahsieh.com/misc/fallacies.html > > ad personam: appealing to the misrepresented self-interest of those one is > trying to convince. Sorry Damien, but I cannot find any other sources that support her definition of ad personam. Can you? All the other references I find agree with wikipedia. I even checked in the references that she quoted at the foot of her list. Three are available on the net and none of them use her definition. Misrepresenting the views of another is the strawman argument. I think she just made a mistake with that one. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 19:35:11 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:35:11 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819124905.0258ab78@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Encyclopedia Britannica quoting from Peter A. Angeles Dictionary of Philosophy-- published by Barnes and Noble, copyright 1981 says: 6. Fallacy of argumentum ad personam (appeal to personal interest). Arguing by appealing to the personal likes (preferences, prejudices, predispositions, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted. --------------------- This is quite like her definition, without the misrepresentation bit. This definition also appears on this *huge* list of fallacies I think the differences between authorities arises from the interpretation of the 'personam' word. Does it apply 'the person' or to 'the personal likes, prejudices, etc of the person'. Bruce Thompson's Fallacies Page says This website presents my attempt to make sense of the bewildering subject of bad reasoning. Many philosophers have attempted to name and classify types of fallacies, but no list or classification scheme has so far managed to be comprehensive. This list is also incomplete. In fact, I believe any list of fallacies must necessarily be a work-in-progress, since the use of fallacious reasoning is itself constantly changing. The fallacies that were well-known to the ancient Greeks and Romans were the fallacies used by politicians and orators. We still have politicians and orators today, so those fallacies are still with us; but we also have to keep track of fallacies used by advertisers and the news media. With the advance of science we have had to keep up on the fallacies involved in scientific (and pseudo-scientific) reasoning. As new public institutions emerge, no doubt new forms of fallacious reasoning will arise with them. We logicians need to stay alert. ON THE NAMING OF FALLACIES Several of the fallacies on this website do not appear on other lists for the simple reason that I named them myself. In some cases I was attempting to name a fallacy that had been described (but left unnamed) by other writers; in other cases I was attempting to describe and label a fallacy that I had observed in use, but could not fit into an existing slot. -------------------- So the naming of fallacies is not an exact science. Some will be called different names by different logicians. If we refer to an obscure fallacy, it is probably best to also quote our understanding of what it is. :) BillK From amara at amara.com Tue Aug 19 21:11:35 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:11:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction Message-ID: giovanni santost santostasigio at yahoo.com >Talking about peaceful alternative birthing methods, >did you look into the water birthing idea ? >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_birth That's not a birthing method, that is a medium. >When the baby is due? around New Year's From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Aug 19 22:12:21 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:12:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080819165915.023b6048@satx.rr.com> At 11:59 AM 8/19/2008 -0500, I wrote hastily: >A coarse example of such an error (which an argumentum ad personam >might rebut) is standing up in court and vehemently arguing at the >top of your voice that the blow you received to the throat has >rendered you voiceless. That was probably a rotten example, or no example at all. I suppose it's more along the lines of appealing to the person's avowed convictions and showing how those actually support an argument that the person has previously dismissed or reviled. This could be done sympathetically ("Well, then, if you're sure that's true, doesn't it also follow, perhaps rather surprisingly, that--?") or aggressively ("Didn't you just say exactly the opposite, and swore to its truth upon the life of your dear little old grey haired mother and your immortal soul? Can't you see the inconsistency here?"). The latter method of persuasion might not work too well, except perhaps in court... :) I agree with BillK that the term "ad personam" itself is misleading; it would be preferable to have something more transparent in English. "Argument from thorough-going consistency with your deepest principles" is a bit of mouthful, though. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Aug 20 02:41:00 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:41:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Etymology of Critter's Dilemma References: <695554.48790.qm@web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <02be01c9026e$9e8bf400$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart writes > --- Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Why don't you come up with terms that (a) are not already >> well-defined in exactly the same context, (b) are not silly >> and hard to remember? Thinking up a good name for these >> moves of yours is even more important than thinking up >> appropriate names for programming variables (which is >> *plenty* important). > > I have considered your thoughts on the matter and decided to leave the moves as > they are for the following reasons: > ... > >> Okay, if you're going to stick with "snap", "crackle", and "pop", >> (I sincerely suggest you stay away from "defect" and "cooperate", >> but "ignore" I guess fits), then please provide very careful definitions >> with examples (and counter-examples). > > 1. Cooperate: To have a net positive effect on another player by bestowing a > non-neglible benefit (i.e. an increase in utility) upon the other player for > whatever reason. Since rational players seek to maximize their own benefit, > cooperation is to conform to the intentions of the other player irregardless of > whether it is due to ones own intent, circumstance, coercion, or deception. > Examples of cooperation include submitting to authority, paying for something > (whether the price is fair or not), getting eaten by a predator,... If you think that people are going to study your novel definitions and remember them, you're unbelievably optimistic. Your audience will be reduced to a small set of your students or followers. > 3. Defect: To incur a non-neglible cost upon the other player for whatever > reason. Since all rational agents (i.e. critters) seek to minimize cost, > defection is a betrayal or thwarting of the intentions of the other player. > Examples include all manner of violence, stealing, cheating, extortion, > vandalism, defending oneself from attack,... Likewise. I'm telling you that *no* one is going to remember that by "cooperate" you include things like allowing yourself to be eaten, and that by "defect" you include behaviors such as defending oneself. Alas, I have seen certain friends try out neologisms for almost forty years, and I've never yet seen a single success. But what you're doing is *far* more groundlessly optimistic (in my opinion), for you are attempting to change the very meanings of established words. It's possible that I am the last person who has or will pay any attention to what you have written or will write further employing this terminology. Good luck. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Aug 20 02:58:34 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:58:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> It's known that between three and four percent of the population of certain large highly industrialized western nations are composed of sociopaths. (See [1] for definitions, but I don't have references for the statistics.) at hand. I presume that the "three or four percent" covers all types of sociopathology. MRI scans can determine what portions of the brain are used by test subjects to answer questions. Normal people can rather effortless "pass" tests of moral and ethical challenges as presented in hypothetical scenarios, but sociopaths who manage to pass these tests must do so by *calculating* their responses, and cannot do so either as quickly as normal people or without using portions of their brains that yield tell-tale signs via MRI. Suppose compulsory testing of children for sociopathology is found to be very reliable, and that periodic tests given every two years beginning at age 8 identifies with complete reliability who is and who is not a sociopath. I claim that some sociopaths---who, in my unprofessional way of phasing it are simply people without conscience---nonetheless learn from an early age that their parents, teachers, or the authorities will always catch them out, and will always make them pay for crimes, and so vow to themselves to always be good citizens. That is, they desist from the highly negative behaviors listed in [1] to the same extent as any normal highly conscientious person does. Now you are the judge and before stands a defendant in your court who has been found guilty by jury in your court of having committed a heinous crime. In your sentencing, do you take into account the fact that he or she is a sociopath? Lee [1] (from Wikipedia): Sociopathy is a loosely-defined term that maybe used to refer to: a. Psychopathy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy b. Antisocial personality disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder c. Dissocial personality disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial_personality_disorder From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 04:16:39 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:16:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Fringe," a new Fox TV series Message-ID: <2d6187670808192116h38459ea8hf4120047e810cbf@mail.gmail.com> Have any of you seen the previews for the upcoming Fox network series by J.J. Abrams (producer of Lost, Alias and the upcoming Star Trek incarnation) entitled _Fringe_? It has sort of an X-Files feel as a group of FBI agents investigate out of control "super science" experiments at the bleeding edge of technological progress. But I wonder to what extent it will prey on the paranoia of people and play into the hands of folks like the two Bills, Bill Joy and Bill McKibben. I am curious to see to what extent a television program can influence public opinion in areas crucial to Transhumanist hopes and dreams. John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 04:20:08 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:20:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240808192120k7c91b178x83cb5eb9228c55e6@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:58 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > In your sentencing, do you take into account the fact that he or she > is a sociopath? > Until this condition is deemed a "prior event" according to the law, in all fairness I should effectively disregard this status information and make a ruling as though I did not possess this knowledge. I don't see how this is much different from testing to determine chromosomal gender or sexual orientation or True political intention or any of hundreds of other identity assessment questions (isn't this information is legally protected within specific contexts?) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Aug 20 05:29:40 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:29:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240808192120k7c91b178x83cb5eb9228c55e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <031c01c90286$19efa9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike writes > Lee wrote: > > > In your sentencing, do you take into account the fact that he or she > > is a sociopath [known factually as such by impending technology]? > > Until this condition is deemed a "prior event" according to the law, > in all fairness I should effectively disregard this status information > and make a ruling as though I did not possess this knowledge. Judges take special circumstances into account all the time. Especially in America since the time of the Warren court, it's become widespread for judges to do "what is right" rather than follow the law. It's *juries* who (except in cases of Jury Nullification) must follow the law. Besides, who wouldn't want to grant judges *some* leeway in handing out sentences? You use the phrase "in all fairness". Do you consider your act to be in all fairness to the future victims of this known sociopath? I had advanced the idea that *some* sociopaths are not dangerous because from an early age they have internalized that there is simply too big a change for their misdeeds to become known and for them to suffer punishment. But my question clearly relates to a sociopath who has not successfully internalized good behavior. > I don't see how this is much different from testing to determine > chromosomal gender or sexual orientation or True political intention > or any of hundreds of other identity assessment questions > (isn't this information is legally protected within specific contexts?) Of course, you are bringing up an entirely different question here from the one I posed. In this case, you are entering into the delicate question of whether children, say, ought to be compulsorily tested in order to determine their sociopathic tendencies. And your examples are even further afield, namely, for what possible reason would anyone outside the immediate family have an interest in chromosomal gender or sexual orientation? Clearly the libertarian answer is that such testing should be entirely voluntary, and, if desired, the results remain unavailable to others. Well, for adults, I mean. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Aug 20 05:41:41 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:41:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <01ee01c8fe63$2da0a7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <48A537BF.8030501@mac.com> <028f01c901b6$7a7b33e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808190535r73338e3j435754468491840b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <031f01c90287$814e4280$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano writes > Lee wrote: > > > While I'd never phrase it that way, yes, I do agree > > that people should have "the right" to decide, much > > in the way that people ought to be free to kill > > themselves (under suitable protocols) if they wish. > > Once more, what harm exactly a non-destructive > "upload" would inflict on them or their freedom to > self-determination, suicide included? One's freedom of self-decision should include have a veto over all circumstances under which one would be run. I fully understand those here who would go so far as to refuse to upload someone without their express permission, even if it was the only way to save their lives. While I respect and understand their ethical touchiness on this, quite clearly to me there are obvious exceptions that you and I agree about: namely, billions of people have never heard of uploading, and many would completely fail to understand it if they did hear about it. In those cases, we'd upload them in a flash, if, say we knew that a Gamma Ray burst was imminent and this was the only way to save their lives, right? > This would not prevent them in the least to go out and > shoot themselves in the head. Would we be denying > them a hypothetical "right to oblivion"? I hate this kind of use of the word "right" :-) To me, saying that X has "the right" to commit Y means only that the speaker approves of X having the legal right or moral sanction by his lights to commit Y. Using the phrase "has a right to" attempts to make this more objective than it actually is, and strikes me as close to propaganda. But anyway, I do approve of people having the choice of total oblivion or not. If that's the way they *really* want it, then so be it. (On the other hand, beings infinitely more judicious than we are may someday decide to resurrect a *close* version of that person who is identical in every way except that he or she wants to live. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all!) Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Aug 20 06:00:35 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:00:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <031f01c90287$814e4280$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <01ee01c8fe63$2da0a7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <48A537BF.8030501@mac.com> <028f01c901b6$7a7b33e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808190535r73338e3j435754468491840b@mail.gmail.com> <031f01c90287$814e4280$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080820005420.0239a528@satx.rr.com> At 10:41 PM 8/19/2008 -0700, Lee wrote of: >billions >of people have never heard of uploading, and many >would completely fail to understand it if they did hear >about it. In those cases, we'd upload them in a flash, >if, say we knew that a Gamma Ray burst was imminent >and this was the only way to save their lives, right? This is magical thinking, isn't it? You posit a world in which an unknown technology not only can copy a complete consciousness into a different substrate "in a flash" but can do this to *billions of people*, and yet somehow those billions have remained ignorant of this technology during its development and deployment across the globe. Worse, where is this uploading supposed to be happening that is proof against the blast of an incoming GRB? Deep under the crust? On superluminal starships that can tear off as soon as the instantaneous uploading of billions of the ignorant is complete, outrunning the GRB shockwave? This isn't a gedanken, Lee, it's a cartoon word salad. Seems to me. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Aug 20 07:23:32 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:23:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net><01ee01c8fe63$2da0a7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><48A537BF.8030501@mac.com><028f01c901b6$7a7b33e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><580930c20808190535r73338e3j435754468491840b@mail.gmail.com><031f01c90287$814e4280$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080820005420.0239a528@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <034e01c90296$3bff5930$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien writes > Lee wrote: > >>billions of people have never heard of uploading, and many >>would completely fail to understand it if they did hear >>about it. In those cases, we'd upload them in a flash, >>if, say we knew that a Gamma Ray burst was imminent >>and this was the only way to save their lives, right? > > This is magical thinking, isn't it? Oh, quite, as I didn't feel like putting much effort into making it any kind of realistic scenario. That would have taken a few minutes' additional work. I didn't think that anyone here would mind :-) > You posit a world in which an unknown technology not > only can copy a complete consciousness into a different > substrate "in a flash" but can do this to *billions of people*, > and yet somehow those billions have remained ignorant of > this technology during its development and deployment > across the globe. Jeesh! You are *certainly* aware that the ENTIRE point was one of analyzing our moral and ethical concerns! Why should I have to take even two extra minutes to dream up something more satisfactory, when the point is clearly made that under *some* circumstances, one would and ought to violate other's knowing consent to certain actions. Okay, imagine it's 1912 at your knowledge that the hospitalized sleeping patients in the medical ward (---oh, oh, do I have now to worry about whether large ocean going vessels in 1912 really had medical wards?). On ethical grounds, ought one to transfer, without their consent, these drugged and sleeping (perhaps comatose) patients to very risky small lifeboats in the open sea? Or should one ethically feel compelled to awaken each person and carefully explain the predicament? This question, of course, is entirely rhetorical, and you don't miss my point at all. > Worse, where is this uploading supposed to be happening that is proof > against the blast of an incoming GRB? Deep under the crust? I'll admit that the thought crossed my mind for half a second or so that certain kinds of hardware will be proof against GRB radiation, and so therefore so will the running software on them. > This isn't a gedanken, Lee, it's a cartoon word salad. Seems to me. I'll admit that going through the work of creating an entirely realistic or at least believable world is not only entertaining to readers, but can increase the accuracy of their decision making as well as make clearer the crucial human dilemmas that are being presented. But philosophers seldom engage in this bread-and-butter work of the SF professional. Besides, fantasy writers do vastly worse than I've done here with their blatant admission of magic---yet their characters too can face interesting and provocative moral dilemmas, and nobody complains about it. Lee From dharris234 at mindspring.com Wed Aug 20 08:38:43 2008 From: dharris234 at mindspring.com (David C. Harris) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:38:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48ABD813.30602@mindspring.com> On uterine contractions, http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/hypopit/oxytocin.html describes the role of oxytocin. A midwife friend said that oxytocin stimulates the contraction of the longitudinal muscles, pushing the baby along. If fear stimulates epinephrine (adrenaline), that hormone causes contraction of the circular muscles near the cervix, keeping the baby in. Supportive friends and experienced, trusted, women from the tribe can encourage confidence. I think the purpose of warm water as a birthing "medium" is partly for the baby's first experience and partly for relaxing the mother. And there is a hormone called relaxin that dilates the cervix. Genentech considered making it as a drug, during my years working there. All are parts of the natural process of giving birth. I agree with Giovanni that you have an excellent perspective on the process. Regarding the Christian view of maternal pain as part of God's curse on Adam and Eve --- that view was one of the factors retarding the use of early anesthetics in childbirth. Any religion that encourages unnecessary pain is, IMHO, an abomination. - David Harris, Palo Alto Amara Graps wrote: > > Here's another angle on the subject of this thread and religious faith. > > Don't you think that it would be weird if humans evolved to where we are > today if every baby's birth was excruciatingly painful? An assumption of > excruciatingly painful births is what the US culture (and perhaps other > cultures) hammers into the head of every pregnant woman, so no wonder > when it comes to the time of her birthing, she is terrified out of her > mind. But many other cultures (especially the less developed ones) > treat birthing as natural; women are working out in the fields, they > take a time out for a couple of hours and give birth to their babies and > then they go back to the fields (!). Women's bodies were made for > birthing, if one understands how the different muscles of uterus work > together to bring the baby out. The circular muscles around the cervix > that tightly hold the pregnancy must relax during birthing to allow the > longitudinal muscles at the top of the uterus to gently push the baby > down. All the woman need to do is deeply relax like in a trance and > 'breathe' her baby out. To allow her body to do what it already knows > how to do. > > But women in this (U.S.) culture are not taught that. I'm coming to a > position that it is a long western myth that giving birth _must_ be > painful. The myth is certainly helped along by Catholic traditions that > call birthing 'Eve's curse' and treat it like her punishment for her > 'sin'. Birthing is mostly painful because women are terrified about it. > They are terrified because they are told it must be. And so their terror > prevents their body from performing well the physical functions that it > was evolved to do. And so the circle continues. > > I think that the biggest 'pain' I'll have in my own birthing of my baby > girl will be asserting my position in a medical community that is > structured for only interventionist birthing methods (in Boulder County, > only about 20% of the women birth their babies without epidurals, for > example). I want my own birthing should be a celebration of life, not a > traumatic ordeal. > > Amara > From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 09:57:05 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:57:05 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: 2008/8/20 Lee Corbin : > In your sentencing, do you take into account the fact that he or she > is a sociopath? It depends on whether the judge believes the person's psychological state will make them more or less likely to offend again. If more likely he should go for a longer sentence, if less likely he should go for a shorter sentence, all else being equal. The alternative approach of granting a sociopath a lesser sentence on the grounds that he couldn't help his behaviour is spurious. Even the most extreme sociopathic criminal usually makes some effort to avoid getting caught, so they do at least understand that what they are doing is considered wrong and are deterred by the thought of punishment. This is not so if someone experiencing a psychotic episode with command hallucinations, for example; and even in that case we generally detain them until they are no longer dangerous. -- Stathis Papaioannou From pharos at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 13:26:03 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:26:03 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Etymology of Critter's Dilemma In-Reply-To: <695554.48790.qm@web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <01ac01c8fdcc$3f6b4710$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <695554.48790.qm@web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 3:19 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > I have considered your thoughts on the matter and decided to leave the moves as > they are for the following reasons: > > 1. In the game theory of PD, defection is defined simply as "betrayal". CD > doesn't alter that, it just defines the word more precisely in a larger > context. > > 2. Critter's Dilemma is a direct evolutionary descendant of Prisoner's Dilemma > and I feel I would be defecting on Axelrod, Nash, and other sources of my > inspiration if I change the names of the moves. I would rather do violence to > the definition of a word than to the memory of great thinkers. > > 3. The correspondence principle requires it. Similar to the way that quantum > mechanics or special relativity reduces to classical mechanics in the limit of > high or low energies respectively, so too shall Critter's Dilemma reduce to > Prisoner's Dilemma in the limit of coercive systems like prisons, gladiatorial > arenas, and non-free markets. > There is a new paper out that you might find of interest. Published: 16:16 EST, August 19, 2008 Fear of predators may be a bigger killer than the predators themselves When biologists consider the effects that predators have on their prey, they shouldn't just count the number of individuals consumed. According to a University of Rhode Island ecologist, they must also examine the effects of fear. URI Assistant Professor Evan Preisser said that fear of being eaten can reduce population densities as much or even more than the actual quantities of individuals killed by predators. "Prey are far from helpless victims of predators," said Preisser. "They employ a wide array of defensive strategies to protect themselves. But the costs of these strategies may have a larger impact on their population than the direct effect of being eaten." ----------------------- This effect reminds me of how in the US fear of terrorism is causing much, much, more damage than any actual incidents of terrorism. BillK From amara at amara.com Wed Aug 20 13:35:55 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:35:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction Message-ID: David C. Harris dharris234 at mindspring.com : >On uterine contractions, >http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/hypopit/oxytocin.html >describes the role of oxytocin. A midwife friend said that oxytocin >stimulates the contraction of the longitudinal muscles, pushing the baby >along. If fear stimulates epinephrine (adrenaline), that hormone causes >contraction of the circular muscles near the cervix, keeping the baby >in. Supportive friends and experienced, trusted, women from the tribe >can encourage confidence. David: I know this... That's why I don't want pitocin to induce labor because that'll break the system of the longitudinal muscles and circular muscles working together. If something is administered to push the baby down when the other parts of the body are not ready, the baby will be bonking her head which will lead to fetal distress which will lead to more intervention and so on. What a mess the hospitals do to what is usually a very simple and natural process. >I think the purpose of warm water as a >birthing "medium" is partly for the baby's first experience and partly >for relaxing the mother. And there is a hormone called relaxin that >dilates the cervix. Genentech considered making it as a drug, during my >years working there. All are parts of the natural process of giving birth. I wish so many wouldn't recommend water birth without the whole picture, though. It's just one _small_ aspect of something that a woman _could_ do for going into deep relaxation to support the uterine muscles working as they should. Don't treat water like a magical medium. The uterine muscles are extremely sensitive to the woman's emotions. I already know that from my ultrasounds; I can see what the muscles are doing according to what circumstances are occurring in the examination room. Just like I learned 15 years ago that I can teach my muscles to relax and let go (with biofeedback, for my repetitive strain injury), I know that I can learn relaxation methods to teach my body to give birth without pain. I have the knowledge in my head, in November, I'll have the knowledge in my body after my courses. The big picture is in the woman's body, what she can learn to allow her body to do, not in the medium. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 14:04:02 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:04:02 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819124905.0258ab78@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <580930c20808200704wf4f0d11ia77936148cea8ee0@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:49 PM, BillK wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Sorry Damien, but I cannot find any other sources that support her > definition of ad personam. > Can you? Schopenauer, *Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten*. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Aug 20 14:07:40 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:07:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <580930c20808140430p438ed9daq3891e9a1c2589ec5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <036b01c902ce$ca2bb3b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano wrote > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 7:59 PM, hkhenson wrote: >> On another list I said. >>> > My best guess is that physical state humans will not exist long >>> > after the singularity--something I can't see holding off even half >>> > way to the end of this century. >>> > Then the question becomes how our intellectual descendants deal with >>> > the problems. I suspect at best humans will have the status of >>> > cats--in some ways an unnerving prospect considering what we do to >>> > cats. I don't really care about status all that much. Primarily, I'm interested in survival so that at least I have a chance to improve my station and my prospects for more enjoyment of life. Ultimately, I want to delight in understanding to the greatest extent that "I" can. So for me it would be wonderful if tomorrow everyone else's IQ doubled, even if mine were excluded. Think of how many interesting people there would be to talk to! Think about how rich we'd all become, even a dumb shmuck like me. The very idea that we would be *treated* as cats are now treated, scarcely deserves comment. Cats are routinely killed by large dogs, suffocated to death in extinction chambers, and thrown into the river to drown. If we survive at all, it will be in style, I think. Stefano inquires: > What is really "human" and what is "extinction" or "survival"? To me, it's relatively simple. My remote ancestors of 500 million years ago are extinct. Period. We are no more *them* than they "were" once tiny prokaryote cells. And if we are replaced by beings that are no more like us than we are like prokaryote cells, then we too will be extinct. There *must* be objective similarity or else you, or your species, exists no longer. > After a fashion, a measure of how successful a species is in Darwinian > terms is how fast it "disappears" - being replaced by its evolutionary > successors. By this peculiar logic, some lemming like ancestor of ours that ceased to be 600 million years ago is more successful than were Neanderthals. Suppose that those lemmings lived for a million years. Well, that's wonderful from their point of view, but the Neanderthals should realize that we are vastly more similar to them than we are to the lemmings, and they "survive" (if one wishes to continue this abuse of language) in us. > Nietzsche himself says: "The species, seen from a > distance, is something as insubstantial as the individual. The > 'conservation of the species' is only a consequence of the growth of > the species, that is of a victory on the species, in the path towards > a stronger species. [...] It is exactly with respect to every living > being that it could be best shown that it does everything that it can > not to protect itself, but to become more than what it is". Despite himself, it's clear that Nietzsche believed in some sort of racial soul. Simply because a certain species existed somewhere in a chain of evolving creatures, this gives him license to have the first in the chain identify with the last in the chain. So just what is it that has remained the same about them? A soul? What else could it be? > Accordingly, there is no real reason why we should not reserve our > emotional investment in the human *clade* rather than, and as opposed > to, the "mankind" at any given moment of time. Let me get this straight. Were there a button (sorry, Damien) that would instantly cause any given human (or all humans) at this very moment to evolve into vast, vast creatures with intelligences comparable to God's and who looked at us the way we look at our one-cell progenitors, you would push such a button? If you pushed that button, we would all be dead, and instantly! (Unless, of course, you believe that our soul still remains the same---because otherwise, on objective grounds, we no longer exist at all. Not at all.) The person who I am would henceforth receive exactly zero runtime. > And again, it is at the end of the say [story] arbitrary to limit > our vision of such clade in terms of an uninterrupted sequence > of DNA replicators, the "children of the mind" being conceivably > deserving to be considered as our children as > well as our biological offspring. One does *not* survive through one's children. This is a horrible, evil fallacy, along with the consoling lies of religion the practitioners of which, who in truth see the reality of death invent consoling fairy tales. My poor departed father is actually quite, quite dead, unfortunately. He does not survive in me, no, not in the slightest. The only extremely weak way that he "survives in me", is that I do have a few of his traits. But then I have a number of Issac Asimov's traits too, so perhaps it should be said that Issac Asimov survives in me. Bah! Nonsense! Lee From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 14:23:53 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:23:53 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <031f01c90287$814e4280$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <01ee01c8fe63$2da0a7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <48A537BF.8030501@mac.com> <028f01c901b6$7a7b33e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808190535r73338e3j435754468491840b@mail.gmail.com> <031f01c90287$814e4280$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808200723g7093afa6s53cd1abb68cbfa36@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > One's freedom of self-decision should include have a > veto over all circumstances under which one would be > run. This is in my understanding also Egan's position, whose characters in novels such as Incandescence are pretty much concerned of the lot of their possible "abusive" copies, and thus take care of teleporting themselves in an encrypted form. But, for the sake of discussion, what exactly would be the rationale behind such right of veto? I am especially thinking of borderline scenarios, which are usually useful to enlighten possible general rules. E.g., what about an identity that is "reconstructed" or "emulated" with growing and asymptotic accuracy, but where conflicting rights might be claimed by the "creator" against those of the "model"? And what about the conflict between the model and a copy who is faithful and dynamic enough to claim an "agency" similar to that of the "original" ("I want to be run against a Roman Empire scenario", "No, you are a mere copy and have to live in the Aztec World because this is the will of the model on which you were developed"). Stefano Vaj > > This would not prevent them in the least to go out and >> shoot themselves in the head. Would we be denying >> them a hypothetical "right to oblivion"? >> > > I hate this kind of use of the word "right" :-) So do I... In fact, I even wrote a book on the subject. :-) Paradoxically enough, screaming around that somebody "has a right" to something usually signifies that he or she does *not* have such a right (yet), as far as the legal system concerned goes, but you would like him or her to be granted it. > > But anyway, I do approve of people having the choice > of total oblivion or not. If that's the way they *really* > want it, then so be it. > But would we really be prepared to limit the freedom of speech of biographers and historians to protect such choice? And if not, what about movies? What about interactive movies? What about interactive VR system starring the individual concerned? And you see where this eventually brings us... Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Aug 20 14:26:33 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:26:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > Lee wrote: > >> In your sentencing, do you take into account the fact that he or she >> is a sociopath? > > It depends on whether the judge believes the person's psychological > state will make them more or less likely to offend again. If more > likely he should go for a longer sentence, if less likely he should go > for a shorter sentence, all else being equal. Certainly, but this is also exactly how it is at the present time. I'm wondering if having exact knowledge---just for the purpose here of establishing principle---that a criminal about to be sentenced is actually a sociopath (e.g. has no conscience and is completely incapable of remorse or sympathy with other living things), makes a difference to you. In my view, it would make an extreme difference. Since we now know that this individual means only harm to others, then he must be placed in monitored community with only other known sociopaths, or executed forthwith. > The alternative approach of granting a sociopath a lesser sentence > on the grounds that he couldn't help his behaviour is spurious. Of course. That's as silly as excusing a criminal's behavior because of his genes and his environment. To understand or comprehend is one thing, to excuse is quite another. Lee From pharos at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 14:36:12 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:36:12 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <580930c20808200704wf4f0d11ia77936148cea8ee0@mail.gmail.com> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819124905.0258ab78@satx.rr.com> <580930c20808200704wf4f0d11ia77936148cea8ee0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:49 PM, BillK wrote: >> Sorry Damien, but I cannot find any other sources that support her >> definition of ad personam. >> Can you? > > Schopenauer, Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten. > _______________________________________________ No, that little treatise supports the encyclopedia Britannica version I quoted later, without the 'misrepresentation' feature that Diana Hsieh added. Quote: It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. ---------- BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 14:57:26 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:57:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <036b01c902ce$ca2bb3b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <580930c20808140430p438ed9daq3891e9a1c2589ec5@mail.gmail.com> <036b01c902ce$ca2bb3b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808200757s5ef27aeav7dd1f0665017c336@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stefano inquires: > >> What is really "human" and what is "extinction" or "survival"? >> > > To me, it's relatively simple. My remote ancestors of 500 million > years ago are extinct. Period. OK. My point is: beyond your extinction as an individual, it is arbitrary to identify with, or to invest emotionally in the lot of, your biological grand-children rather than your one-million year-distant evolutionary successors. One's grand-children are no more him or her than the latter, and both are successors. So, either you metaphorically "survive" in both, or you do not in either. But in both cases there no obvious reason why the survival of the species should be considered as survival tout court, and the survival of the clade should not. In fact, to pose the survival of the species as one's ultimate ideal may well be to the detriment of the destiny of the clade, and would lead us to conclude that it would have been a good idea for our simian ancestors, at least from their point of view, to put in place an eugenic programme aimed at avoiding the kind of evolutionary change that ultimately led to ourselves. Despite himself, it's clear that Nietzsche believed in some sort > of racial soul. Simply because a certain species existed somewhere > in a chain of evolving creatures, this gives him license to have the > first in the chain identify with the last in the chain. So just what is > it that has remained the same about them? A soul? What else > could it be? The issue however is: why should we identify instead with our species? Especially given that there are no quantum leaps, and that no precise boundary could ever be identified between, say, proto-humans and humans? If we like to think that our "successors" shall be there, genealogy is as good a criterium to define them as similarity. A rat, as a mammal and everything, may well be much less similar to me than an entirely unrelated human being, but also much more similar to me than an android. Yet I should be more inclined to consider myself extinct if it were the rats rather than the androids to take over. Why that? I suspect one reason may be that androids could be legimately considered as "children of the mind", something which could never be said of rats. And this of course would be even more true for remote biological successors whose DNA directly derived, artificially or naturally, from my own. Let me get this straight. Were there a button (sorry, Damien) that > would instantly cause any given human (or all humans) at this very > moment to evolve into vast, vast creatures with intelligences > comparable to God's and who looked at us the way we look at > our one-cell progenitors, you would push such a button? > > If you pushed that button, we would all be dead, and instantly! > Yes. And since every morning we wake up a little different, and perhaps ideally even a little bit more phenotipically "evolved" than we were the evening before, we die every night. So be it, I can live with that. :-) One does *not* survive through one's children. > Agreed. Neither in our children, nor in our species or successors' thereof. But we are programmed to find aesthetic satisfaction or psychological solace in leaving something behind, be it in stone or in the form of offspring, including "metaphorical" offspring, such as disciples, fellow citizens, correligionaries, intellectual progeny - and possibly artificial agents created by ourselves. And I suspect such trait would not go away with an indefinite extension of our lifespan, since it would go on increasing the "competitiveness" of the replicators (genes, memes) carried around by the individual concerned. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 16:48:11 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:48:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819124905.0258ab78@satx.rr.com> <580930c20808200704wf4f0d11ia77936148cea8ee0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20808200948x5a244586p887538f0cdbc0db2@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:36 PM, BillK wrote: > No, that little treatise supports the encyclopedia Britannica version > I quoted later, without the 'misrepresentation' feature that Diana > Hsieh added. I have just checked, and I stand corrected. "Confutations... can be... a) ad rem b) ad hominem or ex concessis [meaning: arguing not from an "objective" truth, but from what is conceded by your opponent to be true]". And much later: "When you realise that your opponent is stronger and you will end up losing the discussion, let you become abusive, insulting, rude so that it be possible to shift from the subject matter to a personal quarrel with your opponent and to an attack against him personally. We could call it argumentum ad personam, and is distinct from the argomentum ad hominem". (The quick & approximate translation is mine). Yet, it remains the case that everyday usage of the two expression is at least in my experience bizarrely reversed... :-/ Stefano Vaj From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Wed Aug 20 17:17:47 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:17:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0808172242v29c9eb05y1c8d033eb18b8941@mail.gmail.com> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <710b78fc0808172242v29c9eb05y1c8d033eb18b8941@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Just an update. Check out this story... http://www.physorg.com/news138384297.html Note that they mention 200 bio-refineries to cover just 2% of the fuel needed. Not nearly the output of an oil refinery, but 10,000 bio-refineries should get it just fine. Gasoline produced from biomass could be in fuel tanks by 2010 with new technology Technology / Energy (PhysOrg.com) -- Turning everyday waste into gasoline may seem like a distant dream, but thanks to researchers with the Texas Engineering Experiment Station (TEES) and Byogy Renewables Inc., it could become a reality within two years. Dr. Kenneth Hall, associate director of TEES and the Jack E. & Frances Brown Chair and professor in the Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering at Texas A&M University, and his colleagues, Mark T. Holtzapple, a professor in chemical engineering, and Sergio A. Capareda, a professor in biological and agricultural engineering, have developed a process to make converting biomass to high-octane gasoline possible. The advanced process is possibly the only integrated system that converts biomass directly to gasoline. Most other emerging processes convert the biomass into alcohol and then blend it with gasoline. The system is relatively inexpensive and focuses on using biomass waste streams and non-food energy crops rather than food products such as corn. Additionally, the cost of such a conversion would lie between $1.70 and $2.00 per gallon excluding all government subsidies and tax credits. This cost range is dependent on the type and cost of feedstock as well as the size of the biorefinery. This would provide some much-needed relief for consumers when it comes to fueling their vehicles, whose current options are to pay more or drive less. Biomass includes garbage, biosolids from wastewater treatment plants, green waste such as lawn clippings, food waste, and any type of livestock manure. Additionally, since it does not use crops such as corn, it will not put a strain on food supplies. The process could also utilize non-food/feed crops grown specifically for biomass energy. "This technology is important because it addresses many issues - eliminating waste, producing economical fuel quickly and being friendly to our environment," Hall said. "It's a win-win for industry and consumers. Furthermore, this technology is ready to be commercialized now and does not require any new scientific or technological breakthroughs to become a reality." Through an agreement with the Texas A&M University System, Byogy has licensed the process and hopes to have a plant using the technology up and running within 18 months to two years. The intent is to have raw garbage going in one end of the plant and 95-octane gasoline coming out the other. Texas A&M University's Department of Chemical Engineering is world-renowned in the area of process design, integration and optimization. A team led by professor Mahmoud El-Halwagi, a pioneer in the field of Process Integration, has been assembled to conduct the initial process integration work to provide a detailed set of design and operating procedures that will lead to the most competitive biofuels production processes for this technology. "Our goal with this technology is to achieve as much as a 2 percent contribution to the nation?s gasoline demand by 2022 through the building of 200 more bio-refineries," said Benjamin J. Brant, President and Chief Technology Officer of Byogy. "We firmly believe the TEES technology combined with the Byogy team offers this possibility." The focus at the initial plant would be on using urban waste, which the plant would grind, sort and then convert into gasoline. The fuel produced by this process could immediately be used as a drop-in substitute to the current petroleum gasoline supplies with a seamless integration into the existing fuel distribution infrastructure. Nothing needs to be changed at retail gas stations, pipelines, regional fuel terminals or in any motor vehicle. "Our plan is to produce two-and-a-half billion gallons or more of carbon neutral renewable gasoline per year, said Daniel L. Rudnick, Chief Executive Officer of Byogy. We are positioning ourselves not only to handle the opportunity biomass waste streams that are available today, but also the sustainable biomass energy crops of the future. This green substitute for conventional gasoline is the Holy Grail of all biofuels." For more information on Byogy visit http://www.byogy.com . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Aug 20 17:54:46 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:54:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080819165915.023b6048@satx.rr.com> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com> <009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819165915.023b6048@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080820124140.02671c90@satx.rr.com> At 05:12 PM 8/19/2008 -0500, I wrote: >I agree with BillK that the term "ad personam" itself is misleading; >it would be preferable to have something more transparent in >English. "Argument from thorough-going consistency with your deepest >principles" is a bit of mouthful, though. With Stefano's clarification to hand, I hoped "ex concessis [meaning: arguing not from an "objective" truth, but from what is conceded by your opponent to be true]" might perhaps be that very term! Thus: : < The Latin term "Ex concessis" means, in a UK legal context: "in view of what has already been accepted". > But I see elsewhere, rather surprisingly: : ============= If this is the usual way the term is employed, we're back looking for a valid form of demanding consistency with one's announced or disclosed deepest principles, or even with whatever has just been conceded. (And of course that, too, might be too abstract a demand; people are not sovereign unities of consciousness but often act in a piecemeal and ad hoc fashion because that's the modular and ad hoc way minds are constructed.) Damien Broderick From jrd1415 at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 18:59:40 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:59:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: <001201c90168$e982a690$0301a8c0@MyComputer> References: <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com> <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <001201c90168$e982a690$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: Extropes and all ships at sea, I want to finish this discussion off. So here it is. No one will be surprised when I say that I cannot offer a decisive or authoritative conclusion. I cannot compete with Mr. Bell's rep on this matter, nor can I agree with him. So I'm screwed. Ah, well, such is life. I asked John C for clarification of his last posting on this matter, wherein he judiciously rose in support of Bell's position ("Verily, the string breaketh"). The source of my question, my question, and John's response are shown below. On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:30 PM, John K Clark wrote: > Me: >>> >>> An instant after you start moving you receive >>> a report from the fellow at the other end of >>> the string saying he hasn't started moving yet. > > > "Jeff Davis" > >> I don't understand. According to the setup both acceleration >> profiles are identical. You and your counterpart at the other end of the >> string know this. So why then would you get such a message > > > Light does not move at an infinite speed, so any message I receive > must have originated sometime in the past; hence if I receive a message from > the other end of the string the instant I start moving it is going to say > that end hasn't started moving yet. I had hoped that the time lag above would be John's way of introducing a simultaneity issue, which I have found more confusing and difficult to unravel than Lorentz contractions. Then I could have thrown up my hands and said, "This simultaneity weirdness is too much for me, absent a return to the source materials for some serious study, (which is precluded in my "retirement" by the ever-expanding requirements of my honey-do list)." But alas, the time lag thing upon which Johns argument is built is merely the plain vanilla time lag of information transmitted by speed of light EM, and can be disposed of with a mere wisp of effort. The ships are assembled in space ready for departure. They are in the same reference frame. Their clocks are synchronized. The programs for acceleration are set to go, and are identical in both ships. Off they go. Messages are sent in both directions confirming initiation followed by progress reports at regular intervals. Each message is time-stamped when sent and time-stamped upon receipt. John's time lag (communication latency) is anticipated, and then confirmed. There is not the slightest confusion or divergence from plan. Both ships accelerate in perfect formation, motionless with respect to each other, firmly ensconced in the same reference frame. Laser measuring devices, redundantly deployed on both ships monitor the distance between the two, and report... what? Well, you tell me. No matter how hard I try I can't find anything to suggest that anything unusual happens. From the point of view of the observers on the two ships, nothing happens. Distances remain the same. Clocks run steady and remain synchronized. Re the string: no strain, no stretch, no sag, no break. So I'm trapped in a disputatious position with the vastly more authoritative Mr. Bell (and of course, John C). It's a nightmare. Very distressing. Perhaps I should change my name... As Lee said at the outset, half the scientists at Cern got the answer wrong. But which half? Sorry for the anti-climax. Best, Geoff Davies From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Aug 20 19:33:34 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:33:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: References: <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com> <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <001201c90168$e982a690$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080820141941.022fddd0@satx.rr.com> At 11:59 AM 8/20/2008 -0700, Joff Davids wrote: >The ships are assembled in space ready for departure. They are in >the same reference frame. Their clocks are synchronized. The >programs for acceleration are set to go, and are identical in both >ships. Off they go. Messages are sent in both directions confirming >initiation followed by progress reports at regular intervals. Each >message is time-stamped when sent and time-stamped upon receipt. >John's time lag (communication latency) is anticipated, and then >confirmed. There is not the slightest confusion or divergence from >plan. Indeed. Since they know all about time dilatation and what to expect and how to interpret time-lagged information, there can't be any problem of that sort. >Both ships accelerate in perfect formation, motionless with >respect to each other, firmly ensconced in the same reference frame. >Laser measuring devices, redundantly deployed on both ships monitor >the distance between the two, and report... what? Well, you tell me. Jiv, I think the explanation is best displayed on a Minkowski diagram, with x and y rotated to x' and y', as shown in at least one of the sites referenced early in this discussion. But intuitively, I try to consider what happens to the two craft if they accelerate using the Nearly Magical Drive to the merest smidgen below light velocity. To an earth-based observer, they each shrink to a terrifying flatness in the direction of motion, and their clocks all but stop. What happens to the gap between these fast flat plates? (Btw, do they shrink from either end toward the middle of the craft, or backward from the bow to the propulsive units at the stern? Are we having fun yet?) If the string shrinks as well, as surely it must, won't it snap? Powered by nothing better than intuition here, Goff, but still barely in the game. Damien Broderick From jrd1415 at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 20:04:32 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:04:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <225744.87707.qm@web31301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <225744.87707.qm@web31301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:38 AM, giovanni santost wrote: ... > There are so many of these horrible myths in religions, in particular in the main 3 Semitic ones. Religion's superstition should be considered the biggest enemy of transhumanism (and we should work harder to fight such an enemy). The essence of western religions is based on the myth of the inevitability of pain, suffering and death.... I have a Buddha in my garden. He reposes in iconic serenity beneath the happiest lace-leaf maple you could ever hope to see, with a little gargoyle buddy at his feet. I get a warm feeling every time I look at him. Which, of course, is the point. Contrast this iconic symbol of serenity with its Christian (in fairness I feel I should say Judeo-Christian) counterpart, that of a man being tortured to death. Can any conclusions, however preliminary, be drawn? Western religion is basically a form of terrorism. Obey authority (of God, of God's sales reps, and Caesar) or face humiliation, torture, and death, followed by eternal torture and alienation from grace. How uplifting! Ouch! and no thank you. I prefer poetry, in the garden, my pal Buddha, the fragrance of freshly baked bread mingled with roses and the laughter of children. Aaaahhh. Much better. Speaking of the laughter of children Amara, my better half is knitting a sweater for your soon-to-be-newest transhuman. She inquired regarding gender, but I didn't know. Thanks for clarifying. Also, I'll be interested to hear your "after-action" report on the degree of discomfort associated with pod extrusion. The eternal contrast of data with anecdote. {;-) Best wishes, Jeff From amara at amara.com Wed Aug 20 20:35:32 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:35:32 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction Message-ID: Dear Jeff, Jeff Davis jrd1415 at gmail.com : >I have a Buddha in my garden. He reposes in iconic serenity beneath >the happiest lace-leaf maple you could ever hope to see, with a little >gargoyle buddy at his feet. I get a warm feeling every time I look at >him. Which, of course, is the point. Ah hah! I have a garden statue: Mr. Happy Buddha in my back yard. He travelled with garden statue: Mr. Dragon from the S.F. Bay Area to Bammental to Heidelberg to Frascati to Boulder and could probably use a paint job after these 10 years, but he's still laughing. His laughter indicates that his travels couldn't have been too bad, with the exception of one incident [1]. The two companions (Mr. Happy Buddha and Mr. Dragon) might be happier under a maple tree like yours, but I didn't plant anything in my back yard last Spring because I was sleeping my first trimester away. Plus I haven't invested in garden tools yet because I need to buy more light fixtures that work on the US power system first. So my backyard is a chaos of weeds and tree-lets demonstrating that life has a propensity to grow anywhere. 'Myrtle the yogini' (last time I saw her, she had her foot next to her head) would be pleased to receive your partner's knitted creation. She'll be born in the winter hibernation period, but I doubt she'll be hibernating much after she appears in this universe. Thank you so much for thinking of us. :-) Amara Reference [1] from my travel log: "Greetings from Frascati ...!", 21 Februrary 2003 "The Move from Heidelberg, Germany to Frascati, Italy" [...] The weather was cold, with snow still on the ground from the previous snow. On the day of my move pickup, January 13, a large snowfall hit Heidelberg. The snow didn't stop falling during the 4 hours that it took to load the truck. And as with the move from La Honda, California, I got a lump in my throat to watch the movers close my life in a crate(s) and nail it shut. (four crates total) The most memorable event in those three days (Jan 10-12) was my struggle with "Mr. Happy Buddha". Who is that? He is one of my garden statues (the other is "Mr. Dragon") that I've had since about 1991, always keeping them nearby to my home window when I lived in places without a garden. Mr. Happy Buddha is a happy reminder of the good parts of life, then he gained an additional personality when Larry Grey died. Larry had a key role in my decision to follow the scientific path that I'm on now, in addition to being like a loving family member. Since my Buddha looks like Larry, when I see Mr. Budhha, I'm reminded of him. My struggle with Mr. Happy Buddha began at about 9:30pm the evening of January 12. I remembered that I had to retrieve him from the planter outside of my window where he had been meditating under a bush for the last 2.5 years. Those of you who heard me complain about the persistent Germany rain last year now might guess that Mr. Buddha sunk a little in the dirt during this time and you would be right. Not only sinking, but the cold winter gave Mr. Buddha a thick ice perch, rooting him solidly in the soil. He didn't want to budge. My first dousing of his ice perch with a kettle of boiling water didn't loosen the grip. However a steady chipping away at the ice with an an ice pick did the job ... after an hour. By eleven p.m. he came free, but not before I attracted the attention of my neighbor, who saw me doing something strange in the bushes that late night as she walked her dog. She came to inquire what I was doing, and when she saw the dilemma, she went inside her home to bring a kettle of boiling water to douse Mr. Happy Buddha too. When she returned with the kettle, Mr. Budda was free, and I was trying to wash off the muddy ice and warm myself at the same time. I was freezing! We both then finished cleaning him up and I returned inside to continue packing my flat. (I finished packing 15 minutes before the movers arrived at 9am.) [...] -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From jrd1415 at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 22:37:31 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:37:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080820141941.022fddd0@satx.rr.com> References: <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <001201c90168$e982a690$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20080820141941.022fddd0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: >... I think the explanation is best displayed on a Minkowski diagram, with x and y rotated to x' and y', as shown in at least one of the sites referenced early in this discussion. Earlier in the discussion I googled up "Bell's spaceship paradox" and went to this site: http://grenouille-bouillie.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-to-teach-special-relativity.html where I encountered the work of Mr. Minkowski. I studied the diagram briefly, having never before seen such, but was unable to "use" it. I don't doubt for a minute that, as with Mr. Bell, Mr. Minkowski is a heavyweight in such matters, yet an argument from authority is unpersuasive, so the question remains. Regarding the Minkowski diagram then,... logic requires (If logic itself remains unassailable) that either the string breaks or it doesn't. If the string breaks, the application of the Minkowski diagrams would appear to be validated. Conversely, if it does not break, then some aspect of the "Minkowski evidence" is in error. Are we any further along in settling this issue? I think not. My utter lack of familiarity with Minkowski spacetime diagrams means I cannot **directly** challenge their application to this problem. Someone else will have to do that. But I maintain my indirect challenge. > But intuitively, I try to consider what happens to the two craft if they accelerate using the Nearly Magical Drive to the merest smidgen below light velocity. To an earth-based observer, they each shrink to a terrifying flatness in the direction of motion, and their clocks all but stop. What happens to the gap between these fast flat plates? That's the crux. That space between the ships. > (Btw, do they shrink from either end toward the middle of the craft, or backward from the bow to the propulsive units at the stern? Or from either end toward the middle of the string? > Are we having fun yet?) Oh, yes. Much fun. But little progress. > If the string shrinks as well, as surely it must, won't it snap? Shrinkage (and consequences) can only occur in a frame of reference different from that of the ships. Agreed? What happens to the string must be consistent in all reference frames, ie it breaks or it doesn't, to all observers. Agreed? Then, with sincerity and respect, please, falsify the following if you can find a way. >From aboard the ships, shrinkage cannot be observed. Without shrinkage, the string cannot break. Therefore, the string does not break. Therefore, the **gap** between the ships must shrink along with the ships. I use the term "gap" here to distinguish it from "space", because it seems that we're talking about the "space" between without giving much (certainly not enough) thought to what exactly it is and does, when in fact this is the very central feature/question at the heart of this so-called paradox. For the record: Nature doesn't "do" paradoxes. Humans do insufficient understanding. Also, re the shrinkage of the gap (and of space), a question: On any ship heading in any direction at relativistic velocities, will the entire universe ahead and behind exhibit a Lorentz contraction? Similarly, will two stars ahead of you be closer to one another than before you set out? Or will they be at the same distance > Powered by nothing better than intuition here, Goff, but still barely in the game. Me, too. (Eyes closed, pawing around in the dark). *********************** One little quibble. Am I the only one who gets irritated when someone says something like "...the merest smidgen below light velocity". I mean how can you get "close" to something you can never get to no matter how "fast" you go? As with the horizon no matter how close you get, you're still the same distance away. I know it's just an old Newtonian habit, but still, if one is dealing with relativity issues shouldn't one be more careful? Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 20 23:14:30 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Etymology of Critter's Dilemma In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <778301.4849.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > This effect reminds me of how in the US fear of terrorism is causing > much, much, more damage than any actual incidents of terrorism. >From the article: ---begin quote-- Preisser notes that fire ants, for example, are highly successful at finding resources, but they are ?totally freaked out? by a species of parasitoid fly that lays its eggs inside the ants, which ultimately kills them. ?If one of these flies comes along, all the ants will hide and remain hidden for a really long time,? he said. ?Research by Donald Feener at the University of Utah has shown that the flies actually have a very low success rate at killing the ants because the ants are so good at hiding. They spend so much time in hiding, however, that the whole ant population becomes weaker.? ---end quote--- Good catch, Bill. Apparently these parasitoid flies can cause a recession in the economy of the fire ant colony. Fear is apparently more than just the mind-killer. Stuart LaForge "A portion of mankind take pride in their vices and pursue their purpose; many more waver between doing what is right and complying with what is wrong." - Horace From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 21 00:34:16 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <036b01c902ce$ca2bb3b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <410623.38609.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Despite himself, it's clear that Nietzsche believed in some sort > of racial soul. Simply because a certain species existed somewhere > in a chain of evolving creatures, this gives him license to have the > first in the chain identify with the last in the chain. So just what is > it that has remained the same about them? A soul? What else > could it be? Despite himself, it's clear Lee Corbin believes in some sort of individual identity. Simply because a certain identity selfishly asserted itself to be Lee Corbin somewhere in a chain of developmental ontogenic forms ranging from a single-celled zygote to his present state, this gives him license to have the first in the chain identify with the last in the chain. So just what is it that has remained the same about him? A soul? What else could it be? Stuart LaForge "A portion of mankind take pride in their vices and pursue their purpose; many more waver between doing what is right and complying with what is wrong." - Horace From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 21 01:18:50 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:18:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Etymology of Critter's Dilemma References: <01ac01c8fdcc$3f6b4710$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><695554.48790.qm@web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <038e01c9032c$09920a60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes > There is a new paper out that you might find of interest. > > > > Published: 16:16 EST, August 19, 2008 > > Fear of predators may be a bigger killer than the predators themselves Honestly, a quick glance through this paper proves to me with about 90% probability that the reasoning and inferences drawn are completely fallacious. The basic reason is quite simple: the authors fail to account for a rather powerful theory developed in the late 1850's by the English biologist Charles Darwin, who suggested that species evolve to occupy "niches" in which their structural adaptations and behavioral strategies over time will converge optimally, with the only proviso that his new theory, called "evolution" often requires many tens of thousands or even millions of years for the optimal solution to be reached, during which time the environment changes only very little. > When biologists consider the effects that predators have on their > prey, they shouldn't just count the number of individuals consumed. > According to a University of Rhode Island ecologist, they must also > examine the effects of fear. The human emotion of fear has indeed been known under certain circumstances, usually those brought about by modern or semi-modern conditions, to actually work *against* survival. For example, the very fear so pronounced that the subject "freezes", while evolved to raise survival rates (when for example, suddenly encountering a predator who responds to motion), in many modern cases simply delays a human being from taking needed immediate action. We may very well in this paper see the unwholesome effects of projecting human psychological processes into the minds of, say, insects. > URI Assistant Professor Evan Preisser said that fear of being eaten > can reduce population densities as much or even more than the actual > quantities of individuals killed by predators. What Professor Preisser should consider is exactly *why* this "fear of being eaten" evolved in the first place, and exactly why---according to his own novel theory---the creatures in question would be better off without it. He may wish to study the original work entitled "Origin of Species" by the above- mentioned C. Darwin, who explained the idea of differential reproduction. To wit, if there is a distribution within a species of some trait, e.g. fear, then the quantity or degree that the trait makes itself manifest in individuals of the species naturally varies from little to great. Those members or colonies which exhibit too little of the quality produce fewer viable offspring, while interestingly enough, those members or colonies which exhibit too much of that quality also produce fewer viable offspring. > "Prey are far from helpless victims of predators," said Preisser. > "They employ a wide array of defensive strategies to protect > themselves. But the costs of these strategies may have a larger > impact on their population than the direct effect of being eaten." Were this actually the case, then over time the species would "relocate" to the proper equilibrium. It's entirely possible that the professor has encountered this phenomenon in a new environment to which the species has not yet accommodated itself. Given the professor's evident lack of acquaitance with this old English theory, it wouldn't surprise me if he had placed species adapted to one environment into a slightly different environment superfically the same. It's also rather clear to me that the peer-review process has fallen into pretty desperate straits, for while my observations here might seem pointed to us amateurs, professional biologists of the caliber of Dawkins or Hamilton would find all of this quite elementary. > This effect reminds me of how in the US fear of terrorism is causing > much, much, more damage than any actual incidents of terrorism. It's entirely possible that with human beings, or nations, who have not had enough biological time to adapt to a particular modern situation, ancient evolutionarily derived emotional responses are non-optimal. But it's extremely difficult to second-guess the built-in game theory strategies of complex human interactions. For example, "revenge for the sake of revenge" may at first seem quite irrational, just as "altruistic punishment" http://www.pnas.org/content/100/6/3531.full.pdf at first seems completely nonsensical. But like anger itself---an irrational emotion---Darwinian ends can sometimes be served. We have no way of knowing, for example, if the American "overreaction" to terrorism has helped check further attacks on the Americans. It could even be, for example, that since a relatively small attack on the U.S. having direct costs of around 3000 lives and fifty billion dollars, provoked a response of this magnitude, then a serious attack causing 500,000 lives and a trillion dollars would provoke a retaliatory attack of corresponding magnitude, and that this deters future attacks. Or, on the other hand, it could be precisely as you say. We probably will never know with any certainty which is the case at this point in history. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 21 01:40:41 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:40:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <01ee01c8fe63$2da0a7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <48A537BF.8030501@mac.com> <028f01c901b6$7a7b33e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808190535r73338e3j435754468491840b@mail.gmail.com> <031f01c90287$814e4280$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808200723g7093afa6s53cd1abb68cbfa36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <039101c9032f$8adcc440$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano writes > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > One's freedom of self-decision should include have a > > veto over all circumstances under which one would be run. > > This is in my understanding also Egan's position,... > > But, for the sake of discussion, what exactly would be the > rationale behind such right of veto? I'm sorry that I'm on a tight schedule right now, and have time only for a brief reply. First, I find that any talk of such "rights" to invariably derail discussions like this, and sorry if I'm overreacting to your usage here. For example, (as you go on), pretty soon it will come up against the "right of creation" or "the right of private property", and much more smoke that light will be generated. There is no particular rationale, nor can there be, to your question. We can either approve or disapprove, that, I am afraid, is all. Yes, we may point out further consequences that will cause "most people" to agree with one point or the other, such as that promoting "veto" power may lead towards annihilation of the species (i.e. us) in question, or some other consequentialist argument. Myself, I mere approve of > > One's freedom of self-decision should include have a > > veto over all circumstances under which one would be run. > I am especially thinking of borderline scenarios, which are > usually useful to enlighten possible general rules. E.g., what > about an identity that is "reconstructed" or "emulated" with > growing and asymptotic accuracy, but where conflicting > rights might be claimed by the "creator" against those of > the "model"? Arghh! What "rights"? Sorry, but I really can't address that without making wild guesses as to what you might really be getting at. If we studiously avoid talking about "rights", the conversation will proceed much more effectively. You're possibly talking about a situation that would fall under "protection of private property" so far as I am concerned. This rule or tradition "protection of private" property is a principle that about 95% of the time provides guarantees that promote progress in modern societies (e.g. those following feudal Malthusian eras). I would be willing to extrapolate that adherence to this principle will continue to promote progress, (at least, as I say, 95% of the time). For example, if you own a piece of property and purchase computing equipment and biotech equipment necessary to create de novo another human being, then we probably are best advised to not interfere with your own activities, but rather to mind *our* own business. (This ideal of personal autonomy and the benefits it delivers is no longer as well understood as it was during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, unfortunately.) > And what about the conflict between the model and a > copy who is faithful and dynamic enough to claim an > "agency" similar to that of the "original" ("I want to be > run against a Roman Empire scenario", "No, you are a > mere copy and have to live in the Aztec World because > this is the will of the model on which you were developed"). My answer, as usual, is "who pays"? Who is footing the bill? It sounds as though the copy in this case has been produced by equipment purchased and legally owned by the original, and that the events in question are taking place on the premises of a Western-type individual who has legal rights to do as he pleases within his own household, so long as, loosely speaking it does no harm to another citizen (and, alas, so long as it does not involve injecting chemicals he owns into his own body, or allowing photons to be reflected from certain kinds of photographs he also owns to be reflected into onto his retinas ---we find in modern societies that (and this is *extremely* disfortunate) that for many purposes the state owns the bodies of its citizens, and has legal recourse against the misuse of these bodies which are, after all, only on loan from the state). Lee P.S. The term "disfortunate" is not standard and is not really a word, and has been provided for the purpose of amusement only. From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Aug 21 01:21:59 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:21:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <710b78fc0808172242v29c9eb05y1c8d033eb18b8941@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1219281953_7146@s8.cableone.net> At 10:17 AM 8/20/2008, Kevin wrote: >Just an update. Check out this story... > >http://www.physorg.com/news138384297.html > >Note that they mention 200 bio-refineries to cover just 2% of the >fuel needed. Not nearly the output of an oil refinery, but 10,000 >bio-refineries should get it just fine. snip Kevin, I did a bit of investigation into this company because a biomass carbon source plus lots of space based solar power is what is needed. I even called and talked to the more technical of the two (Google finds the other one to be a feed lot operator.) He answered the phone personally. That should tell you something. My estimate based on the technology here: http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/ is that all the trash we generate is about 5% of what we need for liquid fuels. How do you suggest obtaining the rest of the biomass? >For more information on Byogy visit http://www.byogy.com . There is, incidentally, something very wrong with the flowchart they show. Can you spot what it is? Keith From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 03:25:35 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:25:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: <031c01c90286$19efa9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240808192120k7c91b178x83cb5eb9228c55e6@mail.gmail.com> <031c01c90286$19efa9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240808202025r5a8b3fffga014f2910e2f7ea2@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > You use the phrase "in all fairness". Do you consider your act to be > in all fairness to the future victims of this known sociopath? Yes. 'future victims'? Can you show with high confidence over a statistically large sample the exact metric that determines what score on the sociopath test indicates not just a tendency or a likelihood, but a near certainty that said sociopath will victimize others? Does this study account for the increased surveillance the state will have after labeling someone a sociopath? Maybe after this kind of evidence can be produced then I would agree. Until then, it seems you are suggesting the blindfold on Lady Justice is compensated for by an ear for hearsay. On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > But my question clearly relates to a sociopath who has not successfully > internalized good behavior. So you mean our policy will be changed to "innocent until preemptively tested for guilt"? On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Of course, you are bringing up an entirely different question here > from the one I posed. In this case, you are entering into the delicate > question of whether children, say, ought to be compulsorily tested > in order to determine their sociopathic tendencies. > And your examples are even further afield, namely, for what possible > reason would anyone outside the immediate family have an interest > in chromosomal gender or sexual orientation? Clearly the libertarian > answer is that such testing should be entirely voluntary, and, if desired, > the results remain unavailable to others. Well, for adults, I mean. Sorry, I understood your testing scenario to be a requirement for entering the public education system - you know, for the safety of the children and the community in general. And once you have them in for testing, lets test for the likelihood of committing insurance fraud or the tendency to drink too much or violate any of the best practices prescribed by the Ministry. My example of chromosomal gender comes from the controversial testing done on professional female athletes. As you suggest, this should be nobody's business; but that's clearly not possible in a mistrustful world. Sexual orientation might be the same kind of preemptive testing to preclude potentially threatening (or merely embarrassing) situations - while this status is protected in the US today, if the kind of definitive test I describe above became legally admissible that condition might be challenged. Has Megan's Law reduced the number of repeat offenders? At what cost? [1] To be honest, I would never want judge - for these (and other) decisions. [1] I don't enjoy discussing the dark nature of criminal behavior, but this page illustrates the point I was trying to make about our loss of liberty for the sake of public safety: http://ericrichardson.com/verbal/megans_law/ From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 03:29:04 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:29:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240808202029wdd1f2c6j40988561aa32e58c@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Certainly, but this is also exactly how it is at the present time. I'm > wondering if having exact knowledge---just for the purpose here > of establishing principle---that a criminal about to be sentenced is > actually a sociopath (e.g. has no conscience and is completely > incapable of remorse or sympathy with other living things), makes > a difference to you. Ah... You're only testing those convicted of crimes for appropriate sentencing? That's much less Orwellian than I had pictured. From scerir at libero.it Thu Aug 21 06:43:48 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:43:48 +0200 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR References: <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer><001201c90168$e982a690$0301a8c0@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080820141941.022fddd0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c90359$45138690$3e0b4797@archimede> Jeff Davis: (Eyes closed, pawing around in the dark). Try chapter 6, point 6.4.3, etc., for a very detailed explanation and calculation of any possible effect (but only if you keep faith in the relativity of simultaneity.) http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~gleeson/notes375R.html Here you can find another paradox -Boughn paradox- (caution: your faith in relativity of simultaneity might vacillate.) http://www.whfreeman.com/modphysics/PDF/1-2c.pdf From pharos at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 08:42:03 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:42:03 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Etymology of Critter's Dilemma In-Reply-To: <038e01c9032c$09920a60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <01ac01c8fdcc$3f6b4710$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <695554.48790.qm@web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <038e01c9032c$09920a60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Honestly, a quick glance through this paper proves to > me with about 90% probability that the reasoning and > inferences drawn are completely fallacious. > > The basic reason is quite simple: the authors fail to account > for a rather powerful theory developed in the late 1850's > by the English biologist Charles Darwin, who suggested that > species evolve to occupy "niches" in which their structural > adaptations and behavioral strategies over time will converge > optimally, with the only proviso that his new theory, called > "evolution" often requires many tens of thousands or even > millions of years for the optimal solution to be reached, during > which time the environment changes only very little. Heh! :) I think you need more than a quick look to say that these professors of Biological Science have never heard of Darwin and 'niches'. 'Niches' are what they have been studying for years. Google on their names and see all the other papers and conference reports. Besides, your definition of niches, seems to be saying that after years of evolution everything is now fixed in its own niche in the best of all possible worlds. It's not like that at all. Evolution is ongoing now. The battle is a dynamic struggle that goes on every day. > > We may very well in this paper see the unwholesome effects > of projecting human psychological processes into the minds > of, say, insects. No, they are studying populations and reporting what they find. > Were this actually the case, then over time the species would > "relocate" to the proper equilibrium. It's entirely possible that > the professor has encountered this phenomenon in a new environment to which > the species has not yet accommodated > itself. Given the professor's evident lack of acquaintance with > this old English theory, it wouldn't surprise me if he had placed > species adapted to one environment into a slightly different > environment superficially the same. It is a dynamic process. Environments are 'slightly different' from day to day. Species rise and fall with changes in the weather, etc. > > It's also rather clear to me that the peer-review process has > fallen into pretty desperate straits, for while my observations > here might seem pointed to us amateurs, professional biologists of the > caliber of Dawkins or Hamilton would find > all of this quite elementary. > Quote: The URI ecologist is the guest editor of an upcoming special, three-article feature on "nonconsumptive predator effects on prey dynamics" in the September issue of Ecology, the journal of the Ecological Society of America. The articles were written as a result of a working group convened by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis to examine the topic, which Preisser and Bolnick co-chaired. -------- Possibly your dismissal of a whole field of study is a reflection of your cursory scan of this article. Reread and Google? BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 09:31:57 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:31:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080820124140.02671c90@satx.rr.com> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819165915.023b6048@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080820124140.02671c90@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <580930c20808210231x7c034632he88a40df033c2db8@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > If this is the usual way the term is employed, we're back looking for a > valid form of demanding consistency with one's announced or disclosed > deepest principles, or even with whatever has just been conceded. Yes. Whatever the case, while personal attack or "disqualification by association" are mostly a rhetoric trick aimed at the public (what I called ad hominem sofar), the ex concessis argument actually represents a way to expand or one's views or have them reviewed, since most of us do strive for consistency. Of course, what you do with such arguments, besides possibly "winning" the debate :-), is to help people to think fully and to the bottom what they really think. Say that I have a bioluddite agreeing to an apparently banal and common-sense stipulation that the ability to live is absolutely better than death, and then persuade him ex concessis that this implies that longevist therapies cannot be refused. We now have two possible outcomes: either he drops his opposition to longevist therapies, or - and this is a distinct possibiity - he is there thus led to revise his previous opinion that life is an uncondtional goal. In either case, we have clarified the issues - and most often cornered the other party in positions that may be much less acceptable to the "public" of the exchange. Stefano Vaj From pharos at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 10:05:59 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:05:59 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <580930c20808210231x7c034632he88a40df033c2db8@mail.gmail.com> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819165915.023b6048@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080820124140.02671c90@satx.rr.com> <580930c20808210231x7c034632he88a40df033c2db8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Yes. Whatever the case, while personal attack or "disqualification by > association" are mostly a rhetoric trick aimed at the public (what I > called ad hominem sofar), the ex concessis argument actually > represents a way to expand or one's views or have them reviewed, since > most of us do strive for consistency. > > Of course, what you do with such arguments, besides possibly "winning" > the debate :-), is to help people to think fully and to the bottom > what they really think. > > Say that I have a bioluddite agreeing to an apparently banal and > common-sense stipulation that the ability to live is absolutely better > than death, and then persuade him ex concessis that this implies that > longevist therapies cannot be refused. We now have two possible > outcomes: either he drops his opposition to longevist therapies, or - > and this is a distinct possibiity - he is there thus led to revise his > previous opinion that life is an uncondtional goal. > > In either case, we have clarified the issues - and most often cornered > the other party in positions that may be much less acceptable to the > "public" of the exchange. > That doesn't sound quite right to me. As Damien quoted above: The fallacy of Ex Concessis mimics the reasonable demand for logical consistency, but it errs by demanding "consistency" on points that go beyond the truly logical. So your bioluddite believes that life is better than death, but there is no logical connection to make him believe in longevity therapies. He might believe that the amount of life we get is God's will. Or humans should not interfere in some areas. Or death is a necessary evil. Etc. etc. None of these beliefs directly logically contradict the 'life is better than death' belief. "There is no use in trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." "I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast". Lewis Carroll (from Through the Looking Glass) BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 11:35:34 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:35:34 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2008/8/20 Amara Graps : > That's why I don't want pitocin to induce labor because that'll break > the system of the longitudinal muscles and circular muscles working > together. If something is administered to push the baby down when the > other parts of the body are not ready, the baby will be bonking her head > which will lead to fetal distress which will lead to more intervention > and so on. What a mess the hospitals do to what is usually a very simple > and natural process. Natural, yes, but I've never seen anything close to the amount of suffering I've seen on the labour ward in any other area of medicine. I suppose having your bones shattered in a car accident might hurt as much, but you don't see injured people in emergency departments saying, "No morphine! I want to do it naturally!" -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 11:55:50 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:55:50 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <039101c9032f$8adcc440$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <01ee01c8fe63$2da0a7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <48A537BF.8030501@mac.com> <028f01c901b6$7a7b33e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808190535r73338e3j435754468491840b@mail.gmail.com> <031f01c90287$814e4280$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808200723g7093afa6s53cd1abb68cbfa36@mail.gmail.com> <039101c9032f$8adcc440$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808210455x6699d3acrfae9893e6bf90054@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: >> I am especially thinking of borderline scenarios, which are >> usually useful to enlighten possible general rules. E.g., what >> about an identity that is "reconstructed" or "emulated" with >> growing and asymptotic accuracy, but where conflicting >> rights might be claimed by the "creator" against those of >> the "model"? > > Arghh! What "rights"? Sorry, but I really can't address that > without making wild guesses as to what you might really be > getting at. If we studiously avoid talking about "rights", the > conversation will proceed much more effectively. Agreed. > You're possibly talking about a situation that would fall under > "protection of private property" so far as I am concerned. > This rule or tradition "protection of private" property is a > principle that about 95% of the time provides guarantees > that promote progress in modern societies (e.g. those following feudal > Malthusian eras). Fine. So the issue becomes: who is the proprietor of information pertaining to an individual? The individual? Should then the biographers and historians, as well as the possible "uploaders" o "emulators", be barred from recording and reconstructing it against the individual concerned's will? Or does the information belong to those who invested in its collection, in which case the person whose identity is backed-up or "redeveloped" in an Omega-like computer should not be able to interfere with whatever its owner might like to do with it. > My answer, as usual, is "who pays"? Who is footing the bill? This seems to imply that as long as no harm or cooperation is involved from the side of the individual concerned, I should be left free to backup the information defining someody's else identity, and do whatever I like with it. In other words, if I have a button allowing me to "copy" the whole mankind in the RAM of a Juppiter computer, it is nobody's business if U decide to do it. Stefano Vaj From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 13:14:49 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:14:49 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: 2008/8/21 Lee Corbin : > Certainly, but this is also exactly how it is at the present time. I'm > wondering if having exact knowledge---just for the purpose here > of establishing principle---that a criminal about to be sentenced is > actually a sociopath (e.g. has no conscience and is completely > incapable of remorse or sympathy with other living things), makes > a difference to you. > > In my view, it would make an extreme difference. Since we > now know that this individual means only harm to others, then > he must be placed in monitored community with only other > known sociopaths, or executed forthwith. It's generally quite easy in clinical practice or in everyday life to detect a sociopath if you have much to do with them. I suppose a motivated sociopath might be able to fool someone when put through a one off assessment, but for the most part they don't even attempt to hide their true nature. If you think about it, sociopathy isn't even particularly unacceptable in many situations. In a business transaction, each party knows that the other party is only out to get what they can for themselves, and each party knows that the other party is only behaving honestly because they judge that they have more to gain that way. Sociopaths simply take this strategy and apply it to every aspect of their lives, and if they start off with any brains, quickly work out that violent crime doesn't pay well. In fact, intelligent sociopaths are more likely to become successful businessmen and politicians, because they don't let sentimentality get in the way of career-advancing decisions. So although sociopaths are more likely than average to commit violent crimes, it does not follow that they need to be locked up because they will definitely do so. -- Stathis Papaioannou From amara at amara.com Thu Aug 21 14:30:07 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:30:07 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction Message-ID: Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com : >Natural, yes, but I've never seen anything close to the amount of >suffering I've seen on the labour ward in any other area of medicine. Beautiful circle of terror, isn't it? :-( Amara From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Aug 21 18:21:00 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:21:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <580930c20808210231x7c034632he88a40df033c2db8@mail.gmail.co m> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819165915.023b6048@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080820124140.02671c90@satx.rr.com> <580930c20808210231x7c034632he88a40df033c2db8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080821130754.02702d48@satx.rr.com> At 11:31 AM 8/21/2008 +0200, Stefano wrote: >Say that I have a bioluddite agreeing to an apparently banal and >common-sense stipulation that the ability to live is absolutely better >than death... that life is an uncondtional goal. But I think most of those opposed to radical life extension are likely to be of the opinion that life is a testing ground with some blessed postmortem condition as its true goal. Life is a "Vale of Tears" we must suffer through in order to improve ourselves, or cast ourselves on god's mercy, or learn to abandon attachment, so we can attain some sort of salvation unavailable in the contingent, material realm. Trying to live longer than "Nature/god means us to" is impious, even blasphemous, and thwarts the plan, or is precisely the kind of desperate grasping attachment that maintains our misery. In other words, most opponents will *not* regard healthy life as an unconditional good. And they have their reasons for this that can't be budged just by saying, "Yes, but look, life is better than death!" Not if death is the pathway to heaven, or another chance to start fresh, or blessed surcease. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Aug 21 18:25:09 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:25:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080821132331.026ea9f0@satx.rr.com> At 11:14 PM 8/21/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote: >intelligent sociopaths are more likely to become successful >businessmen and politicians, because they don't let sentimentality get >in the way of career-advancing decisions. So although sociopaths are >more likely than average to commit violent crimes, it does not follow >that they need to be locked up because they will definitely do so. No, they should be locked up before they become politicians or businessmen. :) Damien Broderick From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Thu Aug 21 19:03:09 2008 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080821130754.02702d48@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <263996.20386.qm@web56507.mail.re3.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 8/21/08, Damien Broderick wrote: > In other words, most opponents will *not* regard healthy > life as an > unconditional good. And they have their reasons for this > that can't > be budged just by saying, "Yes, but look, life is > better than death!" > Not if death is the pathway to heaven, or another chance to > start > fresh, or blessed surcease. > > Damien Broderick Note as well that this kind of attitude isn't unique to the explicitly religious. I've encountered people with decidedly secular worldviews who see human death as important for the sake of "furthering evolution". That is, we all need to die by a certain time or else we risk hindering the natural emergence of a "superhuman" species at some point off in the distant future. (This attitude is so common that it's become a pop-culture trope: it figured prominently in the series "Stargate SG-1" -- essentially, most humanoid creatures in the universe were capable of "ascending" if they followed "natural" evolution (which involved each generation dying off in a timely manner), but there was one species incapable of ascension primarily because they'd put their medical resources into preserving individuals over long periods of time.) - Anne "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" - Meg Murry, "A Wrinkle In Time" From dagonweb at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 20:02:58 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:02:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <263996.20386.qm@web56507.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080821130754.02702d48@satx.rr.com> <263996.20386.qm@web56507.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On this whole rather odd attitude of most humans regarding death - that in a natural context it is somehow necessary I have come to conclude that humans aren't a very sociable species. Try this little experiment - think of ten or so distinctly different ways for a human to become superhuman, and conclude what happens next. A prime example of what would happen next is the marvel war, where normal humans completely freak out over superhero mutants and try to outlaw, cure or kill em. I think this is acutely plausible. The underlying mechanic active in the human psychology is a fear of competitors. I even would go as far as state that all humans are racist - as soon as a creature would emerge that is halway possible to pose a threat select groups humans would start to demonize it, and kill it as fast as possible. i think thats one evolutionary strength of the homo sapiens; rally hatred against an enemy species and eradicate it for reasons of profit (and/)or fear. the aging debate is a variant of the same. All humans have a keen instinct to keep an eye on their fellow humans. I have a personal intuition this is what caused the persecution of jews. As it turns out jews have been practicing an intelligence enhancing breeding mechanism for thousands of years. On IQ tests the typical jew performs clearly better, largely because of a rabbinic system of selecting mates. I don't know the full details but I can clearly see populations noticing this advantage and proceeding to persecute jews or trying to exterminate the competitor. It would be fascinating to me if someone found a series of experiments that falsify this whole idea. Place humans in experimental conditions where they'd have to cooperate with human and (simulated) nonhuman intelligences and see if they would sacrifice personal gain when the nonhumans were subject to a racial progrom or demonization. If this is true, we should be cautious if a small segment of population gets access to life extension methods - or any type of enhancing treatment. It might trigger dormant instincts in humans outside the loop that may prove quite deadly. I would be very cautious if I enjoyed singular life extension treatments - i believe me being blessed with the prospect of (only) living a fuw decades more because of a treatment or modification would make me the target for homocidals. I'd trigger their inborn enemy/genocide instincts. Is this whole idea politically incorrect? ...inherently offensive? If so, why? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 21 21:47:45 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:47:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200808212201.m7LM0tEc022739@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ... On Behalf Of Jeff Davis ... > > I have a Buddha in my garden. He reposes in iconic serenity > beneath the happiest lace-leaf maple you could ever hope to > see, with a little gargoyle buddy at his feet. I get a warm > feeling every time I look at him. Which, of course, is the point. > > Contrast this iconic symbol of serenity with its Christian > (in fairness I feel I should say Judeo-Christian) > counterpart, that of a man being tortured to death. Can any > conclusions, however preliminary, be drawn?... Best wishes, Jeff I have one Jeff, since we are comparing the Buddha to the crucified savior of mankind. Buddha is often depicted in a lotus position with an enormous belly flopped all over the place. Revolting! Compare to christ on the cross: that sucker is ripped! Check out the buff six pack abs on that dude. Do you ever see a Buddha with a decent physique? No! Do you ever see a painting or a sculpture of Jesus with ugly cellulite or a big flabby belly hanging down? No! The Buddhists need to fix that, forthwith. spike From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 21 21:15:53 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:15:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200808212216.m7LMG10v014764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Amara Graps ... > Don't you think that it would be weird if humans evolved to > where we are today if every baby's birth was excruciatingly > painful?... Amara There is a fairly recent development that I learned of when my son was born two years ago. The medics have become very clever in mixing pain relievers in such a way that the total dosage is fairly low. The counteract each other's side effects, so the pain relief aspect is more effective than with a much higher dose of any one. Shelly had a partial epidural, not enough to induce even temporary paralysis so she could still push, plus a mixture of three different pain relievers which all work on different principles. The pain relief was very effective and she wasn't particularly stoned. She remembers details of the birth, and it was a non-terrifying experience. Half an hour after the birth, she was completely in her right mind, even if exhausted. For comparison, we have three friends who gave birth 8, 10 and 11 years ago. In all three cases, the mothers were very stoned during and after the birth, and don't remember much of it. spike From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 21 22:14:07 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:14:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Etymology of Critter's Dilemma In-Reply-To: <778301.4849.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200808212241.m7LMepY9021482@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > --- BillK wrote: > > This effect reminds me of how in the US fear of terrorism > is causing much, much, more damage than any actual incidents of terrorism... Ja that is one way to look at it BillK, but I see a flip side to that. US fear of terrorism may be causing damage, but it is also causing a whole bunch of cool new solutions that might never have been developed without the threat of terrorism. We have new waves of bomb detection technology being developed, which could have unforeseen spinoff applications, such as cancer detection. Perhaps we could use it for finding lost car keys, or the TV remote. We have a walk-thru machine now that looks thru one's clothing, so that a security officer can determine if the prole is carrying a weapon. Would that be a cool job or what? They wouldn't even hafta pay me. Could such a device be rigged into a pair of glasses? Consider that gay bomb the military is trying to develop to combat terrorism. Set off one of those at a party; would that be a hoot or what? Fear of terrorism drives up the cost of air travel, since we need to hire additional screeners (besides the one guy that cheerfully works for free). Some may be too afraid to fly, even with the new tech. Result: fewer people flying, which means a partial solution to global warming. What damage? spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 21 23:04:49 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:04:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Usage of "ad hominem", "ad personam", etc. References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><0d0101c8fa6d$ee939dd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><580930c20808110526r1c9a398tf4cb8e070e5c2124@mail.gmail.com><009001c8fc4f$c769e140$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><580930c20808120508m203cb8c2kafbde4eb05035d03@mail.gmail.com><00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com><01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com><027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080819165915.023b6048@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080820124140.02671c90@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <03d301c903e2$71d77e50$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> I appreciate very much the scholarly efforts of everyone to properly define and distinguish among ad hominem, ad personam, ex concessis, and so on, simply because it's good to have knowledge to hand about what they really mean. However, as a practical matter facilitating discussion here and on other lists, it must be admitted that few are going to master these subtleties (least of all, me). Stefano complained, finally, > Yet, it remains the case that everyday usage of the two > expressions is at least in my experience bizarrely reversed... :-/ to which I must sadly admit that if *he's* going to find these terms confusing, then what about the rest of us? (Excluding Bill and Damien, of course.) Please criticize (or add to) these suggestions: 1. "Ad hominem" easily has a clear enough meaning that we may all use if without fear of confusion. 2. "Ad hominem" does *not* include attempts to expose verbal inconsistencies in someone's views. 3. So called "attacks" on a person's character by pointing out that he or she says one thing but in life does another, or appears in other words to be hypocritical may politely be undertaken without falling into the category of "personal attack" or "ad hominem", provided that an avenue of explanation of the apparent hypocrisy or inconsistency is left open (preferably by means of asking a question). 4. The usages of "argumentum ad personam" are so varied and so confusing that we ought not to employ the concept. Thanks, Lee From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 21 23:15:42 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:15:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Etymology of Critter's Dilemma In-Reply-To: <200808212241.m7LMepY9021482@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200808212316.m7LNFqns024844@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 3:14 PM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: Re: [ExI] Etymology of Critter's Dilemma > > > > > --- BillK wrote: > > > > This effect reminds me of how in the US fear of terrorism > is causing > > much, much, more damage than any actual incidents of > terrorism... > > Ja that is one way to look at it BillK, but I see a flip side > to that. US fear of terrorism may be causing damage, but it > is also causing a whole bunch of cool new solutions that > might never have been developed without the threat of terrorism. ... spike Furthermore: the technologies are being developed now in response to a mostly imagined threat, years or possibly decades before it is desperately needed in response to a very real threat. Consider those nations that have traditionally been post-Christian nonreligious liberal democracies, but which have dramatically rising populations of fast-breeding radical Presbyterians, such as in France. They might integrate peacefully in some cases, but in some cases, the Presbyterian outlook and law may simply be incompatible with their nation's government and indigenous people. When in a position of strength in numbers, the radical Presbyterians will recruit the young of the moderate Presbyterians, creating a terrifying seizmic shift. It may be thirty or fifty years from now. Perhaps someone will draw a cartoon of John Calvin. A fight will explode, as the long-simmering culture war turns to a shooting war. I see the rising Presbyterian tide as the struggle of the 21st century, as the fight against communism was the struggle of the 20th century. The technologies needed to defeat the Presbyterians will be in place, or if not the Presbyterians, some other violent religion. Solutions will have been developed in the US well ahead of time. spike From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 21 22:48:22 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:48:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <200808212201.m7LM0tEc022739@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200808212321.m7LNKwKe008851@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ... On Behalf Of spike > Subject: Re: [ExI] Human extinction > > ...Do you ever see a painting or a sculpture of Jesus with ugly > cellulite or a big flabby belly hanging down? No! ... spike Furthermore: it isn't just that Jesus looks like an olympic springboard diver whereas Buddha looks like a sumo rassler. Think of all those paintings you have ever seen of the crucifixion. Have you ever seen one that is a back view? No! I don't see why not. Judging from the rest of him, the lad surely had buns of steel. spike OK enough of that. Has anyone heard from Harvey Newstrom? He is from Melbourne Florida, ja? The news people are saying they had 30 inches of rain from tropical storm Fay. Harvey please report regarding your wellbeing. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Aug 21 23:57:02 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:57:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <580930c20808140430p438ed9daq3891e9a1c2589ec5@mail.gmail.com> <036b01c902ce$ca2bb3b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808200757s5ef27aeav7dd1f0665017c336@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <160001c903ea$2856d660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano writes > > To me, it's relatively simple. My remote ancestors of 500 million > > years ago are extinct. Period. > > OK. > > My point is: beyond your extinction as an individual, > it is arbitrary to identify with, or to invest emotionally > in the lot of, your biological grand-children rather > than your one-million year-distant evolutionary > successors. Even just *socially*, this strikes me as very weird. One can rightly feel responsible for one's children, whether you know them or not. It's a kind of duty. This also applies to one's grandchildren, though, I would suggest, diluted by a factor of two :-) But more pertinently, you are suggesting that I should no more identify with Stefano Voj than with a toad, should it happen that this toad-like creature is my direct male descendant a million years from now (due to certain regressions and periodic near-extinctions and so forth)? Surely not! The metric I recommend is this: similarity of structure (including similarity of emotional and moral structure, intellectual structure, and so forth). I therefore have much greater identification with Imhotek than with any grandchild of mine who has an IQ of 12,000 and who would regard me the way I would regard a retarded but lovable pet parakeet. > One's grand-children are no more him or her than the > latter, and both are successors. Where they occur in time doesn't seem important, does it? > So, either you metaphorically "survive" in both, or you > do not in either. Well, I disagree, since to me it's always a matter of degree. On the one hand, we should refuse to be driven to the absurd point of claiming no identification with who we were yesterday, and on the other hand we should admit the unnaturalness of claiming to identify with some utterly alien but extremely advanced computer program (that just happens to be a descendant of Vladimir Putin). > But in both cases there no obvious reason why the survival > of the species should be considered as survival tout court, Sorry---it often appears your English is better than mine! I take it you mean total or complete survival by that phrase. The reason I advance for favoring homo sapiens in a contest for my affections over some lizard race from Sirius is two-fold. For one, similarity of structure (including all the aforementioned traits such as emotion and so on). For two, we naturally have a certain solidarity with our cell-mates, our fellow city residents, our national comrades, and even (up to a point) our gender or racial brethren. This "solidarity" may be at times too strong for our individual tastes (and so we try to weaken it), and at other times be too weak. But it's there. And it applies very much to our species as a whole: I'd feel quite disloyal if that race of lizards from Sirius happened all to be interested in math and avid chess players, and I had to choose between a planet full of humans surviving and a planet full of them surviving, and I chose the latter. > and the survival of the clade should not. In fact, to pose the > survival of the species as one's ultimate ideal may well be to > the detriment of the destiny of the clade, I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade, but it's not helping me much here. Instead of "clade" could you be more specific, e.g., all our DNA cousins? > and would lead us to conclude that it would have been a > good idea for our simian ancestors, at least from their > point of view, to put in place an eugenic programme > aimed at avoiding the kind of evolutionary change that > ultimately led to ourselves. Heh, well of course it would have been a good idea---for *them*! In fact, they would have been very well-advised to put just such a program in place, because suppose some simian version of Charles Heston gets into a time machine back in 4,802,701 B.C. and appears on Earth in 2008 A.D. He'd be utterly appalled at the "Planet of the Humans", and rightly so! > If we like to think that our "successors" shall be there, > genealogy is as good a criterion to define them as similarity. Well, I admit to being a "similarity chauvinist" :-) > A rat, as a mammal and everything, may well be much less similar to me than an entirely unrelated human being, but also much more > similar to me than an android. Yet I should be more inclined to consider myself extinct if it were the rats rather than the > androids to take over. Why that? I suspect one reason may be that androids could be legitimately considered as "children of the > mind", something which could never be said of rats. And this of course would be even more true for remote biological successors > whose DNA directly derived, artificially or naturally, from my own.< Yes, I might identify more with the android too---but only if it had characteristics that made it more like me than a rat is. Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Aug 22 00:14:45 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:14:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <160001c903ea$2856d660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <580930c20808140430p438ed9daq3891e9a1c2589ec5@mail.gmail.com> <036b01c902ce$ca2bb3b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808200757s5ef27aeav7dd1f0665017c336@mail.gmail.com> <160001c903ea$2856d660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080821190937.0242ece8@satx.rr.com> At 04:57 PM 8/21/2008 -0700, Lee wrote: >a program in place, because suppose some simian version of >Charles Heston gets into a time machine back in 4,802,701 B.C. A witty number, Lee! But I wonder if it ought to have been closer to 4,802, 814 B.C.? (Supposing the events in The Time Machine occurred in its year of publication, 1895.) Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Aug 22 01:08:25 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:08:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080821190937.0242ece8@satx.rr.com> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <580930c20808140430p438ed9daq3891e9a1c2589ec5@mail.gmail.com> <036b01c902ce$ca2bb3b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808200757s5ef27aeav7dd1f0665017c336@mail.gmail.com> <160001c903ea$2856d660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080821190937.0242ece8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080821200401.0239e938@satx.rr.com> At 07:14 PM 8/21/2008 -0500, I wrote with my eyes crossed: >But I wonder if it ought to have been closer to 4,802, 814 B.C.? What the hell am I talking about? Obviously that should be 4,802,588 B.C. (Those descending negative dates always get me confused; good thing I'm not a historian.) Damien Broderick From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri Aug 22 02:19:57 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:19:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction References: <200808212216.m7LMG10v014764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <008801c903fd$9354d7b0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" > For comparison, we have three friends who gave birth 8, 10 and 11 years > ago. > In all three cases, the mothers were very stoned during and after the > birth, > and don't remember much of it. Stoned? Were these unusually difficult births? If not difficult births ... then, WHAT??? Just a decade ago? Where was this? My two children were born in San Francisco (Kaiser Hospital, on Geary Boulevard) nearly 40 years ago, and I was 100% awake throughout each procedure (which I watched in a mirror). I still remember the interesting thoughts I had while I was going through these rather unusual events, and the conversation I had with my husband about our few-minutes'-old daughter - how she looked like his mother. Then I was on the phone within an hour talking to people. Has medicine regressed THAT much? I have read that a lot more Caesareans are done now, too (I am supposing there is a good reason for this - I've not kept up much with the state of birthing in USAmerica lately). But, wait ... my daughter-in-law gave birth to two children within this past decade. Aside from having more nifty technology to monitor her pregnancy, her experiences were similar to mine (and she wasn't stoned, either). However, I have heard about how some women in the 1940s and 1950s in my family were "put out" during labor. When they awoke - presto-change-o - a baby magically appeared by their side! The "labor" was all done for them while they were "out." Olga Olga From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Aug 22 03:04:41 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:04:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <200808212321.m7LNKwKe008851@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200808212201.m7LM0tEc022739@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200808212321.m7LNKwKe008851@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670808212004qd59d5bdh24accf699f03a264@mail.gmail.com> Jesus was raised to be a carpenter so you could expect him to be really fit (especially because he was from an age before power tools!). Well..., at least the very out of shape looking Buddha figure seems to be having a good time. Do any of you know of Hindus who have a Kali or Ganesh statue in their yard? And what kind of garden figures do Pagans have to decorate their place? I would personally go for a combination of Simpsons and Lovecraft mythos stone garden figures. hee Finally, what ever happened to the classic garden gnomes? Oh, I remember... www.theressomethingoutthere.com John Grigg : ) On 8/21/08, spike wrote: > > >> ... On Behalf Of spike >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Human extinction >> >> ...Do you ever see a painting or a sculpture of Jesus with ugly >> cellulite or a big flabby belly hanging down? No! ... spike > > > Furthermore: it isn't just that Jesus looks like an olympic springboard > diver whereas Buddha looks like a sumo rassler. Think of all those > paintings you have ever seen of the crucifixion. Have you ever seen one > that is a back view? No! I don't see why not. Judging from the rest of > him, the lad surely had buns of steel. > > spike > > > > OK enough of that. Has anyone heard from Harvey Newstrom? He is from > Melbourne Florida, ja? The news people are saying they had 30 inches of > rain from tropical storm Fay. Harvey please report regarding your > wellbeing. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Aug 22 03:03:32 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:03:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History Channel thisThursday! In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0808171806i3762c260v415711f7f34ff687@mail.gmail.com> References: <14b801c8f713$06bf0380$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670808060126v11a3ca6ai96a8f1ae91bd8047@mail.gmail.com><616CB754911544989106AEE062D49228@GinaSony><40973.12.77.168.172.1218976077.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <710b78fc0808171806i3762c260v415711f7f34ff687@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <41DD322E6DFD47AE9D5765355F420A8B@GinaSony> Wow Emlyn you've arrived at a rather interesting work around. I have a wii game console, which is very cool by the way. Remember years back when those VR gloves were the big deal in game play, the wii has surpassed that with it's hand held stick. If you have the fit board it's even better - you can move around on it and it knows where you are and how much pressure you are applying. You can see your movements on the screen via your 3d avatar. Very interactive. Anyway, it also has internet capabilities. If you have a wireless for your computer, the wii will detect it and you can browse the web, including YouTube. I really like it. By the way that tattoo show on the history channel with my dermal display is on tonight! Oh and guys, don't forget to email me about my project, it's been pretty quiet! Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com The health stuff blog: http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Emlyn To: ExI chat list Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] My animation is going to be on the History Channel thisThursday! 2008/8/17 MB : > Hooray for our Nanogirl! :) Now you make me wish I had a TV.. ;) On a tangent, a quick rant about TV... There's *so* much online video to watch these days (Youtube is just the start...), but it has this problem that you watch this stuff on a PC. Sitting at your desk is no place to watch a movie, and even a laptop makes it a fairly solitary experience (two people can watch on a laptop, after that it gets hard), plus the screen is small and the sound is poor. You really want to be able to watch a lot of stuff in your living room, on the big screen. Along these lines, I recently got rid of my old CRT TV, and put an old PC in the livingroom. It's an Athlon 2000, 500 mb ram, circa 2001 vintage? It was one of my kid's machines, but too long in the tooth for kid's stuff (games need good equipment). The point is, it's old and crappy, but does this job remarkably well. The machine is already on the wireless lan, but I added in a TV card for digital TV (actually it's a usb based device, not an internal card, can't recommend that enough). I'm in Australia so I had to get something suitable for Aussie digital TV, which uses an obscure and poorly supported standard (dvb-t), but you can still get something economical. Just for completeness, the actual piece of hardware is the USB TinyTwin from DigitalNow, a tiny aussie company. Nice hardware, decent viewing software and drivers, but interoperating with other stuff is a pain in the butt, and the doco is dreadful but non-existant, much as you'd expect from that kind of company. It's here: http://www.digitalnow.com.au/product_pages/TinyTwin.html . Cost me about $130. The TinyTwin plugged straight into my old antenna cable, no antenna mods required, and gives far better reception. Digital TV is great. So, that replaced our TV, with the addition that we now get the HD free to air channels. Lovely. And I can record TV for the first time in years. But wait, there's more... We can now watch youtube on the "tv" just by pulling up a browser. The machine is running straight XP, and it's now got a wireless mouse and keyboard (cost maybe $30?), but even with large fonts the machine can be a pain in the butt to operate; I have to go up close with the mouse and keyb so I can see properly. I can live with that for now though. The machine also runs Azureus, for bittorrent. Essential. 'Nuff said. Although I think Miro might be able to do its job, must investigate... Which brings me to Miro. http://www.getmiro.com/ . About 5000 channels of free content. It's what community tv always needed. Most channels are ridiculous, but there's some excellent stuff there; check out Free Culture TV (a bit brown bread but ok), or for excellence, Citizen Engineer (which to be fair is also on their own site http://www.citizenengineer.com/ or youtube). Hardware hacking as a tv show, really fabulous stuff. Anyway, the nice thing about Miro is that it's like a video podcast model, but uses (modified?) bittorrent for distribution, which means waiting for downloads, but some decent video quality. Another recent discovery for me was http://www.hulu.com/, lots of major network US tv shows. You can't watch it if you don't have a US ip address unfortunately. On a totally unrelated note, however, has anyone seen Hotspot Shield? It's a free vpn that encrypts your traffic up to the point where it comes out of their servers. It's meant for protecting you in open wireless hotspots, but can be useful for other things. Sounds complicated, but it's easy; on windows, you just install it, run it, and then say "connect" when you want to use it, and voila. It does have the side effect of giving you a US ip address, for what that's worth. Did I forget to mention that it's free, and that I can't notice any performance impact on streaming video? And there's the Aussie government broadcaster ABC, with its online service "iView", here: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/iview/. No ip address checks, good programming. And all this is without mentioning dodgy Chinese based sites that show all kinds of awesome shows directly in the browser, because there's no way good law abiding extros would use those. There's more every day. I can't imagine that I'll ever subscribe to pay tv with the amount of interesting stuff that's online now, and the free to air broadcast tv becomes increasingly less attractive. I don't rent DVDs any more either, and I tried Quickflix (aussie clone of Netflix), but dumped it; removable media is so last week people. So for peanuts, I have this multimedia extravaganza in the living room, and I increasingly can't remember what was good about broadcast TV. Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com _______________________________________________ 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 att.net Fri Aug 22 02:53:11 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:53:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <008801c903fd$9354d7b0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <200808220320.m7M3JomX022990@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin > Subject: Re: [ExI] Human extinction > > From: "spike" > To: "'ExI chat list'" > > > For comparison, we have three friends who gave birth 8, 10 and 11 > > years ago. > > In all three cases, the mothers were very stoned during and > after the > > birth, and don't remember much of it. > > Stoned? Were these unusually difficult births? Ja actually two of them were: one was emergency C section after 20 hours labor and no progress, one breech, the other normal as far as I know. > If not difficult births ... then, WHAT??? Just a decade ago? > Where was this? Olga Two at Stanford, one at Kaiser in San Jose. In all three cases, the mothers were loopy as a box of cheerios an hour after the births. The Kaiser birth mother doesn't remember our being there, even tho we were around for about half an hour. Don't know what they were giving them. spike From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Aug 22 03:36:04 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:36:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <200808220320.m7M3JomX022990@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <008801c903fd$9354d7b0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <200808220320.m7M3JomX022990@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670808212036r5fd711c2weec8cce2c1b857c2@mail.gmail.com> My mother gave birth to my younger brother at an Air Force hospital (30 years ago) and she had to put her foot down with the doctors to not do a c-section because it was their standard operating procedure to carry out the procedure as soon as the least bit of trouble happened. John On 8/21/08, spike wrote: > > >> On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Human extinction >> >> From: "spike" >> To: "'ExI chat list'" >> >> > For comparison, we have three friends who gave birth 8, 10 and 11 >> > years ago. >> > In all three cases, the mothers were very stoned during and >> after the >> > birth, and don't remember much of it. >> >> Stoned? Were these unusually difficult births? > > Ja actually two of them were: one was emergency C section after 20 hours > labor and no progress, one breech, the other normal as far as I know. > >> If not difficult births ... then, WHAT??? Just a decade ago? >> Where was this? Olga > > Two at Stanford, one at Kaiser in San Jose. In all three cases, the mothers > were loopy as a box of cheerios an hour after the births. The Kaiser birth > mother doesn't remember our being there, even tho we were around for about > half an hour. Don't know what they were giving them. > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Aug 22 03:53:53 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:53:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New H+ RPG - Eclipse Phase In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080821163409.032190a0@gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080821163409.032190a0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670808212053v25f1961bubded42fb72dcdffe@mail.gmail.com> >Heya, > >We recently launched the website for our new tabletop, pen & paper >RPG -- Eclipse Phase -- a game of transhuman conspiracy and horror. >Find it here: > >http://eclipsephase.com > >On the site you'll find: >* Details on the game >* Forums >* Resources for transhumanism and related topics >* A regularly-updated blog > >In the future we'll be adding a downloadable PDF of Quick-Start >Rules for the game. > >The game itself will be released in early 2009 under a Creative >Commons license. > >We're looking for playtesters and writers, so pass the word. > > >:: Rob Boyle :: >Eclipse Phase Developer for Catalyst Game Labs >sprite at catalystgamelabs.com >AIM: catalystsprite From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 03:37:48 2008 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 03:37:48 -0000 Subject: [ExI] Tibetan book of dliving and dieing comix Message-ID: <9b9887c80808012037k75e2ea71o783d51d09e647e47@mail.gmail.com> -- Ilsa Bartlett Institute for Rewiring the System 1222 "B" Ashby Avenue Berkeley, CA 94702 510.848.1007 www.hotlux.com/angel.htm "Don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person." -John Coltrane -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From srndpty at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 17:26:38 2008 From: srndpty at gmail.com (Jonathan El-Bizri) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:26:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Building a fake future..." Message-ID: <754ee4710808071026r607b0cdap26d15899605b39d1@mail.gmail.com> "In the hopes that a real future will show up to mate with it." http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TO&Product_Code=WON-FUTURISM&Category_Code=WON :> Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From srndpty at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 17:36:53 2008 From: srndpty at gmail.com (Jonathan El-Bizri) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:36:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Toward a Type 1 civilization" by Michael Shermer In-Reply-To: References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com> <20080807082818.GA19874@ofb.net> <200808070618.41106.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <754ee4710808071036n58d2ae93h8a5d4e3bb4a2059e@mail.gmail.com> But then the small fires will go out, and where will we be then? :> Jon On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 5:22 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > Super stars die quickly. We need a lot of very small fires. > > - Thomas > > > On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > >> On Thursday 07 August 2008, Tomaz Kristan wrote: >> > Normal and practical people will not last long, anyway. We need long >> > term solutions. >> >> Maybe we need some superstars. >> >> - Bryan >> ________________________________________ >> http://heybryan.org/ >> Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html >> irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 estropico at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 20:20:23 2008 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 21:20:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] ExtroBritannia: Enhancing minds: the pros and cons of hi-tech methods for improving cognition. Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90808071320o6845f1c5ne1d8ea27353e6320@mail.gmail.com> The next ExtroBritannia event is scheduled for Saturday August the 23rd, 2008; 2:00pm - 4:00pm. Venue: Birkbeck College - Room 153, 1st floor (via lift B), Main Building, Torrington Square, London WC1E 7HX. The event is free and everyone's welcome. What's the latest state of play with different methods (drugs, computer games, neuroimplants, genetics, etc) for enhancing cognition - and what are their benefits and problems? Speakers: Anders Sandberg, Neuroethics researcher at the Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University; Heather Bradshaw, Centre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, and Visions intern at the IEET. Join the debate! The meeting is sponsored by the United Kingdom Transhumanist Association (UKTA). There is no charge to attend and everyone is welcome. Venue: Room 153 is on the first floor (via lift B, down the corridor to the right of reception) in the main Birkbeck College building, in Torrington Square (which is a pedestrian-only square). Torrington Square is about 10 minutes walk from either Russell Square or Goodge St tube stations. MAP: http://www.bbk.ac.uk/maps Discussion is likely to continue after the event at "The Friend at Hand", nearby. There's also the option of joining some of the UKTA regulars for drinks/lunch beforehand, starting c. 12.30, in "The Friend At Hand" pub which is situated behind Russell Square tube station on Herbrand Street. There's also the option of joining some of the UKTA regulars for drinks/lunch beforehand, starting c. 12.30, in the same pub. To find us, look out for a table where there's a copy of Aubrey de Grey's book "Ending Aging" displayed. Our blog: http://extrobritannia.blogspot.com/ Our website: http://www.transhumanist.org.uk/ Our mailing list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extrobritannia/ From srndpty at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 18:48:02 2008 From: srndpty at gmail.com (Jonathan El-Bizri) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:48:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> Message-ID: <754ee4710808131148u17fdc35er43ba736ad0d05819@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM, hkhenson wrote: > On another list I said. > > > >My best guess is that physical state humans will not exist long > > >after the singularity--something I can't see holding off even half > > >way to the end of this century. > > > > >Then the question becomes how our intellectual descendants deal with > > >the problems. I suspect at best humans will have the status of > > >cats--in some ways an unnerving prospect considering what we do to > > >cats. > > A person responded with a statement that religious objections will keep > people from uploading. I said: > > I know at least 4 people that if they got their hands on the > technology would upload the lot of the religious folks looking for > the Rapture. I know it isn't ethical. Perhaps I should write a > story about a police officer who enters a rapture simulation to offer > a rescue to the people in it. > > Story background, the evil dweeb hacker from Perth Amboy saved a copy > of their state vector when they were uploaded. Their bodies are > preserved. The simulation runs at 100 times wall clock, so by the > time (a week) the poor cop goes in to tell them they are in a fake > heaven they have been there 2 subjective years. > > They are offered: > > 1) reloading into their bodies with existing memories. > 2) termination and reloading of their memories prior to the uploading > into their physical bodies. > 3) continuation in their current uploaded environment with memories > that they are in a fake heaven > 4) same as 3 but erasing the memory of the cop's visit. > 5) same as 3 or 4 but forked with the original body being put back on > the street with no memory of two years in heaven. > > Did I miss anything? What would you do with such an offer? > You missed the anti-hero following the cop in to do cheesy Matrix-esque superhero battling, the religious people being uploaded into another virtual environment that feels just like the 'real' world but isn't, and the religious leader type discovering his true amoral atheistic nihilist side. And a few crisises of identity on both sides, of course. :> Jonathan El-Bizri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From srndpty at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 20:21:26 2008 From: srndpty at gmail.com (Jonathan El-Bizri) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:21:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> Message-ID: <754ee4710808131321s1fb46836q6551acda442a7d84@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:57 PM, BillK wrote: > So, assume the AGI manages to do this and create a fulfilling > environment for everyone. > Isn't this exactly what everyone wants? Believer or unbeliever? > Or, the AGI does what it's original master tells it to, and creates a heaven the way he envisions it: Lots of long boring sermons, infrequent meals of gruel and stale bread and nothing to do. With the occasional videocast of people in hell having a whale of a time. The poor cop would go in and never come out again. > > BillK > > P.S. Get those 73 virgins ready! ;) > > P.P.S. I've often wondered what they promise female suicide bombers? > A respite from grief, the opportunity to be reunited with their loved ones and a stipend that will feed the surviving members of their family. :< Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From srndpty at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 20:36:30 2008 From: srndpty at gmail.com (Jonathan El-Bizri) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:36:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] speaking of "transhuman" and life extension In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080811173945.02375f70@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080811173945.02375f70@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <754ee4710808131336k6bb276b4k5bc9a5b9f7a0ee50@mail.gmail.com> Here is the world-cat link for this. Going to check it out next time I'm near the library. http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/0060109629 Jonathan El-Bizri On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > The term "transhuman" is key to this 30-year old sf anthology, compiled > when my American pal Jack Dann (now, ironically, resident in Australia) and > I were about half our present ages, and Robert Ettinger was already about > our current age... > > * Title: Immortal: Short Novels of the Transhuman Future > * Editor: Jack Dann > * Year: 1978-05-00 > * ISBN-10: 0-06-010962-9 > * ISBN-13: 978-0-06-010962-2 > * Publisher: Harper & Row > > * vii ? Introduction: The Transhuman Condition ? (1978) ? essay by R. C. > W. Ettinger > * 1 ? Chanson Perpetuelle ? (1978) ? novella by Thomas M. Disch > * 57 ? The Doctor of Death Island ? [Archipelago] ? (1978) ? novella by > Gene Wolfe > * 111 ? The Renewal ? (1978) ? novella by Pamela Sargent > * 187 ? Transfigured Night ? (1978) ? novella by George Zebrowski > * 221 ? Further Reading (Immortal) ? (1978) ? essay by Jack Dann > _______________________________________________ > 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 srndpty at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 20:51:37 2008 From: srndpty at gmail.com (Jonathan El-Bizri) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:51:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] An overdue introduction In-Reply-To: <754ee4710808062204k7d219a2bx2d87dffe7c7b4ac3@mail.gmail.com> References: <754ee4710808062204k7d219a2bx2d87dffe7c7b4ac3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <754ee4710808131351o35d67658ta12a50089529db6f@mail.gmail.com> (Members of the AGI list, forgive me for this essentially duplicate message.) Somewhere in this maelstrom of lions eating zebras and rounding up zealots for the rapture, an introduction was missed out. I am sure I have met a number of you at last year's singularity summit, which I assisted with, or will meet you at this year's, where I will be assisting again. I am in my second year of a masters in research psychology at San Francisco state. My (current) thesis involves the psychological constructs of the mind in regards to online entities: how we conceive and relate to synthetic groups, such as this email list, or your friends on facebook, and also complex non-human systems, as they become more nuanced and intelligent. I am also working towards PMP Project and Program Management Certifications (despite a decade of 'real world' work, one is still required to take an undergraduate class to qualify for the examination :/), with an eye towards a career bridging the worlds of research and engineering on graduation with some writing on the side. This scholastic endeavour is my second (third?) life: before this I was a dot-commer, working at start ups, before eventually getting swallowed by Microsoft and then Juniper Networks. And before that, I wrote video game soundtracks (I'm sure you've played some of my games :>) and tv commercials, and managed the production group at a small game firm. In addition to working on my thesis project, I am currently reviewing the developmental psychology texts of my undergraduate days, in order to refresh myself, and with the additional intention of writing a review of the literature suitable for the non-developmental, non-psychologist working in AGI (and as a springboard towards further research of this type). If anyone can point me in the direction of similar work of this fashion, it would be appreciated - so far, the topic does not seem well covered, which is good news for me, after a fashion. In any case, I am enjoying the chatter here, and will probably be lurking around here for quite a while, depending on the anticipated advances in extropian and life extension technologies of course :> Regards, Jonathan El-Bizri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.yokomizo at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 22:49:53 2008 From: daniel.yokomizo at gmail.com (Daniel Yokomizo) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:49:53 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <200808212201.m7LM0tEc022739@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200808212201.m7LM0tEc022739@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:47 PM, spike wrote: > > >> ... On Behalf Of Jeff Davis > ... >> >> I have a Buddha in my garden. He reposes in iconic serenity >> beneath the happiest lace-leaf maple you could ever hope to >> see, with a little gargoyle buddy at his feet. I get a warm >> feeling every time I look at him. Which, of course, is the point. >> >> Contrast this iconic symbol of serenity with its Christian >> (in fairness I feel I should say Judeo-Christian) >> counterpart, that of a man being tortured to death. Can any >> conclusions, however preliminary, be drawn?... Best wishes, Jeff > > I have one Jeff, since we are comparing the Buddha to the crucified savior > of mankind. Buddha is often depicted in a lotus position with an enormous > belly flopped all over the place. Revolting! Compare to christ on the > cross: that sucker is ripped! Check out the buff six pack abs on that dude. > Do you ever see a Buddha with a decent physique? No! Do you ever see a > painting or a sculpture of Jesus with ugly cellulite or a big flabby belly > hanging down? No! The Buddhists need to fix that, forthwith. I'm not Jeff but I can answer this one. These depictions aren't of Gautama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha), but interpretations of Maitreya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya_Buddha). Even depictions of Maitreya differ on his physique, but Gautama is always portrayed in excellent shape. > spike Best regards, Daniel Yokomizo. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Aug 22 04:45:55 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:45:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] An overdue introduction In-Reply-To: <754ee4710808131351o35d67658ta12a50089529db6f@mail.gmail.com> References: <754ee4710808062204k7d219a2bx2d87dffe7c7b4ac3@mail.gmail.com> <754ee4710808131351o35d67658ta12a50089529db6f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670808212145s422d3390x5a84f5c7506183a7@mail.gmail.com> Welcome, Jonathan! I bet you will fit in very well around here. And I have a feeling it will not be long until someone puts you to work with some sort of project! hee Your list of interests and accomplishments is quite impressive. Best wishes, John : ) On 8/13/08, Jonathan El-Bizri wrote: > (Members of the AGI list, forgive me for this essentially duplicate > message.) > > Somewhere in this maelstrom of lions eating zebras and rounding up zealots > for the rapture, an introduction was missed out. I am sure I have met a > number of you at last year's singularity summit, which I assisted with, or > will meet you at this year's, where I will be assisting again. > > I am in my second year of a masters in research psychology at San Francisco > state. My (current) thesis involves the psychological constructs of the mind > in regards to online entities: how we conceive and relate to synthetic > groups, such as this email list, or your friends on facebook, and also > complex non-human systems, as they become more nuanced and intelligent. > > I am also working towards PMP Project and Program Management Certifications > (despite a decade of 'real world' work, one is still required to take an > undergraduate class to qualify for the examination :/), with an eye towards > a career bridging the worlds of research and engineering on graduation with > some writing on the side. > > This scholastic endeavour is my second (third?) life: before this I was a > dot-commer, working at start ups, before eventually getting swallowed by > Microsoft and then Juniper Networks. And before that, I wrote video game > soundtracks (I'm sure you've played some of my games :>) and tv commercials, > and managed the production group at a small game firm. > > In addition to working on my thesis project, I am currently reviewing the > developmental psychology texts of my undergraduate days, in order to refresh > myself, and with the additional intention of writing a review of the > literature suitable for the non-developmental, non-psychologist working in > AGI (and as a springboard towards further research of this type). If anyone > can point me in the direction of similar work of this fashion, it would be > appreciated - so far, the topic does not seem well covered, which is good > news for me, after a fashion. > > In any case, I am enjoying the chatter here, and will probably be lurking > around here for quite a while, depending on the anticipated advances in > extropian and life extension technologies of course :> > > Regards, > > Jonathan El-Bizri > From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Aug 22 04:54:21 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:54:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "Building a fake future..." In-Reply-To: <754ee4710808071026r607b0cdap26d15899605b39d1@mail.gmail.com> References: <754ee4710808071026r607b0cdap26d15899605b39d1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200808212354.21147.kanzure@gmail.com> On Thursday 07 August 2008, Jonathan El-Bizri wrote: > "In the hopes that a real future will show up to mate with it." The only way to get to the future is to make it. That's why many of us on the list are giving our hand at some of the problems that we encounter, i.e. death. That's a particularly annoying one, I hear. It's a nice picture, but wouldn't you rather have the real deal? - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From spike66 at att.net Fri Aug 22 04:22:03 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:22:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <2d6187670808212004qd59d5bdh24accf699f03a264@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200808220451.m7M4orer021313@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > On Behalf Of John Grigg > Subject: Re: [ExI] Human extinction > > Jesus was raised to be a carpenter so you could expect him to > be really fit (especially because he was from an age before > power tools!). Well..., at least the very out of shape > looking Buddha figure seems to be having a good time... > >> > >> ...Do you ever see a painting or a sculpture of Jesus with ugly > >> cellulite or a big flabby belly hanging down? No! ... spike Thanks John. You are the one person here I really worried about offending when I wrote that silly riff. I see you took it all with the intended sense of playful humor. Pal, I want to be like you when I grow up. Still no word from Harvey? I do hope the lad can swim. spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Aug 22 04:50:05 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:50:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction References: <410623.38609.qm@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <162101c90412$d9597210$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart, quite unaccountably, writes (parodying my criticism of Nietzsche) > Despite himself, it's clear Lee Corbin believes in some sort of individual > identity. Well, that's damn straight! > Simply because a certain identity selfishly asserted itself to be Lee > Corbin somewhere in a chain of developmental ontogenic forms That's me! Actually, a whole range of them do, fuzzily (in this world) identified as say, approximate age 15 through age 79 or 89, or whenever I'm frozen. (Perhaps not so coincidentally, I've figured since about age 16 that I'd make it to age 79, i.e. 2027.) > ranging from a single-celled zygote to his present state, this gives him > license to have the first in the chain identify with the last in the chain. What? I'm afraid that you've been reading the "Reader's Digest" condensed form of my works. Alas, after all this time, and after so many posts, you suppose that I believe that *I* am the same person as the single-cell zygote that grew into what I am now? Hell, that little thing isn't even a person yet in my eyes! In fact, that single celled zygote hardly resembles me more that it resembles you. And the only way that the zygote from which I happened to develop differs fundamentally from the zygote from which you developed is that the former has a decent chance of becoming me, and the latter only a very small chance. > So just what is it that has remained the same about him? A soul? > What else could it be? Similarity of structure. Apparently you've never heard me say this. Lee From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Aug 22 05:01:15 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:01:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] An overdue introduction In-Reply-To: <754ee4710808131351o35d67658ta12a50089529db6f@mail.gmail.com> References: <754ee4710808062204k7d219a2bx2d87dffe7c7b4ac3@mail.gmail.com> <754ee4710808131351o35d67658ta12a50089529db6f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200808220001.15404.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 13 August 2008, Jonathan El-Bizri wrote: > (Members of the AGI list, forgive me for this essentially duplicate > message.) Some of us have it even worse. http://heybryan.org/mailing_lists.html Not that I'm complaining. > I am in my second year of a masters in research psychology at San > Francisco state. My (current) thesis involves the psychological > constructs of the mind in regards to online entities: how we conceive > and relate to synthetic groups, such as this email list, or your > friends on facebook, and also complex non-human systems, as they > become more nuanced and intelligent. What makes those any more synthetic than a marriage written on paper? And any more synthetic than words used to describe a couple? ;-) > This scholastic endeavour is my second (third?) life: before this I > was a dot-commer, working at start ups, before eventually getting > swallowed by Microsoft and then Juniper Networks. And before that, I > wrote video game soundtracks (I'm sure you've played some of my games > :>) and tv commercials, and managed the production group at a small > game firm. What games? I noticed you seem to do some ocremixes. Are you in #vgmusic ever? I also see you're mentioned on a groovetronica website. As it happens I'm currently listening to some fleshbrain from scenemusic.eu, somewhat of the same style. > In addition to working on my thesis project, I am currently reviewing > the developmental psychology texts of my undergraduate days, in order > to refresh myself, and with the additional intention of writing a > review of the literature suitable for the non-developmental, > non-psychologist working in AGI (and as a springboard towards further > research of this type). If anyone can point me in the direction of > similar work of this fashion, it would be appreciated - so far, the > topic does not seem well covered, which is good news for me, after a > fashion. I don't know what you're talking about. Non-working, non-psychological, but still has to be work. Hrm. You have me stumped. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Aug 22 05:02:34 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:02:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fw: [tlc-brotherhood] Terminator here we come, for real ... In-Reply-To: <12833884.1216395840868.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <12833884.1216395840868.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <200808220002.34426.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 18 July 2008, Terry Colvin wrote: > Bostrom leads a movement known as transhumanism, which dually aims to > watch for potential threats in emerging technologies and conversely > adopt radical emerging technologies to enrich human life.? Bostrom > and other transhumanist hope that one day biotechnology, molecular > nanotechnologies, and artificial intelligence will merge man with > machine, yielding humans that have increased cognitive abilties, are > physically stronger, and emotionally more stable.? This path, they > say will lead to "posthumans", augmented beings so superior to > traditional man, they are separate entity. Bostrom leads? What? Hope? - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From spike66 at att.net Fri Aug 22 04:46:04 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:46:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] CNN covers Catastrophic risks conference, reports on the Singularity instead. In-Reply-To: <754ee4710807141752y43520746u68f999aa6c9a335d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200808220513.m7M5CkhC024607@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Welcome and apologies to Jonathan El-Bizri. My spam filter malfunctioned or perhaps it was I who malfunctioned. All my Exi-chat notices went into the spam bucket, so there was a lot of old stuff in there, starting back middle of July when I went on vacation. I went in to browse my spam bucket for the first time in a long while, found a bunch of stuff in there that shouldn't have been, a long personal letter written to me by a good friend back in April for instance. Oy. Jonathan, you are on the ExI-chat full membership list now. spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan El-Bizri Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 5:52 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] CNN covers Catastrophic risks conference,reports on the Singularity instead. A CNN article reporting on the Global Catastrophic Risks conference explains the singularity (or at least, Ray Kurzweil's conception of it) to its readers. http://fromheretosingularity.com/?p=110 Is this the first MSM singularity article? I haven't seen one before. Jonathan El-Bizri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Aug 22 05:29:46 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:29:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Fiction | Group agency] Resistance by Tobias S. Buckell Message-ID: A thoughtful short story online promoting Cory Doctorow's collection _Agents of Change_. - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Aug 22 05:28:42 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:28:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240808192120k7c91b178x83cb5eb9228c55e6@mail.gmail.com> <031c01c90286$19efa9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240808202025r5a8b3fffga014f2910e2f7ea2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <163201c90418$76e47660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike writes > Lee wrote > >> Do you consider your act [of not discriminating judicially >> against sociopaths] to be in all fairness to the future victims >> of this known sociopath? > > Yes. 'future victims'? Can you show with high confidence over a > statistically large sample the exact metric that determines what score > on the sociopath test indicates not just a tendency or a likelihood, > but a near certainty that said sociopath will victimize others? No, certainly *I* cannot. I doubt whether the knowledge even exists right now. The key question for *right now* is, should we begin collecting such evidence and doing such studies? By the way, please forgive me if I've unintentionally inserted clarifying parentheticals that do not conform to your views; I'm really aiming only for clarity, hardly to set up straw dogs! Just go ahead and re-correct me, thanks. > Does this study account for the increased surveillance > the state will have after labeling someone a sociopath? What study? Well, almost surely, the answer is no, because studies of sociopathy and its links to crime don't necessarily connect to increased surveillance (which is a policy issue, not a fact issue). To be concrete here is what I hope happens. Tell me where y'all disagree: * we begin conducting massive tests using the new equipment so long as we're making progress and our findings do not evaporate as so often is the case * provided the previous step has been completed, we pay people (i.e. the government) some nominal amount to take the test * (and this is what was correctly worrying you) after that last step, we eventually require all children to undergo the test in exactly the same manner as we now require them to be tested for tuberculosis * (and this is what was correctly REALLY worrying you) then, again just as for teachers and others who come into contact with children are by law in many states routinely screened for TB, we begin screening all adults who come into contact with children, police officers, hospital and elderly caretakers, soldiers, and convicted criminals---and it's compulsory! * we make the tests freely available to anyone, so that a bride may demand that her future husband undergo screening or face rejection, and future spouses afraid that if they've not already obtained a non-sociopath certificate, their future spouses, their families, and their potential employers may want to know why. (Employers currently have the temerity to inquire whether future employees smoke! And why not--- it's their job they're offering.) > Maybe after this kind of evidence can be produced then I > would agree. Yes, but agree how far? >> But my question clearly relates to a sociopath who has not successfully >> internalized good behavior. > > So you mean our policy will be changed to "innocent until preemptively > tested for guilt"? Absolutely not, because *being* a sociopath is no crime. As I took pains to point out, there can indeed be very "conscientious sociopaths", (though literally that's an oxymoron) who are scared to death of committing crimes or of being brutal to others simply out of fear of the repercussions. To be clear, if person X is identified at a young age of being a sociopath to some degree or other, that information *will* be used by a sentencing judge should the defendant be found guilty of committing a crime, so say I. What's wrong with that? > Sorry, I understood your testing scenario to be a requirement for > entering the public education system - you know, for the safety of the > children and the community in general. Oh, no, Mike :-) You were right. That was exactly where I was headed. > And once you have them in for testing, let's test for the likelihood > of committing insurance fraud or the tendency to drink too much > or violate any of the best practices prescribed by the Ministry. Why not? Knowledge isn't bad: it's the way that knowledge is *used* that may be bad. Indeed, if we can anticipate that this knowledge would be used by a too-powerful state to take away liberties, then naturally I'd have to be against it. Have you read Brin's "The Transparent Society", by the way? Lee From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Aug 22 05:34:22 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:34:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <263996.20386.qm@web56507.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <263996.20386.qm@web56507.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4199FF8B-F12A-4325-9588-1E101182F953@mac.com> On Aug 21, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Anne Corwin wrote: > --- On Thu, 8/21/08, Damien Broderick wrote: > >> In other words, most opponents will *not* regard healthy >> life as an >> unconditional good. And they have their reasons for this >> that can't >> be budged just by saying, "Yes, but look, life is >> better than death!" >> Not if death is the pathway to heaven, or another chance to >> start >> fresh, or blessed surcease. >> >> Damien Broderick > > > Note as well that this kind of attitude isn't unique to the > explicitly religious. I've encountered people with decidedly secular > worldviews who see human death as important for the sake of > "furthering evolution". That is, we all need to die by a certain > time or else we risk hindering the natural emergence of a > "superhuman" species at some point off in the distant future. Does the argument go nowhere with them that we are more likely to get the "superhuman" if humans don't decline starting in a mere 40-50 years so we are always starting over? Or do they think that only "natural" evolution untouched by oh so unnatural human intelligence is the only way we can ever arrive at the "superhuman"? - samantha From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Aug 22 05:38:15 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:38:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Etymology of Critter's Dilemma References: <01ac01c8fdcc$3f6b4710$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><695554.48790.qm@web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><038e01c9032c$09920a60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <163b01c90419$dedba580$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes > Lee wrote: > >> Honestly, a quick glance through this paper proves to >> me with about 90% probability that the reasoning and >> inferences drawn are completely fallacious. >> >> The basic reason is quite simple: the authors fail to account >> for a rather powerful theory developed in the late 1850's >> by the English biologist Charles Darwin, who suggested that >> species evolve to occupy "niches"... > > Heh! :) Glad you saw the humor, thanks. > Besides, your definition of niches, seems to be saying that after > years of evolution everything is now fixed in its own niche in the > best of all possible worlds. It's not like that at all. Evolution is > ongoing now. The battle is a dynamic struggle that goes on every day. Oh yes, I know. >> We may very well in this paper see the unwholesome effects >> of projecting human psychological processes into the minds >> of, say, insects. > > No, they are studying populations and reporting what they find. [out of textual order] > Possibly your dismissal of a whole field of study is a reflection of > your cursory scan of this article. Reread and Google? Oh, that's quite possible. But would you mind supplying a reason why this "excess fear" would be maintained in that niche? Besides, can you explain in a single sentence to many who may be wondering (as I am) just how they're able to assess the level of "fear" in these creatures? > It is a dynamic process. Environments are 'slightly different' from day to day. > Species rise and fall with changes in the weather, etc. Why, sure, but species don't change their genetic characteristics day by day, nor (unless the conditions are extreme and the lifespan very short) even in months. Lee From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Aug 22 06:02:05 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:02:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080821130754.02702d48@satx.rr.com> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <00e501c8fd06$eb243970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819165915.023b6048@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080820124140.02671c90@satx.rr.com> <580930c20808210231x7c034632he88a40df033c2db8@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080821130754.02702d48@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <129E2932-08E1-4113-92E7-D8DE68D472AB@mac.com> On Aug 21, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 11:31 AM 8/21/2008 +0200, Stefano wrote: > >> Say that I have a bioluddite agreeing to an apparently banal and >> common-sense stipulation that the ability to live is absolutely >> better >> than death... that life is an uncondtional goal. > > But I think most of those opposed to radical life extension are > likely to be of the opinion that life is a testing ground with some > blessed postmortem condition as its true goal. Of course this leads straight into theodicy entanglements. > Life is a "Vale of Tears" we must suffer through in order to improve > ourselves, or cast ourselves on god's mercy, or learn to abandon > attachment, so we can attain some sort of salvation unavailable in > the contingent, material realm. How did such fallible, suffering, "sinful" creatures as ourselves possibly manage to riddle that this is the true nature of things? Revealed truth? Which one? If it is "The Truth" then why not make it blindingly, inescapably obvious rather than a matter of guess work and blind faith? On the other hand we have those that claim we already are perfect "spiritual beings" just having an ugly dream or playing a particularly nasty immersive cosmic video game. Which leaves the question of what would persuade us to do any such thing to this extent. > Trying to live longer than "Nature/god means us to" is impious, even > blasphemous, and thwarts the plan, or is precisely the kind of > desperate grasping attachment that maintains our misery. > I am perfectly fine that some people believe such a circular mess justifying pain, suffering and death. I only have a problem when they effectively impose their beliefs on others. > In other words, most opponents will *not* regard healthy life as an > unconditional good. And they have their reasons for this that can't > be budged just by saying, "Yes, but look, life is better than > death!" Not if death is the pathway to heaven, or another chance to > start fresh, or blessed surcease. > So to me the most obvious question is how we manage to proceed to end mandatory death by aging among our other worthy goals regardless of such opinions and how numerous they may be. I don't expect to hold the majority opinion or have the majority agree with our goals ever or at least until long after many of them are already realized. So shouldn't we focus at least as much on attaining and preserving the freedom and ability to act to bring our goals to fruition although the majority disagrees with us? - samantha From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Aug 22 03:41:37 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:41:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <2d6187670808212036r5fd711c2weec8cce2c1b857c2@mail.gmail.com> References: <008801c903fd$9354d7b0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <200808220320.m7M3JomX022990@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <2d6187670808212036r5fd711c2weec8cce2c1b857c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:36 PM, John Grigg wrote: > My mother gave birth to my younger brother at an Air Force hospital > (30 years ago) and she had to put her foot down with the doctors to > not do a c-section because it was their standard operating procedure > to carry out the procedure as soon as the least bit of trouble > happened. And how much trouble have you turned out to be? - Jef From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Aug 22 06:20:04 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:20:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [Fiction | Group agency] Resistance by Tobias S. Buckell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200808220120.04788.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 22 August 2008, Jef Allbright wrote: > A thoughtful short story online promoting Cory Doctorow's collection > _Agents of Change_. > > The issue of 'ownership' of decisions and little binary decisions on votes is a way of dancing around the real issue of directed action and extropy. On another note, if as you continue into the future and continue living you find yourself having to answer an increasingly larger number of checkbox thingies to cast your vote, to make sure nothing screws up, and indeed if you don't do so everything /does/ screw up, then I think you're doing it wrong. There are general constraints and rules to growth to work with, otherwise we're all damned methinks. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Aug 22 06:28:51 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:28:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Etymology of Critter's Dilemma In-Reply-To: <163b01c90419$dedba580$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <01ac01c8fdcc$3f6b4710$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <695554.48790.qm@web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <038e01c9032c$09920a60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <163b01c90419$dedba580$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080822012819.0246c7b0@satx.rr.com> At 10:38 PM 8/21/2008 -0700, Lee wrote: >Besides, can you explain in a single sentence to many who >may be wondering (as I am) just how they're able to assess the level >of "fear" in these creatures? Two words: cortisol levels. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Aug 22 06:12:09 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:12:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Ethics of Copying Other People References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <01ee01c8fe63$2da0a7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <48A537BF.8030501@mac.com> <028f01c901b6$7a7b33e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808190535r73338e3j435754468491840b@mail.gmail.com> <031f01c90287$814e4280$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808200723g7093afa6s53cd1abb68cbfa36@mail.gmail.com> <039101c9032f$8adcc440$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808210455x6699d3acrfae9893e6bf90054@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <16ad01c90420$8bf71460$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> In the thread "Human extinction" Stefano writes about the question of under what conditions society should allow one person to make copies of another. > [Lee wrote] > >> You're possibly talking about a situation that would fall under >> "protection of private property" so far as I am concerned. >> This rule or tradition "protection of private" property is a >> principle that about 95% of the time provides guarantees >> that promote progress in modern societies (e.g. those >> [later in time] following feudal Malthusian eras). > > Fine. So the issue becomes: who is the proprietor of information > pertaining to an individual? I reckon that an individual owns all of the information pertaining to himself or herself except that which may be necessary for the maintenance of a reasonable amount of safety of others. E.g., we should allow information to be published about people with known sociopathic tendencies so severe that anyone around them is at risk (clearly too rough a description for what we still are in abysmal ignorance about). (But after certain possible improvements in technology, this changes. See below.) > The individual? Should then the biographers and historians, as well as > the possible "uploaders" o "emulators", be barred from recording and > reconstructing it against the individual concerned's will? I really don't see why allowing this activity would have costs that would outweigh the benefits. Oh, sure, there will be a few people who'll want to resurrect Hitler for the sole purpose of giving him a taste of his own medicine, but I'd wager that for every one of them, ten people will want to bring Hitler back to life (at least for a little while, until he bored them) just to make historical and ethical inquiries and so forth. In short, even Hitler will probably on the whole receive beneficial runtime in this scenario. > Or does the information belong to those who invested in its > collection, in which case the person whose identity is > backed-up or "redeveloped" in an Omega-like computer > should not be able to interfere with whatever its > owner might like to do with it. Thanks for the superb questions, Stefano. I'm forced to really try to think this through, and I sense that already you may have exposed some contradictions in my views. Let's see. Now I was sensing a few paragraphs before that my answer may indeed depend on the nature of the technology available to gain the information. If it's really true that no information is really ever lost (as some physicists suppose) then we may for the purposes of this discussion hypothesize a machine along the lines of Arthur C. Clark's history machine of "Childhood's End". In that case, although it would be revolutionary and would very , very badly upset some people, privacy would be a thing of the past and we'd just have to get used to that. Some people would probably spend virtually all their time spying on famous people or on their friends, bosses, neighbors, or employees, or good looking people they just met at a party. It would then follow that there might then exist subsequent technology that by analyzing everything a certain person has said and done could re-create that person. Then to stop this, it would be necessary for the state to use force, and I don't see why that should be allowed. (Some people have always wanted to use force against the consequences of new technologies that don't directly harm anyone.) So under those circumstances, just how would we stop historical re-creations? In fact, just how would we stop your neighbor from making a copy of you the way you were yesterday? My answer is: just let 'er rip. I offend my neighbor and he makes a duplicate of me and starts torturing me. Naturally, I see this happening on my history machine, and alert my neighbors and we all make copies of him and do unto him what he has done unto me. That should deter most people, I think. And for the rest of us, "be nice to your neighbors" is important to remember anyway. Or, yes, we could outlaw severe torture or discomfort. >> My answer, as usual, is "who pays"? Who is footing the bill? > > This seems to imply that as long as no harm or cooperation is involved > from the side of the individual concerned, I should be left free to > backup the information defining [somebody else's] identity, and do > whatever I like with it. In other words, if I have a button allowing > me to "copy" the whole mankind into the RAM of a Jupiter > computer, it is nobody's business if U decide to do it. Yes, right. For all the ill you may do with it, there will be, I claim, many many more cases where good will come from it. Lee From dagonweb at gmail.com Fri Aug 22 06:42:27 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:42:27 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Scientists remain PC In-Reply-To: <754ee4710807281514p2a3f57dq6055d0466cf13bf6@mail.gmail.com> References: <1216988195_13200@s8.cableone.net> <754ee4710807281514p2a3f57dq6055d0466cf13bf6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > > Increasing lifespans by a hundred years won't change things until those > lifespans become part of human culture. The cognitive biases that cause this > world destroying behaviour, some implicit in human neurology, some learned > from our social environment, won't be addressed if people only think they > might live to be a few hundred years old, rather than actually having lived > it. > Yes that might actually be a consideration. Inertia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Aug 22 06:33:22 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:33:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] An overdue introduction In-Reply-To: <754ee4710808131351o35d67658ta12a50089529db6f@mail.gmail.com> References: <754ee4710808062204k7d219a2bx2d87dffe7c7b4ac3@mail.gmail.com> <754ee4710808131351o35d67658ta12a50089529db6f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <57E918A0C3B346C589C6125773AC12C5@GinaSony> Welcome aboard Jonathan! Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com The health stuff blog: http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/ Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan El-Bizri To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 1:51 PM Subject: [ExI] An overdue introduction (Members of the AGI list, forgive me for this essentially duplicate message.) Somewhere in this maelstrom of lions eating zebras and rounding up zealots for the rapture, an introduction was missed out. I am sure I have met a number of you at last year's singularity summit, which I assisted with, or will meet you at this year's, where I will be assisting again. I am in my second year of a masters in research psychology at San Francisco state. My (current) thesis involves the psychological constructs of the mind in regards to online entities: how we conceive and relate to synthetic groups, such as this email list, or your friends on facebook, and also complex non-human systems, as they become more nuanced and intelligent. I am also working towards PMP Project and Program Management Certifications (despite a decade of 'real world' work, one is still required to take an undergraduate class to qualify for the examination :/), with an eye towards a career bridging the worlds of research and engineering on graduation with some writing on the side. This scholastic endeavour is my second (third?) life: before this I was a dot-commer, working at start ups, before eventually getting swallowed by Microsoft and then Juniper Networks. And before that, I wrote video game soundtracks (I'm sure you've played some of my games :>) and tv commercials, and managed the production group at a small game firm. In addition to working on my thesis project, I am currently reviewing the developmental psychology texts of my undergraduate days, in order to refresh myself, and with the additional intention of writing a review of the literature suitable for the non-developmental, non-psychologist working in AGI (and as a springboard towards further research of this type). If anyone can point me in the direction of similar work of this fashion, it would be appreciated - so far, the topic does not seem well covered, which is good news for me, after a fashion. In any case, I am enjoying the chatter here, and will probably be lurking around here for quite a while, depending on the anticipated advances in extropian and life extension technologies of course :> Regards, Jonathan El-Bizri ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Aug 22 07:39:12 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:39:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Megan's Law References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240808192120k7c91b178x83cb5eb9228c55e6@mail.gmail.com> <031c01c90286$19efa9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240808202025r5a8b3fffga014f2910e2f7ea2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <16c501c9042a$8087a2c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike wrote (From: "Mike Dougherty" Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:25 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing) > I don't enjoy discussing the dark nature of criminal behavior, but > this page illustrates the point I was trying to make about our loss of > liberty for the sake of public safety: > http://ericrichardson.com/verbal/megans_law/ Megan's Law by Eric Richardson In 1994, a 7-year-old New Jersey girl named Megan Kanka was kidnapped, raped, and murdered by a previously convicted sex-offender that lived in her neighborhood. In the ensuing weeks an uproar arose, and legislation was hastily crafted that would require all sex offenders to register their current address with the local authorities. Observe first, however, that Megan's Law is doing nothing that could not already be done by a sufficiently active and vigilant free populace. All that would be needed is for the names of criminal offenders anywhere in the world to continue to be made publicly known, as now, in newspapers or other media, and for the locals to simply check on any current or new resident in their community. This law just makes it easier. (That being said, I'm still against it, probably for nearly the same reasons as Mike is.) On top of this, police would notify the immediate community of the offender's presence in order to alert them to the possibility of future repeat transgressions. Critics argued that the bill would undermine the rights of criminals already punished for their crimes. Proponents toed a very utilitarian line, holding the wide benefits of increased public awareness of local danger to be greater than the damage to the rights of the offender. The law which came to pass and is referred to as Megan's Law has subsequently been emulated in dozens of states around the country, and has come under severe attack. These attacks do not focus primarily on whether or not Megan's Law is effective legislation, but instead on its implications on civil liberty. Megan's Law, though arguably useful in helping to decrease the rate of repeat offenses, is unsupportable because it discriminates against sex offenders, impinging upon their rights as American citizens. Ah yes, "rights" again. Spread the confusion, spread the miscommunication! Utilitarianism, in its most basic form, says that an action is good if it has a net gain on the happiness of a society. An action is bad if it has a negative net effect on happiness. As John Stuart Mill put it, ``actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness'' (Mill 36). The utilitarian measurement of good considers the individual only so much as the individual affects the societal net happiness, for ``the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned'' (Mill 38). Proponents of Megan's Law justify its negative effect on the happiness of sex offenders by pointing at the arguably greater gains in the happiness of the community. Since there is a positive net gain in happiness resulting from its implementation, the law must be good. This kind of thinking is quite opposite the one that grounds American government and idealism. That's what I call "short-sighted" utilitarianism. I find utilitarianism in the long run identical to basic legal rights normally available in Western countries, and certainly advocated by the American founders. The foundations of American government were designed to guarantee all citizens the full protection of the law. All citizens of the United States have a right to privacy. Hah! What a joke. Where is such a device found in *any* founding document? It doesn't exist, and it shouldn't exist. *Knowledge* is not what is harmful; power is what is harmful! In 1928, in Olmstead vs. US, Louis Brandeis said that ``the right to be left alone [is] the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.'' Sex offenders, like any other criminals, are convicted and sentenced for their acts. They go to prison, they serve their time, and they are released. Yet, though similar treatment is not found for the perpetrators of any other crime, laws such as Megan's Law cause sex offenders to suffer for their acts long after they are released. Public notification attaches a stigma to the released sex offender, making it much more difficult, if not impossible, for him to carry on a normal rehabilitated life. An article by Judith Sheppard in the American Journalism Review tells the story of a man whose house was picketed as the result of community notification. Publicity of this picketing caused the news to reach his employer, who then fired him. The man has since ``been forced to move at least two more times'' in order to escape discrimination (Sheppard 3). Opening up an individual's past affairs to the community, regardless of the social good it may do, is a clear violation of that individual's right to be left alone. Except for the last sentence, that is exactly correct! There is no "right to be left alone". In fact, (again, sorry) almost every sentence that uses that damned word is misguided. Since its inception, the United States has battled with finding an appropriate balance between laws and rights. As early as 1759, Benjamin Franklin warned of the danger of security through laws that temper freedom. ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' Many times in its history, the government of the United States has pushed aside personal freedoms in order to protect the majority, and often these instances are reflected upon regrettably today. Yass, as soon as the real danger is passed, then people are oh so, so sorry! They simply cannot put themselves in the shoes of their former, worried or angry selves. But (fortunately) when trouble arises again, their instincts almost always reliably guide them towards what needs to be done. Two example in particular illustrate the folly of a reduction of rights. During World War II the government imprisoned Japanese-Americans under the pretense that they were possible agents of the Japanese and could not be trusted to be left in society. These American citizens were denied the protections offered them by law and carted away during the time of trouble. And had there been a real Japanese invasion (oh, yes, yes, *today* we now know that that was not in the cards and could not really have happened), an absolutely huge number of Japanese would have flocked to the conqueror's colors. It always has happened in history, and it always will. The 1950s brought Joseph McCarthy and his rabid persecution of those believed to be associated with Communism. Though as Americans these people were guaranteed the right to have and speak their opinions, paranoia of national security implications again caused safety to trump basic rights. Though these actions may have been supported at the time, today public sentiment would likely unwilling to defend and approve of these historical cases. "Believed to be associated with Stalin's spies and believed to be associated with international communism? Were there or were there not communist sympathizers and spies in the State Department just as Joseph McCarthy claimed? Given the historical precedent of past rights compromises and the view now taken of them, it is illogical to argue that in this case an exception has finally been found and rights can be diminished. The mindset of Maureen Kanka, Megan's mother, illustrates perfectly the utilitarian mindset used by proponents of Megan's Law. ``I'm tired of the pedophile's rights being put above our children. We can't protect our children if we don't know where the danger lies'' (Jerome 2). The validity of community notification laws depends on the premise that informing the community is more important than the rights of the sex offender, yet this is simply not the case in American law. The framework of American government sets up fundamental rights possessed by every citizen. It does not make exceptions to those rights for situations where it might be helpful for certain members of society not to have them. Despite the stringent requirements set up by our system of government, legislation such as Megan's Law continues to be drafted because it appeals to the public psyche. Emotions are powerful, and they can lead to the abandonment of rational thought when it comes to lawmaking. Oh come now. One man's "rational thought" is another man's "emotional over- reaction". Please. People like to feel safe, and therefore are prone to letting emotional appeals better the more fundamental requirements of justice. If there is a law that will protect citizens from some danger, they are very likely to push for it, regardless of any other implications that law may have. Public opinion is a fickle friend, and is often concerned exclusively with the short-term view. It is the responsibility of lawmakers to counter this with careful reasoning. Law is a powerful thing, and must only be passed after a careful consideration of all its effects. To do otherwise is an abuse of the public trust. The use of legislation as a gesture, whether it be a gesture of support or a sign of being tough, is irresponsible. That's completely right. Any law that regulates or restricts any freedom needs to come under very, very strict scrutiny! And any sentence that has two or more "any"s in it is making awfully powerful claims. But I stand by them. And, by the way, there is no freedom that guarantees that your email won't be read by your neighbor who has somehow cracked your encryption, or by your employer, or by the government (that is too well funded for most purposes). It's an arms race, that's all. Lawmakers are elected to preside over the good of the public, and must act accordingly. When a small child cries about wanting a toy, it's common sense that good parenting will not always give the child what he wants. The child may not understand, but the parent has a larger perspective and can see that the toy may not be in the child's best interests. Lawmakers, the parents of our country, must likewise be prepared to make decisions that may be unpopular with constituents not prepared to think about the long-term. Oh, Jesus Christ. Look at this! The author really believes that the government is our mommy and our daddy, and has utterly no reluctance to openly say so! Much of the debate over Megan's Law has been about whether or not the law is useful in preventing crime, but this argument is irrelevant to the fundamental issue at hand. Perhaps there are things that could be done that may save lives, but if they are at the expense of basic rights the cost is far too high to bear. It is a horrible tragedy that events such as Megan Kanka's kidnapping and death occur, and those who commit such crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Oh yeah? Why wasn't that clown executed, anyway? He took the life of a small child. What more does society need to solve this problem? But no! Bleeding hearts like the author must have it both ways: they'll spend untold dollars to avoid executing this animal, untold dollars "rehabilitating" him, and then untold dollars protecting him from further retribution by citizens informed of his crimes. However, the fullest extent of the law is where that punishment must stop. The consequence of living in a society that puts the utmost value on freedom is that sometimes people die. Well, everyone except child-killers, rapists, and murderers must die. We must protect and nurture the killers because it would be oh so unjust for us to in turn kill them. A country where freedom and individual rights are protected is not going to be perfect. There will always be those who commit crimes, and in a free society the consequences of those crimes may well at times be more severe. However, the long-term benefits of freedom far outweigh the short-term benefits of reduced crime. That is so, agrees Lee. A frightening trend running through the American populace today is the constant exchange of liberty for the promise of another slight bit of safety. America is a nation that feels it is under threat, and therefore will do whatever it has to do to regain its notion of safety. As a nation, the United States is falling ever so slowly away from the ideals upon which it was founded. The erosion of rights is not a sudden thing. It doesn't come all at once. Instead, the erosion of rights is a constant nudging of little wars. Yes. Every single new regulation, every single new law, every single new licensing requirement, law prohibiting guns, law prohibiting drugs, law prohibiting property owners saying who and who may not use their premises---every one of these indeed chips away at our freedoms. The war on sex offenders leads to the new laws reducing the rights of released criminals; the war on terrorism brings new, broader phone-tapping laws. Yeah, in a lot of cases the so-called "rights" of released criminals who never should have been released. And as for phone tapping, I just don't give a damn if anyone taps my phone. Once more: Knowledge is not our enemy, power in the wrong (usually government) hands is the enemy. Slowly, but surely, the vaunted freedom of the American citizen fades away. It is because of the infringement of these rights that legislation such as Megan's Law, though arguably usefully in crime prevention, must not be allowed to pass. [END] Quite so. Lee From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Aug 22 07:47:21 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:47:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: References: <008801c903fd$9354d7b0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <200808220320.m7M3JomX022990@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <2d6187670808212036r5fd711c2weec8cce2c1b857c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670808220047p33ae1f00p46f556b557a8b77f@mail.gmail.com> Oh, I was an easy birth, supposedly. But I did prove to be immense trouble, later on... John : ) On 8/21/08, Jef Allbright wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:36 PM, John Grigg > wrote: >> My mother gave birth to my younger brother at an Air Force hospital >> (30 years ago) and she had to put her foot down with the doctors to >> not do a c-section because it was their standard operating procedure >> to carry out the procedure as soon as the least bit of trouble >> happened. > > And how much trouble have you turned out to be? > > - Jef > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Fri Aug 22 09:24:08 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:24:08 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Usage of "ad hominem", "ad personam", etc. In-Reply-To: <03d301c903e2$71d77e50$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808130208m680dd94cv6b4c61db4115c854@mail.gmail.com> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819165915.023b6048@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080820124140.02671c90@satx.rr.com> <03d301c903e2$71d77e50$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > I appreciate very much the scholarly efforts of everyone > to properly define and distinguish among ad hominem, > ad personam, ex concessis, and so on, simply because > it's good to have knowledge to hand about what they > really mean. > Just to complicate it a bit more, part of the problem is to decide what we are talking about. Are we talking about a list of debaters' tricks to get an advantage in the argument? Or are we talking about fallacious arguments? There is some overlap, of course, as an erroneous argument can be used to gain an advantage, but tricks to divert the opponent's attention are not really wrong arguments. The Ad Hominem group falls under irrelevances or diversions used to distract the argument away from the point. Bruce Thompson's pages are about the clearest I've read (so far). BillK From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Fri Aug 22 09:34:32 2008 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:34:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <908485.63659.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Amara asked: ... > Don't you think that it would be weird if humans evolved to > where we are today if every baby's birth was excruciatingly > painful?... Amara Well, in the textbooks I've read, there are two viewpoints on this: The evolutionary viewpoint shows how most species of apes and monkeys have hips much wider than a baby's heads, and so do not have painful childbirth. The exceptions are macaques (close match in one dimension, slightly painful labour) and humans (complete mismatch, baby has to rotate as it comes out, painful labour). The narrowing of human hips makes for better running speed when walking upright. Somewhere, the compromise between improving an individual female's mobility with her ability to push babies out became a very tight one. Another viewpoint on painful childbirth is provided by psychology textbooks. When dealing with the subject of pain perception, there's usually a mention of "couvade" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couvade There are also mentions of differing cultural traditions towards childbirth affecting the mother's experience of pain. Given how the human mind can modulate pain, it would be surprising if people didn't find ways to minimise the pain of childbirth. From this viewpoint, birth doesn't need to be excruciatingly painful, but a mother's expectations of childbirth can influence the pain she feels. Tom Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Aug 22 10:32:49 2008 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:32:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <008801c903fd$9354d7b0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> References: <200808212216.m7LMG10v014764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <008801c903fd$9354d7b0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <45055.12.77.169.52.1219401169.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > > Stoned? Were these unusually difficult births? > > If not difficult births ... then, WHAT??? Just a decade ago? Where was > this? > > My two children were born in San Francisco (Kaiser Hospital, on Geary > Boulevard) nearly 40 years ago, and I was 100% awake throughout each > procedure (which I watched in a mirror). I still remember the interesting > thoughts I had while I was going through these rather unusual events, and > the conversation I had with my husband about our few-minutes'-old daughter - > how she looked like his mother. Then I was on the phone within an hour > talking to people. This is the same reaction I had when reading spike's message. We had conversation, there was active participation, there was joy and delight and laughter (and pain, yes) and within an hour there were phone calls to family and closest friends. We did know people who were out altogether, but that usually turned out to be something was going wrong in the delivery process. I've heard that the C-section is now sometimes preferred as a way to avoid lawsuits. Bizarre. Regards, MB From amara at amara.com Fri Aug 22 11:45:21 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 05:45:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction Message-ID: Tom Nowell nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk : >but a mother's expectations of childbirth can influence the pain she feels. Exactly. And that was my point. Here it is spelled out. In today's times, in at least _this_ (U.S., but I've been talking to my friends in Europe too), the woman is barraged from a young age that childbirth _must_ be excruciatingly painful, and when she is pregnant, there is no discussion in the literature from the western medical community that she can birth her baby without intervention, without drugs, and major surgeries like C-sections is not a trivial number of the total births: it is 25% or greater. And the religious help all of this along with their images of women _necessarily_ suffering in childbirth, because, of course, she must pay for 'Eve's sin'. So no wonder she never even looks at possibilities to birth her baby another way, and no wonder she is terrified going into the hospital (not to mention that she never even considered if a hospital was necessary in the first place). And her terror blocks her body completely from performing the physical function that it was evolved to do, the uterine muscles are blood-drained and in fight-or-flight anxiety mode, the circular muscles around the cervix will not thin and relax. The muscular system of the uterine muscles that must work together during childbirth won't work well at all. And so at this point, if the woman is in a hospital, the doctors immediately start filling her with drugs, which break the uterine muscular system even further, the woman is barely conscious from more drugs at this point, her baby goes into fetal distress, the doctors immediately decide that cutting through major organs to retrieve her baby by C-section is the only way to save the baby and so at the end a normal evolutionary process becomes a traumatic event. And _this_ is how humans in the West have evolved to propagate their species today. Beautiful picture, isn't it? :-( Amara From pharos at gmail.com Fri Aug 22 12:42:05 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:42:05 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell? Message-ID: MI5 report challenges views on terrorism in Britain Quotes: MI5 has concluded that there is no easy way to identify those who become involved in terrorism in Britain They are mostly British nationals, not illegal immigrants and, far from being Islamist fundamentalists, most are religious novices. Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation. Far from being lone individuals with no ties, the majority of those over 30 have steady relationships, and most have children. MI5 says this challenges the idea that terrorists are young men driven by sexual frustration and lured to "martyrdom" by the promise of beautiful virgins waiting for them in paradise. It is wrong to assume that someone with a wife and children is less likely to commit acts of terrorism. Those involved in British terrorism are not unintelligent or gullible, and nor are they more likely to be well-educated; their educational achievement ranges from total lack of qualifications to degree-level education. However, they are almost all employed in low-grade jobs. The security service believes the terrorist groups operating in Britain today are different in many important respects both from Islamist extremist activity in other parts of the world and from historical terrorist movements such as the IRA or the Red Army Faction. ---------------- BillK From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Aug 22 15:03:10 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:03:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction References: Message-ID: <16e701c90468$e3cc80b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Amara writes > Tom Nowell nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk : > > > but a mother's expectations of childbirth can influence the pain she feels. > > Exactly. And that was my point. Here it is spelled out. > > In today's times, in at least _this_ (U.S., but I've been talking to my > friends in Europe too), the woman is barraged from a young age that > childbirth _must_ be excruciatingly painful... > > And the religious help all of > this along with their images of women _necessarily_ suffering in > childbirth, because, of course, she must pay for 'Eve's sin'. > > So no wonder she never even looks at possibilities to birth her baby > another way, and no wonder she is terrified going into the hospital (not > to mention that she never even considered if a hospital was necessary in > the first place)... I'm very interested in knowing just *how* it came to this in the west. Thanks for the religious component of the explanation. Do you think it possible that the urge towards "zero population growth", the famous ZPG, has also played a role? By emphasizing the pain, hopefully fewer children will be born. Do you think it possible that feminism has played a role? By emphasizing the pain involved, more women can be attracted towards career focus and away from family life. Lee > normal evolutionary process becomes a traumatic event. And _this_ is how > humans in the West have evolved to [come to] propagate their species today. > > Beautiful picture, isn't it? :-( From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Aug 22 15:15:36 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:15:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell? References: Message-ID: <16ea01c9046a$4bddee90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Below, BillK exhibits an MI5 report on terrorist "types". Not a single word---not one!---is mentioned concerning *the* most salient characteristic of the so-called terrorists who have been convicted of crimes related to mass public bombings and other terrorist activity in the UK. Not a single word about this salient characteristic that any six-year-old would instantly be able to identify and would instantly attempt to articulate (provided that someone has not already gotten to him or her and has already inflicted today's common Orwellian removal of certain phrases and words from his or her vocabulary). Since most people here are surely entirely baffled by what I'm getting at, I'm going to supply a broad hint, which upon careful examination will reveal the key to the puzzle I've posed: *Visualize* the pictures of the individuals who have been caught and see if you can find a common denominator! Lee > MI5 report challenges views on terrorism in Britain > > > > Quotes: > MI5 has concluded that there is no easy way to identify those who > become involved in terrorism in Britain > > They are mostly British nationals, not illegal immigrants and, far > from being Islamist fundamentalists, most are religious novices. > > Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in > terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious > literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few > have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a > higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in > drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there > is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually > protects against violent radicalisation. > > Far from being lone individuals with no ties, the majority of those > over 30 have steady relationships, and most have children. MI5 says > this challenges the idea that terrorists are young men driven by > sexual frustration and lured to "martyrdom" by the promise of > beautiful virgins waiting for them in paradise. It is wrong to assume > that someone with a wife and children is less likely to commit acts of > terrorism. > > Those involved in British terrorism are not unintelligent or gullible, > and nor are they more likely to be well-educated; their educational > achievement ranges from total lack of qualifications to degree-level > education. However, they are almost all employed in low-grade jobs. > > The security service believes the terrorist groups operating in > Britain today are different in many important respects both from > Islamist extremist activity in other parts of the world and from > historical terrorist movements such as the IRA or the Red Army > Faction. From sondre-list at bjellas.com Fri Aug 22 15:03:41 2008 From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (Sondre) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:03:41 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Intel CTO: Singularity by 2050 In-Reply-To: <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <000301c90468$45260800$cf721800$@com> I appreciate this a lot, that the Intel CTO states some of the things he does in this press release: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20080821comp.htm I've always said that the RoboCup people that estimates robots will beat humans in soccer by 2050 have a pessimistic estimate, my estimate is that it will happen long before 2050. It's exciting times we've living in! - Sondre From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Aug 22 15:36:31 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:36:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] An overdue introduction In-Reply-To: <754ee4710808131351o35d67658ta12a50089529db6f@mail.gmail.co m> References: <754ee4710808062204k7d219a2bx2d87dffe7c7b4ac3@mail.gmail.com> <754ee4710808131351o35d67658ta12a50089529db6f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1219419627_15884@S3.cableone.net> At 01:51 PM 8/13/2008, Jonathan wrote: >Somewhere in this maelstrom of lions eating zebras and rounding up >zealots for the rapture, an introduction was missed out. I am sure I >have met a number of you at last year's singularity summit, which I >assisted with, or will meet you at this year's, where I will be >assisting again. > >I am in my second year of a masters in research psychology at San >Francisco state. My (current) thesis involves the psychological >constructs of the mind in regards to online entities: how we >conceive and relate to synthetic groups, such as this email list, or >your friends on facebook, and also complex non-human systems, as >they become more nuanced and intelligent. Interesting. The psychological foundations of why humans form groups (or have religions, or become addicted, or . . . .) is biological and shaped by evolution. http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html >I am also working towards PMP Project and Program Management >Certifications (despite a decade of 'real world' work, one is still >required to take an undergraduate class to qualify for the >examination :/), with an eye towards a career bridging the worlds of >research and engineering on graduation with some writing on the side. We should talk off list about an extremely large engineering project. snip >In addition to working on my thesis project, I am currently >reviewing the developmental psychology texts of my undergraduate >days, in order to refresh myself, and with the additional intention >of writing a review of the literature suitable for the >non-developmental, non-psychologist working in AGI (and as a >springboard towards further research of this type). If anyone can >point me in the direction of similar work of this fashion, it would >be appreciated - so far, the topic does not seem well covered, which >is good news for me, after a fashion. Minsky's _Emotion Machine_ of course. And William Calvin's work, particularly _The Cerebral Code: Thinking a Thought in the Mosaics of the Mind_. >In any case, I am enjoying the chatter here, and will probably be >lurking around here for quite a while, depending on the anticipated >advances in extropian and life extension technologies of course :> You should consider buying enough low cost but permanent life insurance to cover cryonics. If you are reasonably young, you stand a good chance of just living into the singularity. But there is always a chance you will get hit by a truck. Google "wet work" "Keith Henson" Keith From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Aug 22 16:33:40 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:33:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] An overdue introduction In-Reply-To: <754ee4710808131351o35d67658ta12a50089529db6f@mail.gmail.com> References: <754ee4710808062204k7d219a2bx2d87dffe7c7b4ac3@mail.gmail.com> <754ee4710808131351o35d67658ta12a50089529db6f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00db01c90474$d6273160$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> Hi Jonathan, I look forward to reading some of your papers. Welcome! Natasha Vita-More BFA, MS, MPhil/PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Faculty of Technology, School of Computers, Communication and Electronics University of Plymouth, UK Arts and Design - NBIC+ Convergence H+ Europe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Aug 22 17:06:37 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:06:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell? In-Reply-To: <16ea01c9046a$4bddee90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <16ea01c9046a$4bddee90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080822115925.0229be68@satx.rr.com> At 08:15 AM 8/22/2008 -0700, Lee wrote: >Not a single word---not one!---is mentioned concerning >*the* most salient characteristic of the so-called terrorists >who have been convicted of crimes related to mass public >bombings and other terrorist activity in the UK. > >... >Since most people here are surely entirely baffled >by what I'm getting at, I'm going to supply a broad >hint, which upon careful examination will reveal the >key to the puzzle I've posed: *Visualize* the pictures >of the individuals who have been caught and see if >you can find a common denominator! Let's see... Many UK terrorists are Irish, but it's hard to tell whether or not they are Catholic. Many have a "middle-Eastern" appearance. Many are male. Are they all adults? Gee, this is hard. Wait, I've got it! They all have their eyes open! Hmm, no, some of them might be photographed dead. They're all human, but that doesn't get us far. I give up. Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Fri Aug 22 17:20:30 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:20:30 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell? In-Reply-To: <16ea01c9046a$4bddee90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <16ea01c9046a$4bddee90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Below, BillK exhibits an MI5 report on terrorist "types". > > Not a single word---not one!---is mentioned concerning > *the* most salient characteristic of the so-called terrorists > who have been convicted of crimes related to mass public > bombings and other terrorist activity in the UK. > > Not a single word about this salient characteristic that > any six-year-old would instantly be able to identify and > would instantly attempt to articulate (provided that > someone has not already gotten to him or her and > has already inflicted today's common Orwellian removal > of certain phrases and words from his or her vocabulary). > I presume you don't mean nervous, sweaty people wearing a large rucksack with wires hanging out ? :) Unfortunately, I did not quote the full article. I only quoted highlighted points that I thought might be of interest. You need to read the full article I linked to, to get more information. What MI5 were looking for was a list of criteria, a,b,c,d,e, that would enable their computers to extract a list of suspects that they could investigate as likely to be involved in terrorism. They were unable to do this. Quote: British-based terrorists are as ethnically diverse as the UK Muslim population, with individuals from Pakistani, Middle Eastern and Caucasian backgrounds. MI5 says assumptions cannot be made about suspects based on skin colour, ethnic heritage or nationality. ----------------- It might be that the terrorists were Muslim to some degree, with a dark skin, but that is not enough to select them out as terrorists. In some areas of London and some cities, that is over half the population. There is an enormous difference between 1) characteristics that terrorists have, and 2) characteristics that ONLY terrorists have. BillK From srndpty at gmail.com Fri Aug 22 21:21:33 2008 From: srndpty at gmail.com (Jonathan El-Bizri) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:21:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction In-Reply-To: <908485.63659.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <908485.63659.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <754ee4710808221421s2d2d6c94r9c36581fc62d2bb4@mail.gmail.com> I have understood that, throughout the course of human existence, childbirth has been a pretty dangerous thing. It is hard to consider the trepidation surrounding it today as being a modern conception, nor the difficulties being chiefly of socio-psychological origin. Nor do concerns seem any greater today than they would have been in the past, when medicinal science was (even) less understood, and everything more dangerous: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/childbirth.cfm "Childbirth in colonial America was a difficult and sometimes dangerous experience for women. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, between 1 percent and 1.5 percent of all births ended in the mother's death as a result of exhaustion, dehydration, infection, hemorrhage, or convulsions. Since the typical mother gave birth to between five and eight children, her lifetime chances of dying in childbirth ran as high as 1 in 8. This meant that if a woman had eight female friends, it was likely that one might die in childbirth. Death in childbirth was sufficiently common that many colonial women regarded pregnancy with dread. In their letters, women often referred to childbirth as "the Dreaded apperation," "the greatest of earthly miserys," or "that evel hour I loock forward to with dread." Many, like New England poet Anne Bradstreet, approached childbirth with a fear of impending death. In a poem entitled "Before the Birth of One of Her Children," Bradstreet wrote, How soon, my Dear, death may my steps attend, How soon't may be thy lot to lose thy friend." Jonathan El-Bizri On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Tom Nowell wrote: > > Amara asked: > ... > > Don't you think that it would be weird if humans evolved to > > where we are today if every baby's birth was excruciatingly > > painful?... Amara > > Well, in the textbooks I've read, there are two viewpoints on this: > The evolutionary viewpoint shows how most species of apes and monkeys have > hips much wider than a baby's heads, and so do not have painful childbirth. > The exceptions are macaques (close match in one dimension, slightly painful > labour) and humans (complete mismatch, baby has to rotate as it comes out, > painful labour). The narrowing of human hips makes for better running speed > when walking upright. Somewhere, the compromise between improving an > individual female's mobility with her ability to push babies out became a > very tight one. > > Another viewpoint on painful childbirth is provided by psychology > textbooks. When dealing with the subject of pain perception, there's usually > a mention of "couvade" - > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couvade > There are also mentions of differing cultural traditions towards childbirth > affecting the mother's experience of pain. Given how the human mind can > modulate pain, it would be surprising if people didn't find ways to minimise > the pain of childbirth. From this viewpoint, birth doesn't need to be > excruciatingly painful, but a mother's expectations of childbirth can > influence the pain she feels. > > Tom > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Aug 22 21:36:17 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:36:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction In-Reply-To: <754ee4710808221421s2d2d6c94r9c36581fc62d2bb4@mail.gmail.co m> References: <908485.63659.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <754ee4710808221421s2d2d6c94r9c36581fc62d2bb4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080822163129.025a4b88@satx.rr.com> At 02:21 PM 8/22/2008 -0700, Jonathan El-Bizri wrote: >I have understood that, throughout the course of human existence, >childbirth has been a pretty dangerous thing. It is hard to consider >the trepidation surrounding it today as being a modern conception, >nor the difficulties being chiefly of socio-psychological origin. Hard to be sure, but aside from the biblical FUD (which might of course have been the cooptation to religious purposes of a common dire experience) there's also the memory of decades if not centuries of iatrogenic infections: puerperal fevers, all that pre-asepsis, pre-antibiotic nastiness. Might have cast a long terrifying shadow whispered from mother to daughter. Damien Broderick From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri Aug 22 23:04:40 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:04:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fw: upon pondering your next million years Message-ID: <06ae01c904ab$7515a000$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> From: Jonathan El-Bizri Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 5:51 PM At 08:20 PM 7/23/2008 -0700, John Grigg wrote: >>> P.S. Damien, when do you plan for a new edition of _The Spike_? > I think Kurzweil's book has made that impossible. (Pretty strange to > recall that I'd already finished writing the first edition 12 years ago, > and was awaiting publication in 1997...) >Which is a pity, since I give your book to almost everyone, and the few >people I've given a copy of Kurzweil's 'tome' to still haven't made it >through the first chapter :> Ahh, and some of them may have been introduced to Singularity with this video (Kurzweil's book gets flashed towards the end ...): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKG5l_TDU8 Olga From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Fri Aug 22 22:45:30 2008 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:45:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <200808220451.m7M4orer021313@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200808220451.m7M4orer021313@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <5E4E31A0C0F94FDBA7CCF9EDD83529A2@Catbert> From: "spike" > Still no word from Harvey? I do hope the lad can swim. Actually, I'm high and dry in Washington, DC. However, my partner and house are being deluged. Happily, being native Floridians, all my relatives and I have houses that are higher than the 100-year flood plain. We may be on temporary islands for a while, but we don't actually have to swim. The houses built in the last few decades tend to be within the flood plains, inhabited by newcomers who didn't realize they would be underwater every decade or so when a hurricane hits hard. Note: Since Fay has not reached hurricane status yet, none of the insurance company's exclusions on hurricanes apply. All of this counts as "normal" storm damage and "normal" flood damage. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Fri Aug 22 22:48:17 2008 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:48:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <2d6187670808212004qd59d5bdh24accf699f03a264@mail.gmail.com> References: <200808212201.m7LM0tEc022739@andromeda.ziaspace.com><200808212321.m7LNKwKe008851@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <2d6187670808212004qd59d5bdh24accf699f03a264@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53C294343B7445ACBE15CAC38865A2AD@Catbert> From: "John Grigg" > Do any of you know of Hindus who have a Kali or Ganesh statue in their > yard? And what kind of garden figures do Pagans have to decorate > their place? I would personally go for a combination of Simpsons and > Lovecraft mythos stone garden figures. hee Praise, Barthulu! I didn't know there were other devotees on the list! -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 23 00:07:15 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:07:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <5E4E31A0C0F94FDBA7CCF9EDD83529A2@Catbert> Message-ID: <858859.95761.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Harvey Newstrom wrote: > Note: Since Fay has not reached hurricane status yet, none of the insurance > company's exclusions on hurricanes apply. All of this counts as "normal" > storm damage and "normal" flood damage. This actually an interesting point. How do insurance companies and courts in a secular country determine if damages from a natural incident are an act of God or not? Could someone squeeze money out of an insurance claim for a hurricane by explaining in court how hurricanes are natural phenomena caused by the fluid mechanics of coriolis forces and convection currents whilst God is completely innocent in the matter? Assuming that not existing is not a defense for God that is? Stuart LaForge "A portion of mankind take pride in their vices and pursue their purpose; many more waver between doing what is right and complying with what is wrong." - Horace From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 02:24:18 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:24:18 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction In-Reply-To: <16e701c90468$e3cc80b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <16e701c90468$e3cc80b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: 2008/8/23 Lee Corbin : > Do you think it possible that feminism has played a role? > By emphasizing the pain involved, more women can be > attracted towards career focus and away from family life. Most feminists I know are anti-intervention, pro-pain. Women are sometimes made to feel like child-abusing criminals if they have an epidural, or if they decide not to breast feed once the baby is born. -- Stathis Papaioannou From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 02:56:29 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:56:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] META: observation/comment [re: Megan's Law] Message-ID: <62c14240808221956l37bceb36vfb19a47cfe052a3d@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 3:39 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Mike wrote [re: Megan's Law by Eric Richardson] [ followed by excepts of the original interlaced with commentary from Lee ] In my opinion* that was one of your most amusing posts of late. I found it particularly funny that despite agreeing with the overall point of the article, you were(are) so critical of the word use and sentence structure of every paragraph - some of which the author may even admit to pandering, but you never miss an opportunity to nitpick. :) * of course it is my opinion; who else's opinion could it be? I sometimes vacillate over including this kind of contextual clue in order to spare the reader's "feelings" / introduce a concept to which they may object or to strip language down to the barest means of conveying intent. Considering how little intent I seem to convey successfully, I'm still not sure which is the more efficient approach. From spike66 at att.net Sat Aug 23 04:16:36 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:16:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <858859.95761.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200808230443.m7N4hIcE002570@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ... On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > Subject: Re: [ExI] Human extinction > > >... All of this counts as "normal" > > storm damage and "normal" flood damage. > > This actually an interesting point. How do insurance > companies and courts in a secular country determine if > damages from a natural incident are an act of God or not? > Could someone squeeze money out of an insurance claim for a > hurricane by explaining in court how hurricanes are natural > phenomena caused by the fluid mechanics of coriolis forces > and convection currents whilst God is completely innocent in > the matter? Assuming that not existing is not a defense for > God that is? > > Stuart LaForge Stuart, from this comment, it is clear that you have never battled an insurance company in court. May you never. If you ever do (evolution forbid), you will conclude that buying insurance is mostly equivalent to donating money to the very rich. In practice, they will pay you small fraction of what they think they will be forced to pay by a court, assuming a long and exhausting legal battle. Exhausting to you that is; for them it is just another day at the office. Harvey, glad to hear you are above water. I heard there was an aligator swimming down the street where you went to high school. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Aug 23 05:04:19 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:04:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] chances of a tie in the electoral college In-Reply-To: <53C294343B7445ACBE15CAC38865A2AD@Catbert> Message-ID: <200808230504.m7N54Kwg023388@andromeda.ziaspace.com> This isn't a political post, but rather about election game theory. In the US presidential elections, each state is given a number of electors equal to the number of congresshumans from that state. Each state has two senators, and from 1 to 53 reps depending on the state's population. Fifty states and the capital (which gets 3 electors) make for a total of 538, so half of that is 269. So if any candidate gets 270, that takes the election, but since 538 is an even number, a tie is theoretically possible, in which case each state gets one vote, and with the capital in there, the number of votes is an odd 51, so a tie is not possible. The constitution works out all the rules on this. Clearly a tie is unlikely, but how unlikely? I wrote a program this evening that estimates it at 2 percent, but I would like if someone were to verify. Reason: the two major political parties are nearly equally popular. Twice recently we have seen it come down to a single state, in 2000 it was Florida and in 2004 it was Ohio. I took interest because a survey of polls this morning showed that depending on how one interprets a statistically indeterminate Virginia, the two major candidates are tied at 269 currently, with one candidate leading in 23 states: VT, NH, MA, RI, CT, NJ, DE, MD, DC, ME, NY, PA, MI, IL, WI, MN, IA, WA, OR, CA, NV, HI, and NM. The other candidate leads in MT, ID, UT, AZ, AK, ND, SD, WY, NE, CO, KS, OK, TX, MO, AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, FL, SC, TN, NC, KY, WV, OH, IN, and a small or statistically indeterminate lead in VA, for a total of 28. Of course it is early in the game and much can happen, but given the two major parties are nearly equally popular, how would one estimate the chances of a tie? I ran 100,000 cases and found 2083 different combinations that come up tied at 269. Given that there are 2^51, over 2 quadrillion possible combinations, which would be beyond an exhaustive simulation. So how can one determine the probability of a tie? For now let us not get into personalities or parties, but rather for this thread, all I am asking is how does one estimate the possibility of a tie? I fear it might be higher than 2% because of the clustering effect, but I don't know. I will share my Microsloth excel macro with anyone who wants it, if you agree to not ridicule my paleolithic coding technique. Ideas? spike Here is a table of the states and their number of votes: California 55 Texas 34 New York 31 Florida 27 Illinois 21 Pennsylvania 21 Ohio 20 Michigan 17 Georgia 15 New Jersey 15 North Carolina 15 Virginia 13 Massachusetts 12 Indiana 11 Missouri 11 Tennessee 11 Washington 11 Arizona 10 Maryland 10 Minnesota 10 Wisconsin 10 Alabama 9 Colorado 9 Louisiana 9 Kentucky 8 South Carolina 8 Connecticut 7 Iowa 7 Oklahoma 7 Oregon 7 Arkansas 6 Kansas 6 Mississippi 6 Nebraska 5 Nevada 5 New Mexico 5 Utah 5 West Virginia 5 Hawaii 4 Idaho 4 Maine 4 New Hampshire 4 Rhode Island 4 Alaska 3 Delaware 3 D.C. 3 Montana 3 North Dakota 3 South Dakota 3 Vermont 3 Wyoming 3 From dharris234 at mindspring.com Sat Aug 23 06:07:00 2008 From: dharris234 at mindspring.com (David C. Harris) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:07:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction In-Reply-To: <16e701c90468$e3cc80b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <16e701c90468$e3cc80b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <48AFA904.8010406@mindspring.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > .... > > Do you think it possible that the urge towards "zero > population growth", the famous ZPG, has also played > a role? By emphasizing the pain, hopefully fewer children > will be born. > I don't recall ever being a MEMBER of ZPG, but I was in agreement with their view and read lots of their material. I don't recall ever reading anything that emphasized the physical pain of childbirth. They did make clear some other costs, both in personal terms and economic. I've since become more aware of the ability of economic and technological advances to accommodate more people. Whether having more people will improve the average life, or whether economic growth can just preserve the average life quality, or whether humans simply can't be productive enough to justify large numbers --- I still haven't reached a conclusion. My Extropian streak is rooting for humans and computers in synergistic relationship, like me and Google searches. - David Harris, Palo Alto From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Aug 23 06:44:07 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:44:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fw: upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <06ae01c904ab$7515a000$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> References: <06ae01c904ab$7515a000$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <48AFB1B7.10603@mac.com> Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: Jonathan El-Bizri > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 5:51 PM > > At 08:20 PM 7/23/2008 -0700, John Grigg wrote: > >>>> P.S. Damien, when do you plan for a new edition of _The Spike_? > >> I think Kurzweil's book has made that impossible. (Pretty strange to >> recall that I'd already finished writing the first edition 12 years >> ago, and was awaiting publication in 1997...) > >> Which is a pity, since I give your book to almost everyone, and the >> few people I've given a copy of Kurzweil's 'tome' to still haven't >> made it through the first chapter :> > > Ahh, and some of them may have been introduced to Singularity with > this video (Kurzweil's book gets flashed towards the end ...): > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKG5l_TDU8 Excellent! :-) As far as Kurzweil goes I thought the Age of Spiritual Machines was better than his latter tome. The Singularity is Near I found rather repetitive of prior ideas and quite rambling with some very questionable opinions and current views mixed in. It is not on my favorite books list. I enjoyed the Spike much more at the time I read it although that could in part be because it was my first book length treatment on the subject when I was younger in this "cult". :-) - samantha From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Aug 23 06:59:49 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:59:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fw: upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <48AFB1B7.10603@mac.com> References: <06ae01c904ab$7515a000$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <48AFB1B7.10603@mac.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080823015845.0233f778@satx.rr.com> At 11:44 PM 8/22/2008 -0700, samantha wrote: >The Singularity is Near I found rather repetitive of prior ideas and >quite rambling with some very questionable opinions and current >views mixed in. It is not on my favorite books list. I enjoyed >the Spike much more at the time I read it although that could in >part be because it was my first book length treatment on the subject >when I was younger in this "cult". :-) No, that's not the reason (he said, straining for modesty). Damien Broderick From amara at amara.com Sat Aug 23 10:30:52 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:30:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction Message-ID: Jonathan El-Bizri srndpty at gmail.com : >I have understood that, throughout the course of human existence, childbirth >has been a pretty dangerous thing. It is hard to consider the trepidation >surrounding it today as being a modern conception, nor the difficulties >being chiefly of socio-psychological origin. Nor do concerns seem any >greater today than they would have been in the past, when medicinal science >was (even) less understood, and everything more dangerous: >http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/childbirth.cfm >"Childbirth in colonial America was a difficult and sometimes dangerous >experience for women. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, >between 1 percent and 1.5 percent of all births ended in the mother's death >as a result of exhaustion, dehydration, infection, hemorrhage, or >convulsions. Since the typical mother gave birth to between five and eight >children, her lifetime chances of dying in childbirth ran as high as 1 in 8. >This meant that if a woman had eight female friends, it was likely that one >might die in childbirth. >Death in childbirth was sufficiently common that many colonial women >regarded pregnancy with dread. [...] In that narrow-in-space-and-time, young country, 6%-of-the-world's population, strongly religious, puritanical, kind of way, probably that's true. If you step out of your narrow perspective, and even out of cultures that were influenced by (say Catholic religion), is the same true? I suggest to question your assumptions. Watch some births, live if possible, and out of hospitals, if possible. If not possible live, then documentaries and You Tube (skewed, but gives a trace) can still give demonstrations of birthings that are out of what today's society would think is 'normal'. Try to consider that what exists in the US today/its young history is not normal, instead is _abnormal_? How is it that women in the so-called less-developed cultures (Africa, say), give so little effort to birthing their babies? If you insist on quoting literature, then I suggest to go back much further in time, a couple of thousand of years, and see if the Greeks or other (say, nature-oriented) cultures write about women suffering in giving birth. Neither Hippocrates, nor Aristotle, nor Soranus nor other supposedly learned men of the Grecian School of Medicine wrote of pain in their notes on normal, uncomplicated birth, for example. Amara From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 12:08:37 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:08:37 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2008/8/23 Amara Graps : > If you insist on quoting literature, then I suggest to go back much > further in time, a couple of thousand of years, and see if the Greeks or > other (say, nature-oriented) cultures write about women suffering in > giving birth. Neither Hippocrates, nor Aristotle, nor Soranus nor other > supposedly learned men of the Grecian School of Medicine wrote of pain > in their notes on normal, uncomplicated birth, for example. Greek uses the same word, "ponos", for pain and the contractions of labour. Anyone who has witnessed normal childbirth and says labour isn't painful is contemptuous of women. -- Stathis Papaioannou From amara at amara.com Sat Aug 23 15:17:55 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:17:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction Message-ID: Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com : >Anyone who has witnessed normal childbirth and says labour >isn't painful is contemptuous of women. I don't think you read my messages, Stathis (there were many since I am obviously quite invested in this topic, unlike you), because you missed my point completely. I find your message insulting. I'm in the middle of an insanely busy month, I have more deadlines this week for setting up my funding when my contract finishes in 1.2 years, and many more preparations for my baby in the next three months, in addition to my normal fulltime job which will be on hold pretty soon. So now and for many months, no time for email lists. Have a good one. Whatever that is. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From spike66 at att.net Sat Aug 23 15:36:49 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 08:36:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] large hadron rap In-Reply-To: <5E4E31A0C0F94FDBA7CCF9EDD83529A2@Catbert> Message-ID: <200808231537.m7NFaoZN020420@andromeda.ziaspace.com> OK I changed my mind: I do like rap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM Is this a hoot or what? {8^D Imagine a room full of dancing physics geeks. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Aug 23 16:17:44 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:17:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fw: upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080823015845.0233f778@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200808231618.m7NGHiZ4003417@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ...I enjoyed > >the Spike much more at the time I read it although that > could in part > >be because it was my first book length treatment on the > subject when I > >was younger in this "cult". :-) Samantha ... > No, that's not the reason (he said, straining for modesty). > > Damien Broderick No need for polite modesty Damien; The Spike is a far better book than is Kurzwiel's TSIN. The Spike is to other books as the classic Beatles Sargeant Pepper's is to other albums. In the Spike and Sgt Pepper, the whole is greater than a collection of songs, or cool chapters and ideas. Rather it has an overall theme, a direction and flow, a shape. It accelerates. The Spike makes one struggle to read faster and faster, in order to devour it all before it is too late. It feels like one is rushing towards the singularity. Compare with works on the same general topic, Arthur C Clarke's 1962 classic Profiles of the Future, which is excellent but outdated, James Gleick's Faster (which isn't) and Kurzweil's TSIN which has plenty of cool stuff in it but somehow makes the reader feel the singularity is far. The Spike just has that exponential feel to it. Damien you have singlehandedly written the book version of Sargeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. May you sell a trillion copies and be constantly surrounded by adoring fans eager to do anything for you that Barbara will allow. spike From pharos at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 16:20:33 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:20:33 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com : >> >> Anyone who has witnessed normal childbirth and says labour >> isn't painful is contemptuous of women. > > I don't think you read my messages, Stathis (there were many since > I am obviously quite invested in this topic, unlike you), because you > missed my point completely. I find your message insulting. > This is an awkward problem. If anyone posts very personal details on a public list and discusses personal problems that are very important to them, then they have to accept the risk that not everyone on the list will play along and be kind and supportive. Some people might think, well I don't agree but it's not my place to butt in to personal problems and just keep silent. Others might go along the 'Cruel to be kind' route. In Stathis' case, he is a doctor, and probably has more practical experience of medical problems. If he sees women screaming in childbirth everyday, he can hardly say to them 'Relax and it won't be so bad'. They would probably try to kill him. Recent research supports his view. Most of the literature reviewed showed that women underestimate the intensity of the pain they will experience and sometimes hold an unrealistic ideal for a drug-free labour. Indeed, in one study, more than half of the women interviewed who said they would not use pain relief actually did use it. ------ I am only a mere man, of course, but I wouldn't go to the dentist without painkillers, far less childbirth. BillK From dagonweb at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 16:27:40 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:27:40 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Fw: upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <200808231618.m7NGHiZ4003417@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080823015845.0233f778@satx.rr.com> <200808231618.m7NGHiZ4003417@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: > > No need for polite modesty Damien; The Spike is a far better book than is > Kurzwiel's TSIN. The Spike is to other books as the classic Beatles > Sargeant Pepper's is to other albums. In the Spike and Sgt Pepper, the > whole is greater than a collection of songs, or cool chapters and ideas. > Rather it has an overall theme, a direction and flow, a shape. It > accelerates. The Spike makes one struggle to read faster and faster, in > order to devour it all before it is too late. It feels like one is rushing > towards the singularity. > > Compare with works on the same general topic, Arthur C Clarke's 1962 > classic > Profiles of the Future, which is excellent but outdated, James Gleick's > Faster (which isn't) and Kurzweil's TSIN which has plenty of cool stuff in > it but somehow makes the reader feel the singularity is far. The Spike > just > has that exponential feel to it. > > Damien you have singlehandedly written the book version of Sargeant > Pepper's > Lonely Hearts Club Band. May you sell a trillion copies and be constantly > surrounded by adoring fans eager to do anything for you that Barbara will > allow. > Yes, I concur. Ray's book is great, informative, historical and it'll get him a nobel prize, but it didn't inspire me. The sing/spike is all about hope for me, that most of what is is largely crap - and what is to come is potentially a good deal better. It's who I am, and the Spike reflects that vision in a handy format. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Aug 23 16:55:23 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:55:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Morning of Art Message-ID: <008801c90541$094527b0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni> Over a late morning cup of coffee, right now I am (once again) viewing one of my favorite websites: http://www.strandbeest.com/ and listening to one of my favorite tracks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZmE3fUKU5U and the intro of http://www.tiesto.com/ . it is going to be a creative day! Natasha Vita-More BFA, MS, MPhil, PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Faculty of Technology, School of Computers, Communication and Electronics University of Plymouth, UK Arts and Design - NBIC+ Convergence H+ Europe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Aug 23 17:00:22 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:00:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR References: <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com><00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer><001201c90168$e982a690$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: <003601c90541$c26c9980$0301a8c0@MyComputer> "Jeff Davis" > I cannot compete with Mr. Bell's rep on this matter, nor can I agree > with him. So I'm screwed. You're not screwed. I think you would agree that if relativity is consistent and the string breaks in one point of view it must break in them all. So let's forget about the string for the moment and just imagine observing 2 distant spaceships at rest relative to you in the night sky 90 degrees apart. Suddenly at the same instant (from your point of view) both start accelerating to the same very high speed in the same direction. The apparent distance between spaceships does not change, but imagine if it did; 90 degrees of the night sky would start to contract to a point even though neither you nor any of the trillions of stars in that part of the sky changed their motion one bit. Obviously it's crazy that now we can only see 270 degrees of the universe because of what two distant spaceships did. In the real world particles really do accelerate up to very high velocities but the night sky does not behave in this chaotic fashion. If you trained a very powerful telescope on each individual spaceship you would find they have contracted in the direction of motion, but not the distance between them. Now forget the spaceships and just observe a string moving very fast, it will contract in the direction of motion just like spaceships; put these two things together and you can only have a broken string. I admit it's a little more difficult to see that the string must break from the point of view of the spaceships, especially the trailing ship. I think much of the confusion comes from using terms and reasoning appropriate for Special Relativity but don't work at all for General Relativity, and in this thought experiment things are accelerating so it's General Relativity's gig. Although it can be a useful approximation if things don't become too extreme there really is no such thing as an "accelerating frame of reference". For example, an observer on the lead ship will know with certainty that he is accelerating and know the direction it is occurring, he will note that the following spaceship is keeping up with him so it must be accelerating too. According to the equivalence principle this is the same as neither spaceship having an engine and both are just sitting on the surface of the Earth, one at sea level and the other on top of a small hill. The lead spaceship must be deeper into that gravitational well (the one at sea level), so when he looks at the clock in the following spaceship (the one on the hill) he will find that clock running faster than his own. > alas, the time lag thing upon which Johns argument is built is > merely the plain vanilla time lag of information transmitted by > speed of light EM, and can be disposed of with a mere wisp of > effort. Einstein's made his breakthrough in Relativity not through mathematical skill but because his intuition told him that this "time lag" was not an artifact of the particular commutation system used but a fundamental property of the universe. It is all very well to say that "the instant I started moving the fellow at the other end of the string told me he's not moving, but "really" he is moving"; but this "reality" can never be confirmed. Einstein's intuition said this "time delay" was saying exactly what it seemed to be saying, everything came from that. John K Clark From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Aug 23 16:49:15 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:49:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] large hadron rap References: <200808231537.m7NFaoZN020420@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <001001c90540$2e0512a0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "spike" Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 8:36 AM > OK I changed my mind: I do like rap. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM > > Is this a hoot or what? {8^D Imagine a room full of dancing physics > geeks. Aiiiiiiiii! It's a hoot, all right. Didn't think it was possible, but - having just seen that - as of today, I do believe I like rap even LESS. :( Olga (and many thanks, Spike) From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Aug 23 17:12:57 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:12:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] pain in childbirth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080823120901.022a6d30@satx.rr.com> At 10:08 PM 8/23/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote: >Greek uses the same word, "ponos", for pain and the contractions of >labour. Anyone who has witnessed normal childbirth and says labour >isn't painful is contemptuous of women. Fwiw (1 datum point), my wife Barbara reports that childbirth for her took a long time and so was pretty exhausting, but that the degree of pain involved was comparable to menstrual cramps. She adds that she had fairly unpleasant cramps as a young woman. Damien Broderick From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Aug 23 17:41:00 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:41:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pain in childbirth References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080823120901.022a6d30@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000701c90547$68939890$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "Damien Broderick" To: "ExI chat list" > Fwiw (1 datum point), my wife Barbara reports that childbirth for her took > a long time and so was pretty exhausting, but that the degree of pain > involved was comparable to menstrual cramps. She adds that she had fairly > unpleasant cramps as a young woman. I second the motion. That's exactly how labor pains felt - cramps (moved up a couple of notches, maybe). Olga From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 17:49:51 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:49:51 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <160001c903ea$2856d660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <580930c20808140430p438ed9daq3891e9a1c2589ec5@mail.gmail.com> <036b01c902ce$ca2bb3b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808200757s5ef27aeav7dd1f0665017c336@mail.gmail.com> <160001c903ea$2856d660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808231049q5774246etd70cb4d1d6e9ba25@mail.gmail.com> On 8/22/08, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stefano writes > The reason I advance for favoring homo sapiens in a contest > for my affections over some lizard race from Sirius is two-fold. > For one, similarity of structure (including all the aforementioned > traits such as emotion and so on). For two, we naturally have > a certain solidarity with our cell-mates, our fellow city residents, > our national comrades, and even (up to a point) our gender or > racial brethren. Actually, I am rather inclined to accept such order of ideas as "natural" myself, even though it might end up having both of us labelled as specieists, racists, ethnocentrists, nationalists, male chauvinists, or just chauvinists. :-) (In fact, I tend instead to consider that diversity can only be based on everybody's love for their own identity). But all this is *syncronical*. Diacronically, and as far as offspring is concerned, what one really would like is not to have one's children (or, for that matter, one's clones) *exactly* identical to what one is. He or she usually wants them to be as much better, more accomplished, stronger, healthier and more successful as possible. This is after all what sexual selection, education, preventive medicine and the drive towards genetic engineering is about. After a fashion, both aspects may be expression of an identical "genetic [and/or memetic] whisper". One would expect replicators whose bearers tend to favour similar vehicles over more different ones to get a reproductive edge, wouldn't one? But the same goes for replicators who tend to an increasing fine-tuning of their influence on the bearers... >> and the survival of the clade should not. In fact, to pose the >> survival of the species as one's ultimate ideal may well be to >> the detriment of the destiny of the clade, > > I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade, but it's not helping > me much here. Instead of "clade" could you be more specific, > e.g., all our DNA cousins? Not really "cousins", but "descendents". What I am say here is that for sure to restrict the usage of H+ technology to the (hardly natural) preservation of humanity as close as possible to its current average traits for as long as possible would not really be a good bet for the survival of the human clade in vastly different context. The clades - the , if you prefer, the lineages or the monophyletic groups - last as much as they are able to change, branch, diversify and adapt... The others are much more vulnerable to extinction, namely in the sense not of just not being around any more in their past forms, but more radically of leaving just fossils behind. This is why those who believe that "survival" - in some other sense than individual, physical survival - should be considered as a primal value, should hardly fear a posthuman change in terms of an "existential risk". >> and would lead us to conclude that it would have been a >> good idea for our simian ancestors, at least from their >> point of view, to put in place an eugenic programme >> aimed at avoiding the kind of evolutionary change that >> ultimately led to ourselves. > > Heh, well of course it would have been a good idea---for *them*! Mmhhh. They may well not have survived anyway, at least they have descendents they could be to some extent be proud of... :-) And, in any event, "animal eugenism" regularly tend to eliminate less-than-average Darwinian bets, not better-than-average... Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Sat Aug 23 18:03:54 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:03:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] large hadron rap In-Reply-To: <001001c90540$2e0512a0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <200808231804.m7NI3sIC024791@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Olga Bourlin > Subject: Re: [ExI] large hadron rap > > From: "spike" > Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 8:36 AM > > > OK I changed my mind: I do like rap. > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM > > ... > > Didn't think it was possible, but - having just seen that - > as of today, I do believe I like rap even LESS. > :( Olga (and many thanks, Spike) Many you're welcomes Olga, and do allow me a commentary on rap for just a minute. I can't stand it, but after I heard the hadron rap I began to realize it wasn't the rhythm or lack of melody that was really bugging me, it was the tone and message. I don't understand the words of the rap from the past decade, but the few I do understand I don't like. So often the raps sounded like angry men arguing in a foreign language. On the other hand, they were somewhat analogous to disco from the 70s: the rhythms made it good dance music. I went on a solo cross country trip last summer and found to my delight that rap and hiphop had suddenly disappeared from the radio dial. I searched it regularly all the way across the nation for four days and never did find a single instance of rap or hiphop (are those the same?). Evidently the advertisers decided in unison something I was thinking for some time: that the messages of rap was psychologically destructive as hell, especially to the young black community. Reasoning: in you mind's ear, think of the music that was associated with black musicians of the 60s and 70s: the Motown sounds, the Commodores, Lou Rawls, Marvin Gaye, Lionel Richey, the Temptations, Jackson 5ive, Diana Ross, the 5th Dimension, Ben King, Sam Cooke and I am surely leaving off many great examples, but what to all these artists have in common? Please say it is their music is so very pleasant: it deals with such universal human emotions: how a man feels about his sweetheart, hope and beauty, and how love makes one feel, etc, themes that never ever get outdated. They delivered that message so well and with so little pretention, such as Stevie Wonder singing a simple but profound: you are the sunshine of my life, or I just called to say I love you. Many of us may owe our existence to these artists causing our parents to grab for each other and jump in the sack, such sweet and amorous sounds are these. Compare that to the sounds of the 90s often associated with black entertainers, the rap/hiphop. What is that, some kind of audio birth control device? Do those sounds do it for you? Sure as hell doesn't do it for me. From my point of view, the 60s and 70s black music was constructive and uplifting at a time when much of the white pop musicians were on psychologically destructive themes. Olga your view and commentary on this is of particular interest to me. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 18:05:16 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:05:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808231105h6c892caag25caccaf27266357@mail.gmail.com> On 8/21/08, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >If you think about it, sociopathy isn't even > particularly unacceptable in many situations. In a business > transaction, each party knows that the other party is only out to get > what they can for themselves, and each party knows that the other > party is only behaving honestly because they judge that they have more > to gain that way. Sociopaths simply take this strategy and apply it to > every aspect of their lives, and if they start off with any brains, > quickly work out that violent crime doesn't pay well. In fact, > intelligent sociopaths are more likely to become successful > businessmen and politicians, because they don't let sentimentality get > in the way of career-advancing decisions. I am quite perplexed. I have always considered the term "sociopaths" as referred to individuals who are dysfunctional in their inability to conform to the social norms of their community - sometimes perhaps with good cause, but this is another story. Definitely not as referred to individuals that simply behave as ideal utility maximisers in the sense of classic economic theory. Stefano Vaj From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Sat Aug 23 17:46:37 2008 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:46:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] pain in childbirth In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080823120901.022a6d30@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <62496.36611.qm@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com> --- On Sat, 8/23/08, Damien Broderick wrote: > Fwiw (1 datum point), my wife Barbara reports that > childbirth for her > took a long time and so was pretty exhausting, but that the > degree of > pain involved was comparable to menstrual cramps. She adds > that she > had fairly unpleasant cramps as a young woman. > > Damien Broderick It (childbirth pain) definitely varies from individual to individual. I don't think I ever heard the end of it from my mother re. how painful it supposedly was to push me out (though she still went on to have two more). A friend who has given birth to 2 children over the past 3 years reported that both times were painful (I think the first was worse), but that you tend to "forget" it quickly once it's over. Personally, I still plan on sticking with cats (I don't want to have kids for a variety of reasons, none of which are negotiable, but the idea of going through labor is definitely one of them). :P - Anne "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" - Meg Murry, "A Wrinkle In Time" From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Aug 23 18:15:06 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:15:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] large hadron rap In-Reply-To: <200808231804.m7NI3sIC024791@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <001001c90540$2e0512a0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <200808231804.m7NI3sIC024791@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080823131248.0243e7c0@satx.rr.com> At 11:03 AM 8/23/2008 -0700, spike wrote: >Compare that to the sounds of the 90s often associated with black >entertainers, the rap/hiphop. What is that, some kind of audio birth >control device? Do those sounds do it for you? Sure as hell doesn't do it >for me. Considering the pregnancy rates in, uh, financially depressed regions of large cities, it doesn't seem to be working all that well. Damien Broderick From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Aug 23 18:15:57 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:15:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B053DD.2000004@mac.com> Amara Graps wrote: > > Jonathan El-Bizri srndpty at gmail.com : >> I have understood that, throughout the course of human existence, >> childbirth >> has been a pretty dangerous thing. It is hard to consider the >> trepidation >> surrounding it today as being a modern conception, nor the difficulties >> being chiefly of socio-psychological origin. Nor do concerns seem any >> greater today than they would have been in the past, when medicinal >> science >> was (even) less understood, and everything more dangerous: > >> http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/childbirth.cfm > >> "Childbirth in colonial America was a difficult and sometimes dangerous >> experience for women. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, >> between 1 percent and 1.5 percent of all births ended in the mother's >> death >> as a result of exhaustion, dehydration, infection, hemorrhage, or >> convulsions. Since the typical mother gave birth to between five and >> eight >> children, her lifetime chances of dying in childbirth ran as high as >> 1 in 8. >> This meant that if a woman had eight female friends, it was likely >> that one >> might die in childbirth. > >> Death in childbirth was sufficiently common that many colonial women >> regarded pregnancy with dread. [...] > > In that narrow-in-space-and-time, young country, 6%-of-the-world's > population, strongly religious, puritanical, kind of way, probably that's > true. Pre birth control it was much more universally true. Large families were not just the norm for cultural reasons. That was very difficult on women. It has a lot more to do with biology and human sexuality than religion. > > If you step out of your narrow perspective, and even out of cultures > that were influenced by (say Catholic religion), is the same true? I > suggest to question your assumptions. Watch some births, live if > possible, and out of hospitals, if possible. I have been present for a few now. It often is a difficult and painful process regardless of where it is held and the pre-suppositions of all involved. As our brain size has grown human birth process has become more difficult. First time deliveries are nearly invariantly the most difficult and the labor the longest. The difficulty increases with age. That said a very supportive and happy setting definitely is a huge improvement over the old sterile hospital approach. However, enough can go wrong that birthing in a hospital with a better birthing center or within minutes of one is definitely to be preferred. > If not possible live, then > documentaries and You Tube (skewed, but gives a trace) can still give > demonstrations of birthings that are out of what today's society would > think is 'normal'. Try to consider that what exists in the US today/its > young history is not normal, instead is _abnormal_? How is it that women > in the so-called less-developed cultures (Africa, say), give so little > effort to birthing their babies? > First or subsequent births and at what age and in what physical condition? Many of these cultures are not known for great child mortality (for a variety of reasons) or for longevity. So it is not so simple. > If you insist on quoting literature, then I suggest to go back much > further in time, a couple of thousand of years, and see if the Greeks or > other (say, nature-oriented) cultures write about women suffering in > giving birth. Neither Hippocrates, nor Aristotle, nor Soranus nor other > supposedly learned men of the Grecian School of Medicine wrote of pain > in their notes on normal, uncomplicated birth, for example. They were men after all in cultures that largely denigrated women. Not exactly trustworthy evidence. - samantha From pharos at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 18:40:22 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:40:22 +0000 Subject: [ExI] large hadron rap In-Reply-To: <200808231804.m7NI3sIC024791@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <001001c90540$2e0512a0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <200808231804.m7NI3sIC024791@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 6:03 PM, spike wrote: > I went on a solo cross country trip last summer and found to my delight that > rap and hiphop had suddenly disappeared from the radio dial. I searched it > regularly all the way across the nation for four days and never did find a > single instance of rap or hiphop (are those the same?). Evidently the > advertisers decided in unison something I was thinking for some time: that > the messages of rap was psychologically destructive as hell, especially to > the young black community. > Could it be that FM radio (sometimes called local radio) has a pretty short broadcast range and rap is only broadcast in big cities where there is a large enough community to support it? BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 18:45:52 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:45:52 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures In-Reply-To: References: <002f01c8e847$bc243270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01b401c8fdcd$a6ad5700$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808140515q42f83772qc2025fc5589036ff@mail.gmail.com> <027e01c901b3$ad06fd60$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819114906.02363670@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080819165915.023b6048@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080820124140.02671c90@satx.rr.com> <580930c20808210231x7c034632he88a40df033c2db8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20808231145j95307bbt3ba590865c2b8563@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:05 PM, BillK wrote: >> In either case, we have clarified the issues - and most often cornered >> the other party in positions that may be much less acceptable to the >> "public" of the exchange. > > That doesn't sound quite right to me. > > As Damien quoted above: > The fallacy of Ex Concessis mimics the reasonable demand for logical > consistency, but it errs by demanding "consistency" on points that go > beyond the truly logical. Let us say that the stipulation implicitely goes both for the premise *and* for the inference rule applied. Or, to put it in different terms, the bioluddite, faced to an ex concessis argument that if he admits A through the inference process B the truth of C is also implied, he can either change his mind with regard to C, withdraw his concession of A, or denies that the process B is correct. Attacking the inference is both the most frequent and the least interesting scenario. Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 19:03:29 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:03:29 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Ethics of Copying Other People In-Reply-To: <16ad01c90420$8bf71460$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <01ee01c8fe63$2da0a7e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <48A537BF.8030501@mac.com> <028f01c901b6$7a7b33e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808190535r73338e3j435754468491840b@mail.gmail.com> <031f01c90287$814e4280$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808200723g7093afa6s53cd1abb68cbfa36@mail.gmail.com> <039101c9032f$8adcc440$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808210455x6699d3acrfae9893e6bf90054@mail.gmail.com> <16ad01c90420$8bf71460$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808231203u249ecdeet2f251f25bda923c6@mail.gmail.com> On 8/22/08, Lee Corbin wrote: > I reckon that an individual owns all of the information pertaining > to himself or herself except that which may be necessary for > the maintenance of a reasonable amount of safety of others. We must however be aware that this is emphatically *not* how we deal with such issues nowadays. I can write a biography of Queen Elizabeth without asking for anybody's permission. You cannot sue me because I told to a friend that you asked me yesterday the time of the day. Nor Osama bin Laden can claim royalties for everything which was written about him since 9/11, even when it did not even vaguely relate to the safety of others. >> The individual? Should then the biographers and historians, as well as >> the possible "uploaders" o "emulators", be barred from recording and >> reconstructing it against the individual concerned's will? > > I really don't see why allowing this activity would have > costs that would outweigh the benefits. I agree. But isn't it contradictory with the idea that an individual "owns" all information pertaining to him- or herself? >> Or does the information belong to those who invested in its >> collection, in which case the person whose identity is >> backed-up or "redeveloped" in an Omega-like computer >> should not be able to interfere with whatever its >> owner might like to do with it. > > Thanks for the superb questions, Stefano. I'm forced to really > try to think this through, and I sense that already you may > have exposed some contradictions in my views. Not at all. :-) Let us say that personally I am inclined to err on the side of freedom on information and speech. In other terms, as long as my storing or elaborating information does not involve any harm whatsoever for the individual concerned, I do not see the point of granting him proprietor's rights on it... > In that case, although it would be > revolutionary and would very , very badly upset some > people, privacy would be a thing of the past and we'd just > have to get used to that. ... > So under those circumstances, just how would we stop > historical re-creations? In fact, just how would we stop > your neighbor from making a copy of you the way you > were yesterday? In fact, "privacy" might be a rationale to do that. But the difficulty and inconveniences of enforcing it might exceed whatever psychological satisfaction you might derive from the fact that nobody is currently testing an emulation of yours to see how you would react in a given situation, or make you a subject of study or part of a work of art. After a fashion, this is what common sense dictates out of a logical extensions of very traditional rules. Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 19:14:15 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:14:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] pain in childbirth In-Reply-To: <62496.36611.qm@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080823120901.022a6d30@satx.rr.com> <62496.36611.qm@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <580930c20808231214h56f2b975hd7bdaabce755dc2e@mail.gmail.com> On 8/23/08, Anne Corwin wrote: > It (childbirth pain) definitely varies from individual to individual. I Let us say, however, that painful and difficult labour may well be a dysgenic trait that stopped being actively selected exactly as a consequence of the different measures aimed at avoiding and obviating it, starting with Caesarian sections and other medical strategies... Stefano Vaj From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Aug 23 19:02:17 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:02:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] large hadron rap References: <200808231804.m7NI3sIC024791@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <001501c90552$c33976b0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" > Compare that to the sounds of the 90s often associated with black > entertainers, the rap/hiphop. What is that, some kind of audio birth > control device? Do those sounds do it for you? Sure as hell doesn't do > it > for me. From my point of view, the 60s and 70s black music was > constructive > and uplifting at a time when much of the white pop musicians were on > psychologically destructive themes. I hate rap (it actually distresses me - I must vacate the area when I hear it), but then, I am not a fan of music (I go to operas sometimes - but there's a visual element there besides music; also, I love movies and "see" music as part-and-parcel of that medium). Someone once told me I am a little "aspie" when it comes to music - I don't know, but since childhood music is something I've never quite warmed up to (it takes up too much of my energy or focus? - I like quiet, and I can't think or concentrate when music is playing). There were a few times in my life when I _almost_ liked music - at those times I was "in love," and ... well, temporary insanity would be as good an explanation as any ;). Stanley Crouch writes a lot about jazz and rap, and if you Google him up, you'll get the full blast of his opinions: "Crouch is a fierce critic of gangsta rap music, claiming it promotes violence, criminal lifestyles and degrading attitudes toward women. With this viewpoint, he has defended Bill Cosby's remarks (see the "Pound Cake Speech") and praised a women's group at Spelman College for speaking out against those rap music. Recently several of his syndicated columns have been dedicated to these subjects." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Crouch > Olga your view and commentary on this is of particular interest to me. > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Aug 23 19:04:25 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:04:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808231105h6c892caag25caccaf27266357@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001d01c90553$0ff72790$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "Stefano Vaj" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 11:05 AM > I have always considered the term "sociopaths" as referred to > individuals who are dysfunctional in their inability to conform to the > social norms of their community - sometimes perhaps with good cause, > but this is another story. > > Definitely not as referred to individuals that simply behave as ideal > utility maximisers in the sense of classic economic theory. I agree with you. I thought "narcissist" was the going term for those individuals ... Olga From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Aug 23 19:36:53 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:36:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell? References: <16ea01c9046a$4bddee90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <171d01c90557$e6fc0720$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> ----- Original Message ----- From: "BillK" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell? > On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: >> Below, BillK exhibits an MI5 report on terrorist "types". >> >> Not a single word---not one!---is mentioned concerning >> *the* most salient characteristic of the so-called terrorists >> who have been convicted of crimes related to mass public >> bombings and other terrorist activity in the UK. >> >> Not a single word about this salient characteristic that >> any six-year-old would instantly be able to identify and >> would instantly attempt to articulate (provided that >> someone has not already gotten to him or her and >> has already inflicted today's common Orwellian removal >> of certain phrases and words from his or her vocabulary). >> > > > I presume you don't mean nervous, sweaty people wearing a large > rucksack with wires hanging out ? :) > > > Unfortunately, I did not quote the full article. I only quoted > highlighted points that I thought might be of interest. You need to > read the full article I linked to, to get more information. > > What MI5 were looking for was a list of criteria, a,b,c,d,e, that > would enable their computers to extract a list of suspects that they > could investigate as likely to be involved in terrorism. They were > unable to do this. > > Quote: > British-based terrorists are as ethnically diverse as the UK Muslim > population, with individuals from Pakistani, Middle Eastern and > Caucasian backgrounds. MI5 says assumptions cannot be made about > suspects based on skin colour, ethnic heritage or nationality. > ----------------- > > It might be that the terrorists were Muslim to some degree, with a > dark skin, but that is not enough to select them out as terrorists. > In some areas of London and some cities, that is over half the > population. > > There is an enormous difference between > 1) characteristics that terrorists have, and > 2) characteristics that ONLY terrorists have. > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Aug 23 19:58:59 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:58:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell? References: <16ea01c9046a$4bddee90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <172201c9055a$b4fa7c40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes > [Lee wrote] > >> Not a single word---not one!---is mentioned concerning >> *the* most salient characteristic of the so-called terrorists >> who have been convicted of crimes related to mass public >> bombings and other terrorist activity in the UK. I stand corrected. In the article, there was this one paragraph: Still, especially since "Caucasian" technically includes people with very dark skin and who are from the Middle-east or India, the first part of the first sentence as the same structure as "Chicago based Mafioso in the 1930s were as ethnically diverse as the US Sicilian population", which while true is obviously evasive." A parallel second part of the sentence could just as easily have been (circa 1930), "The FBI says that assumptions cannot be made about Mafia suspects based on skin color, ethnic heritage, or nationality because some Chicago mafia members have been recruited from Italian ethnicities that are not Sicilian, and even some from those of completely non-Italian heritage to boot." > What MI5 were looking for was a list of criteria, a,b,c,d,e, that > would enable their computers to extract a list of suspects that they > could investigate as likely to be involved in terrorism. They were > unable to do this. Of course they were unable to do this. Has there ever been a criminal group, or a religious group, or a chess-playing group in the history of the world that had a finite and precise list of such characteristics as a, b, c, d, and e? Why is there no mention whatsoever of *probabilities*? Or are you trying to tell me that a row of recent convicted terrorist bombers would not in fact stand out compared to a random sample of people from London? That a six year old would be unable to tell which group was which? Damien wrote > Many UK terrorists are Irish, but it's hard to tell whether > or not they are Catholic. Many have a "middle-Eastern" > appearance." Not quite sure what Catholicism has to do with it, but then I don't know many English Catholics, and outside of America I do understand that in some parts of the world ancient animosities run deep; maybe some in the UK are still pretty upset over what happened to Queen Mary. But more pertinently, I thought that Irish terrorists have not been a problem in the UK for a long time. BillK or you may know: just when was the last Irish terrorist incident, and are the police still worried about them. Precisely: was the article talking about IRA threats or Al-Qaeda threats? > It might be that the terrorists were Muslim to some degree, with a > dark skin, but that is not enough to select them out as terrorists. > In some areas of London and some cities, that is over half the > population. That fact alone might have made their entire endeavor silly. According to the first paragraph, here is what they were trying to do: Is it really true that MI5 was looking for necessary and sufficient criteria, or is this article basically a propaganda piece aimed at stereotyping? Lee > There is an enormous difference between > 1) characteristics that terrorists have, and > 2) characteristics that ONLY terrorists have. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Aug 23 20:19:47 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 15:19:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell? In-Reply-To: <172201c9055a$b4fa7c40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <16ea01c9046a$4bddee90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <172201c9055a$b4fa7c40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080823151539.02319d50@satx.rr.com> At 12:58 PM 8/23/2008 -0700, Lee wrote: >>Many UK terrorists are Irish, but it's hard to tell whether >>or not they are Catholic. Many have a "middle-Eastern" >>appearance." > >Not quite sure what Catholicism has to do with it Yes, that was careless of me, thinking only of the IRA and related factions. I should have written "hard to tell if they are Catholic or Protestant" Irish, since both lots seemed to enjoy a bit of bombing and beating. > more pertinently, >I thought that Irish terrorists have not been a problem in the UK >for a long time. This might well be the case. Let's hope so. Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 22:34:31 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:34:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: <001d01c90553$0ff72790$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808231105h6c892caag25caccaf27266357@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c90553$0ff72790$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > From: "Stefano Vaj" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 11:05 AM > >> I have always considered the term "sociopaths" as referred to >> individuals who are dysfunctional in their inability to conform to the >> social norms of their community - sometimes perhaps with good cause, >> but this is another story. >> >> Definitely not as referred to individuals that simply behave as ideal >> utility maximisers in the sense of classic economic theory. > > I agree with you. I thought "narcissist" was the going term for those > individuals ... > The references that Lee gave in the original post say: Psychopathy is frequently co-morbid with other psychological disorders (particularly narcissistic personality disorder). The psychopath differs slightly from the sociopath, and may differ even more so from an individual with an antisocial personality disorder diagnosis. Nevertheless, the three terms are frequently used interchangeably. It is possible for psychopaths to become successful in many lines of work. Psychopathy is frequently mistaken with other similar personality disorders, such as dissocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and schizoid personality disorder (as well as others). ---------- It doesn't appear that there is an exact definition. There are differences but also a lot of overlap. The term 'office psychopath' is now quite common (try Google). The 2006 book: Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work (Hardcover) by Paul Babiak (Author), Robert D. Hare (Author) links to many similar titles. BillK From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Aug 23 22:39:25 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 15:39:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fw: upon pondering your next million years References: <06ae01c904ab$7515a000$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <48AFB1B7.10603@mac.com> Message-ID: <001301c90571$7f6a8360$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes > Olga Bourlin wrote: > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKG5l_TDU8 > > Excellent! :-) I'll raise that and double! Most, most excellent, expecially for the any who appreciate G&S. > The Singularity is Near I found rather repetitive of prior ideas > and quite rambling with some very questionable opinions and > current views mixed in. It is not on my favorite books list. > I enjoyed the Spike much more at the time It's rather better written, and the focus is tighter, even if it is older > I read it although that could in part be because it was my first book Well! I'm glad at least Damien was able to pull you away from your monitor. We should probably make sure that the schools all carry this book, because so many children absolutely never read books these days, and there may be one or two out there on whom it will have the same effect! Let us hope. Lee > length treatment on the subject when I was younger in this "cult". :-) > > - samantha From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Aug 23 22:51:23 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:51:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808231105h6c892caag25caccaf27266357@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c90553$0ff72790$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080823174415.02612e68@satx.rr.com> At 11:34 PM 8/23/2008 +0100, BillK mentioned: >The 2006 book: >Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work (Hardcover) >by Paul Babiak (Author), Robert D. Hare (Author) A while back I considered doing a book about 'paths in office with the title THE UNITED SNAKES OF AMERICA--and found that it had already been used by both a band and a herpetological movie. Drat. Well, probably saved me from being thrown out of the country. (I wonder if Cory Doctorow--a Canadian now in London, I believe--will ever be allowed in again following the recent publication of LITTLE BROTHER, a remarkable young adult novel about a net-linked revolution against a DHS gone entirely feral under a paranoiacally repressive McCain govt.) Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Aug 23 23:03:54 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:03:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction References: Message-ID: <002501c90575$00f812a0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis Papaioannou was just attacked using the following terms and language: > Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com : > > > Anyone who has witnessed normal childbirth and says labour > > isn't painful is contemptuous of women. > > I don't think you read my messages, This does not follow logically. Many, many have been the times when someone has read all of someone else's messages but stubbornly persists in his or her own views. It *never* follows that just because one has carefully scrutized the arguments (even in a math paper!) that one must agree with the conclusions reached. Moreover, in the case of Stathis P., I'll go on record as saying that there is *no one* to my knowledge who is more likely to have carefully read all the pertinent messages in a thread to which he contributes. Since it is also logically possible for an email to have been mis-delivered (some are even absent from the archives!), the above should have been made as an inquiry rather than as an accusation. > Stathis (there were many since I am obviously quite invested > in this topic, unlike you), because you missed my point completely. We really must make every effort to avoid arguing from authority. Honestly, this form of improper argumentation has been growing more and more seldom, and I'm sorry to see a re-surfacing here. Besides, does "missing my point" mean merely "failing to agree" or does it contend that actual miscommunication has occurred? I don't know about the writer, but many people use that phrase to imply that someone else is at fault for failing to agree with a point being made. > I find your message insulting. That is not only a fact in the case of the writer, but may carry a more important point as well. I myself have never seen even *one* child birth, but it's possible that Stathis, as a physician, has seen so many that honesty compels him to make the very, very strong statement "Anyone who has witnessed normal childbirth and says labour isn't painful is contemptuous of women." Anyone? That is a real stretch, (no pun intended). > I'm in the middle of an insanely busy month, I have more deadlines this > week for setting up my funding when my contract finishes in... That's pretty irrelevant to the argument, and to the degree that it's a interesting personal story, it probably ought to have been placed in a separate email, where it would not likely be confused with improper argumentation, (e.g. a possible seeking of personal sympathy in order to advance a point of view---not, however, that I have any evidence whatsoever that this is in fact what even partially motivated the digression). Lee From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 23:10:05 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 01:10:05 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808231105h6c892caag25caccaf27266357@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c90553$0ff72790$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <580930c20808231610j1e809ee5s4abaadf92fc0cfaa@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:34 AM, BillK wrote: > It is possible for psychopaths to become successful in many lines of > work. Sure. But as long as an organism is perfectly adapted to its environment, to define its features as "pathological" is little more than a scientific veneer on a moral judgment (that I may even share, depending on the circumstances and the environment, but this is another story). Stefano Vaj From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Aug 24 01:11:08 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:11:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human birth was extinction In-Reply-To: <002501c90575$00f812a0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <002501c90575$00f812a0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1219540506_22476@s8.cableone.net> Re the subject of pain in childbirth and maternal deaths, Dr. William Calvin goes into some detail. It helps to remember that humans evolved huge brains over the past 2.5 million years. The process of adjusting is not complete. http://williamcalvin.com/bk5/bk5.htm The Ascent of Mind Ice Age Climates and the Evolution of Intelligence Chapter 7 WHIDBEY ISLAND: Ratcheting Up Brain Size snip Parts, Process, Product: the legislative process illustrates a transformational process at work, and illustrates what a detailed understanding of human evolutionary processes might involve. Beach walk to an old Indian fishing village buried by a mud slide on Whidbey Island. And a mother-and-unborn-child burial. Relatively big heads occur with early puberty. Then stature re-enlarges in other ways. When the resulting big heads kill their mothers, there is selection for slower-than-average body growth rates, so the survivors are born premature-looking. Given selection pressure resulting in juvenilization, one gets a cycle that can be repeated many times to enlarge the brain fourfold. WE TEND TO TAKE OUR BIG BRAINS for granted. Even those with a working knowledge of evolution often make the mistake of assuming that big brains would naturally evolve by slow increments: we assume that a bigger brain is a smarter brain. And since a smarter brain is surely a better brain, then it is not surprising that, analogous to compound interest, we should have bootstrapped ourselves up to a much bigger brain. After all, some people naturally have somewhat bigger heads than others, so all it takes is some natural selection for the obviously useful variant. There is something very wrong with this commonplace explanation: it ignores the enormous natural selection against bigger heads. Maybe bigger brains are indeed better for something, but it would have been bought at an enormous price, extorted over and over again at each little increment along the way to a brain four times larger than that of our presumed ancestors, the australopithecines. Actually, it isn't clear that bigger brains are even necessary; an ape-sized brain reorganized to facilitate language and plan-ahead might work equally well. Yet the truly horrendous problem with bigger-heads-are-better should have been obvious long before anyone got around to noticing that someone's hat size didn't correlate with how smart he was: big heads cause a lot of trouble at childbirth. Big heads not only kill themselves but, moreover, others carrying similar gene combinations: their mothers. Thus all potential siblings (and occasionally some of the still-dependent prior children of that mother as well), many likely to carry those same gene combinations, will also be eliminated from the surviving gene pool. It is hard to imagine any form of natural selection that is more powerfully negative; modern genetic diseases such as hemophilia pale by comparison. Big heads are a candidate for the worst genetic disease of all time. By all rights, any straightforward tendency toward bigger heads should have been promptly squelched. Those who nonetheless argue bigger-is-smarter-is-better should realize that a small increment in intelligence would have had to be overwhelmingly better ever to establish a somewhat larger brain. The next increment would have had to be overwhelmingly better than the previous miracle, and so on. While perhaps anything is possible given a long enough time and compound interest, bigger-brain cleverness per se seems unlikely as a source for the fastest encephalization on record, fourfold in a mere 2.5 million years. It makes you wonder how bigger-brains-are-better ever became established in the first place as the dominant explanation for human evolution. If women had been the scientists doing the theorizing, I suspect that we would have long ago abandoned the notion and gone in search of a better idea. Big heads, however, nonetheless happened. And so there is presumably some way around this problem. Something else must have been under frequent selection pressure, with big heads as an unwanted side effect that was dragged along. This suggests that big heads were achieved by some decoupled backdoor route, rather than via straightforward selection for variants in brain size. And indeed big heads come as part of a package, a panoply of linked features called juvenilization (or paedomorphosis or, in even older literature, fetalization) that has been a repeated theme of vertebrate evolution. snip So it is hard to imagine why brain size would be under natural selection for its advantages -- especially when the disadvantages of an increased brain/body ratio are so immediate and so horrendous. For it is the bigger head relative to the smaller body that gets us into so much trouble: If hip size had increased commensurately, no birth canal bottleneck would have developed. Yet it is precisely brain/body ratio that increases with juvenilization. And so an adult woman has to give birth with (by the standards of earlier generations) the narrow-hipped body of an adolescent girl. True, hip size in women does increase with childbearing; true, short adult women cannot find something that fits in the children's section of a clothing store, thanks to the hip size disproportion. But whatever the hip size compensation has been, it has been insufficient: it cannot explain the fourfold larger brain of modern humans compared to apes and the australopithecines. So if the boom time physiology of the ice ages produced juvenilizations, selection against big heads would surely have followed. snip THE BIRTH CANAL BOTTLENECK comes next because, without further changes, bigger-headed fetuses are going to start getting stuck during childbirth (if they hadn't already had trouble at the smaller stature). This in turn will start selection operating on another common variation-on-a-theme, somatic developmental rate -- just due to their genes, some children gain height and weight more slowly than others. We knew that some more changes were going to be necessary because juvenilization by itself tends to suggest a shorter childhood -- indeed, its truncation by early sexual maturity. But the monkey-to-ape and ape-to-human transitions show exactly the opposite: a lengthening of childhood. This paradox is resolved if we assume that a slowing of general body development (selected from that variation-on-a-theme that Boas observed) has been superimposed on juvenilization, moving the earlier menarche back out to its original year and even beyond. It's the relative rates of somatic and sexual development that control childhood's tempo and the resulting adult shape, just as it is the relative rate of growth in the north and south sides of a flower stem that cause it to bend south toward more sunshine. The main reason to believe that slowing has actually happened is that slowed development is more general than just childhood. Most life phase durations (conception-to-birth, birth-to-weaning, weaning-to-menarche, adult span) have been nearly doubled in going from monkey to ape. And nearly doubled again in going from ape to human. Though human gestation would at first appear to constitute an exception (it is only several weeks longer than in apes), this doubling rule seems to apply there too: human infants do not attain the same developmental landmarks as newborn apes until many months after birth, for a total internal-plus-external "gestation time" about twice that of chimpanzees. This halving of the rate of the somatic developmental clock throughout pre- and postnatal life also needs explaining; I'm surely not the first to suggest that it was the solution to the childbirth problem presented by that big head that came along with juvenilization. If there had been a way of slowing only prenatal development without concomitant slowing of postnatal development, it might have done the job too -- but the more generalized slowing may have been the only variant available. Because juvenilization makes the adult head relatively larger and the adult pelvis relatively smaller, repeated juvenilizations will eventually run into trouble when the baby's head can no longer get through the pelvic outlet. The gene combinations that result in early puberty and normal somatic developmental rates will then be edited out, unfortunately via maternal mortality rather than merely unsuccessful fetuses (but therefore at a much faster rate, because of the kin selection practiced by the unsuccessful fetus). The same would be true for faster-than-average somatic development genes. The gene combinations of precocity and slowed somatic developmental rates will get by, provided parturition is not equally delayed. So long as the surviving mother can cope with raising a relatively fragile premature infant, the gene pool would soon come to be dominated by the genes for slower-than-average somatic development. This escape route for big baby heads would seem to require slowed somatic development superimposed upon the accelerated sexual maturity; our longer life spans after birth may be largely a side effect of the slowing of somatic development needed to work around the birth canal bottleneck. Thus we get the sequence of 1) juvenilization via faster-than-average sexual development, 2) re-enlarged stature via other taller-than-average genes, and 3) slower-than-average somatic developmental rate. And because of the carryover of slowed development into postnatal life, the usual time scale is stretched; the number of years that it takes to get to puberty may have moved back out beyond what it was before the changes started to take place. Body size is also potentially back to the norm. Only head size is still increased, along with a few other uncorrected side effects such as reduced tooth size, flatter faces, and other such juvenile features. Eureka? Only if the three-part cycle can be repeated quite a few times. And body style doesn't backslide. **************** I advise you to read the whole book. It's on line, in many libraries and for sale if you want hard copy. Keith From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Aug 24 01:41:02 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:41:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: <003601c90541$c26c9980$0301a8c0@MyComputer> References: <00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <001201c90168$e982a690$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <003601c90541$c26c9980$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: Gentlemen, I want to thank everyone who participated in this discussion, Lee, who started it, Damien, Stefano, Mike, Scerir, and John. Particularly John, who stuck to his guns and spent some time and effort provoking/inviting me to dig deeper and explore this delightfully fascinating stuff. I had a grand ol' time. Everything I've googled up suggests that the string breaks. I'm studyin' the math used by the folks who have an opinion on this matter, and I will likely remain skeptical until the math makes sense to me. Tentatively, I'm thinking that as John suggests it's a General Relativity issue with the acceleration of the two ships the source of the increase in the intervening distance. I wish we could all get together for pizza and intoxicants and really hash this out. Call me a geek, but that's my idea of a great party. Perhaps when virtual worlds become a bit more user friendly, http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Grid_List that will be possible (BYOP&I). Youse guys went real easy on me, if Eugen had shown up I'd probably be smartin' somethin' fierce. {;-) Best, Jeff Davis "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anais Nin On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 10:00 AM, John K Clark wrote: > "Jeff Davis" > >> I cannot compete with Mr. Bell's rep on this matter, nor can I agree >> with him. So I'm screwed. > > You're not screwed. I think you would agree that if relativity is > consistent and the string breaks in one point of view it must break in > them all. > > So let's forget about the string for the moment and just imagine > observing 2 distant spaceships at rest relative to you in the night sky > 90 degrees apart. Suddenly at the same instant (from your point of > view) both start accelerating to the same very high speed in the > same direction. The apparent distance between spaceships does not > change, but imagine if it did; 90 degrees of the night sky would start > to contract to a point even though neither you nor any of the trillions > of stars in that part of the sky changed their motion one bit. > > Obviously it's crazy that now we can only see 270 degrees of the > universe because of what two distant spaceships did. In the real > world particles really do accelerate up to very high velocities but the > night sky does not behave in this chaotic fashion. If you trained a > very powerful telescope on each individual spaceship you would find > they have contracted in the direction of motion, but not the distance > between them. > > Now forget the spaceships and just observe a string moving very > fast, it will contract in the direction of motion just like spaceships; > put these two things together and you can only have a broken string. > > I admit it's a little more difficult to see that the string must break > from the point of view of the spaceships, especially the trailing ship. > I think much of the confusion comes from using terms and reasoning > appropriate for Special Relativity but don't work at all for General > Relativity, and in this thought experiment things are accelerating > so it's General Relativity's gig. > > Although it can be a useful approximation if things don't become too > extreme there really is no such thing as an "accelerating frame of > reference". For example, an observer on the lead ship will know > with certainty that he is accelerating and know the direction it is > occurring, he will note that the following spaceship is keeping up > with him so it must be accelerating too. According to the equivalence > principle this is the same as neither spaceship having an engine and > both are just sitting on the surface of the Earth, one at sea level and > the other on top of a small hill. The lead spaceship must be deeper > into that gravitational well (the one at sea level), so when he looks > at the clock in the following spaceship (the one on the hill) he will > find that clock running faster than his own. > >> alas, the time lag thing upon which Johns argument is built is merely the >> plain vanilla time lag of information transmitted by >> speed of light EM, and can be disposed of with a mere wisp of >> effort. > > Einstein's made his breakthrough in Relativity not through mathematical > skill but because his intuition told him that this "time lag" was not an > artifact of the particular commutation system used but a fundamental > property of the universe. It is all very well to say that "the instant I > started moving the fellow at the other end of the string told me he's not > moving, > but "really" he is moving"; but this "reality" can never be > confirmed. Einstein's intuition said this "time delay" was saying > exactly what it seemed to be saying, everything came from that. > > John K Clark > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Aug 24 02:36:53 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:36:53 +1000 Subject: [ExI] pain in childbirth In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080823120901.022a6d30@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080823120901.022a6d30@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: 2008/8/24 Damien Broderick : > Fwiw (1 datum point), my wife Barbara reports that childbirth for her took a > long time and so was pretty exhausting, but that the degree of pain involved > was comparable to menstrual cramps. She adds that she had fairly unpleasant > cramps as a young woman. Amnesia for the pain of childbirth is a well-known phenomenon. The Textbook of Obstetric Anaesthesia suggests that 93.5% of women experienced "severe or unbearable pain" when asked soon after delivery, but this drops to 65% when they are asked six weeks later. Labour pain is rated as one of the most severe pains it is possible to experience. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=QtQw9YD3-DAC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=labour+pain+amnesia&source=web&ots=vSZcccq8m8&sig=1Y_d8Slr_PBv7a-oukf7Q6DNRWU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result -- Stathis Papaioannou From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Sun Aug 24 03:08:33 2008 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:08:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell? In-Reply-To: <171d01c90557$e6fc0720$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <16ea01c9046a$4bddee90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <171d01c90557$e6fc0720$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <724AB4E168E746E4AE7BF0BEF397C95C@Catbert> "Lee Corbin" wrote, > Why is there > no mention whatsoever of *probabilities*? Or are you trying > to tell me that a row of recent convicted terrorist bombers > would not in fact stand out compared to a random sample > of people from London? That a six year old would be unable > to tell which group was which? Yes, that is precisely right. Probabilities don't work as well as you would expect, due to Bayesian statistics. I run into this in the security field all the time. Someone comes up with some face-recognition program, or terrorist detection algorithm, or threat estimation theory, that they claim is 99% accurate. It recognizes the terrorists 99% of the time, and only gets a false-positive on a non-terrorist 1% of the time. Sounds great. It gets implemented. Then it fails miserably in the field. Why? Because for every terrorist going through an airport, there are probably a million non-terrorists. That means: - 1 real terrorist gets identified (because it's 99% accurate) - 10,000 non-terrorists get identified (because it's 1% false-positive) ... so your system only works 1/10,000th of the time. When it identifies a person as a terrorist, the odds are 10,000-to-1 that they're innocent. This terrorist detection system won't actually work in the field. Consider: - 99% accurate, 1% false-postive --> 10,000:1 falsely accusing the innocent - 99.9% accurate, 0.1% false-postive --> 1000:1 falsely accusing the innocent - 99.99% accurate, 0.01% false-postive --> 100:1 falsely accusing the innocent - 99.999% accurate, 0.001% false-postive --> 10:1 falsely accusing the innocent - 99.9999% accurate, 0.0001% false-postive --> 1:1 falsely accusing the innocent (50/50 chance of working) - 99.99999% accurate, 0.00001% false-postive --> 1:10 falsely accusing the innocent (better than even chance or working) You would need a system that is 99.99999% accurate with only 0.00001% false-postive rate to have it actually catch more terrorists than innocent people. Nothing is that perfect with that low an error rate. No "probabilities" dealing with random human persnalities are that precise. Random human variation acts as noise that obscures what you are trying to measure. It simply doesn't work. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Sun Aug 24 02:35:29 2008 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:35:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction In-Reply-To: <48B053DD.2000004@mac.com> References: <48B053DD.2000004@mac.com> Message-ID: <2916516505554EF1B2997F9B30F58661@Catbert> >> If you insist on quoting literature, then I suggest to go back much >> further in time, a couple of thousand of years, and see if the Greeks or >> other (say, nature-oriented) cultures write about women suffering in >> giving birth. Neither Hippocrates, nor Aristotle, nor Soranus nor other >> supposedly learned men of the Grecian School of Medicine wrote of pain >> in their notes on normal, uncomplicated birth, for example. This is simply untrue. A quick Google search found many examples in the writings of Hippocrates and Aristotle that seem to indicate that birth pains are common place. I Googled "Hippocrates child birth pain" and got this on my first hit: Middleberg, Maurice. _Promoting_Reporductive_Security_in_Developing_Countries_. p.3. "Hippocrates and Aristotle advocated breathing exercises to relieve [birthing] pain." This was my second hit: Lloyd, G.E.R., ed. Hippocratic Writings. p. ix. "Thirty-two percent of the patients portrayed in the book Epidemics are women, and one third of them had problems in pregnancy or childbirth. The abundance of maternal death accounts can lead to the assumption that maternal death was common enough to spark Hippocrates's medical knowledge interests. Furthermore, he Hippocrates also must have closely watched and documented these women. He documented their behavior, their excrements, fevers, delirium, sleeping patterns, pains, and any symptoms not experienced in everyday life." My third hit was this: Overview of Hippocratic Epidemics V, 25 in which a woman, barren all her life, at the age of 60 suffered labor-like pains after eating raw leaks. (This seems to reference labor-like pains as a normal symptom of labor, and seemed to expect readers to recognize what labor pains were.) I Googled "Aristotle child birth pain" and got all of these in my first hit: Aristotle. The History of Animals. "And labour in the case of female children is apt to be protracted and sluggish, while in the case of male children it is acute and by a long way more difficult. Women who have connexion with their husbands shortly before childbirth are delivered all the more quickly. Occasionally women seem to be in the pains of labour though labour has not in fact commenced, what seemed like the commencement of labour being really the result of the foetus turning its head. " "Moreover, some women suffer most at the beginning of their pregnancy and some at a later period when the embryo has had time to grow; and in some women it is a common occurrence to suffer from strangury towards the end of their time. As a general rule women who are pregnant of a male child escape comparatively easily and retain a comparatively healthy look, but it is otherwise with those whose infant is a female; for these latter look as a rule paler and suffer more pain, and in many cases they are subject to swellings of the legs and eruptions on the body." "Women suffer most pain about the fourth and the eighth months, and if the foetus perishes in the fourth or in the eighth month the mother also succumbs as a general rule; so that not only do the eight-months' children not live, but when they die their mothers are in great danger of their own lives." "When women are in labour, their pains determine towards many divers parts of the body, and in most cases to one or other of the thighs. Those are the quickest to be delivered who experience severe pains in the region of the belly; and parturition is difficult in those who begin by suffering pain in the loins, and speedy when the pain is abdominal." "In other animals parturition is unaccompanied by pain, and the dam is plainly seen to suffer but moderate inconvenience. In women, however, the pains are more severe, and this is especially the case in persons of sedentary habits, and in those who are weak-chested and short of breath. Labour is apt to be especially difficult if during the process the woman while exerting force with her breath fails to hold it in. " -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Aug 24 04:02:15 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:02:15 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2008/8/24 Amara Graps : > Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com : >> >> Anyone who has witnessed normal childbirth and says labour >> isn't painful is contemptuous of women. > > I don't think you read my messages, Stathis (there were many since > I am obviously quite invested in this topic, unlike you), because you > missed my point completely. I find your message insulting. I'm sorry Amara, but if I had anyone in mind when I wrote that message it was the Greek philosophers and physicians you alluded to (Hippocrates, Aristotle, Soranus), not you. To explain my position, I have witnessed and assisted at several dozen deliveries during my medical training, and in most of those, the mother was in terrible pain: worse pain than I have seen in emergency departments, surgical wards or cancer palliative care wards. Given that this is my experience, what should I think of someone who makes the same observations but concludes that it isn't really such a big deal for the mother? Pain is still pain even if you get a reward at the end of it and develop retrograde amnesia. -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Aug 24 04:07:02 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:07:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell? References: <16ea01c9046a$4bddee90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <172201c9055a$b4fa7c40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <178AAD35D64542D995F4C33208FF3788@Catbert> Message-ID: <005201c9059f$1568d2e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Harvey writes (forgive me for chopping up your email and replying to various parts, perhaps out of order) > Someone comes up with some face-recognition program, or > terrorist detection algorithm, or threat estimation theory, that they claim > is 99% accurate. It recognizes the terrorists 99% of the time, and only > gets a false-positive on a non-terrorist 1% of the time. Sounds great. It > gets implemented. Then it fails miserably in the field. > > Why? > > Because for every terrorist going through an airport, there are probably a > million non-terrorists. That means: > - 1 real terrorist gets identified (because it's 99% accurate) > - 10,000 non-terrorists get identified (because it's 1% false-positive) > ... so your system only works 1/10,000th of the time. When it identifies a > person as a terrorist, the odds are 10,000-to-1 that they're innocent. This > terrorist detection system won't actually work in the field. Well, to keep the issues straight, you are suggesting that if a known criminal X (of whatever race) passes through an airport that today's present face-recognition programs are pretty much useless? (Whereas human spotters, I presume, are not at all useless.) Or, contrariwise, do you mean terrorist-spotting software, e.g. which for argument's sake say are quite effective at distinguishing Middle-Eastern young men from Indian young men, are useless because of these statistical facts you adduce? And (on the same point as this last paragraph) terrorist-spotting humans at, say the Tel Aviv airport---using every clue they can ---get way too many false positives to be of any use? Also, let me weaken that entirely separate claim a little bit to two questions, A and B: A: "Are telling me that a row of six or more recent convicted terrorist bombers could not be distinguished at the ninety-percent level of confidence from a numerically similar row of Londoners picked at random" Surely you agree that I'm right about *that*, but I grant that this was not the correct meaning to take from my missive, and you did jump at the correct meaning, namely B: "are you telling me that a row of six or more recent convicted terrorist bombers could not be distinguished at the ninety-percent level of confidence from a numerically similar row of Londoners of completely matching age and sex?" Best regards, Lee ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 8:07 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell? > "Lee Corbin" wrote, >> Why is there >> no mention whatsoever of *probabilities*? Or are you trying >> to tell me that a row of recent convicted terrorist bombers >> would not in fact stand out compared to a random sample >> of people from London? That a six year old would be unable >> to tell which group was which? > > Yes, that is precisely right. Probabilities don't work as well as you would > expect, due to Bayesian statistics. I run into this in the security field > all the time. Someone comes up with some face-recognition program, or > terrorist detection algorithm, or threat estimation theory, that they claim > is 99% accurate. It recognizes the terrorists 99% of the time, and only > gets a false-positive on a non-terrorist 1% of the time. Sounds great. It > gets implemented. Then it fails miserably in the field. > > Why? > > Because for every terrorist going through an airport, there are probably a > million non-terrorists. That means: > - 1 real terrorist gets identified (because it's 99% accurate) > - 10,000 non-terrorists get identified (because it's 1% false-positive) > ... so your system only works 1/10,000th of the time. When it identifies a > person as a terrorist, the odds are 10,000-to-1 that they're innocent. This > terrorist detection system won't actually work in the field. > > Consider: > - 99% accurate, 1% false-postive --> 10,000:1 falsely accusing the innocent > - 99.9% accurate, 0.1% false-postive --> 1000:1 falsely accusing the > innocent > - 99.99% accurate, 0.01% false-postive --> 100:1 falsely accusing the > innocent > - 99.999% accurate, 0.001% false-postive --> 10:1 falsely accusing the > innocent > - 99.9999% accurate, 0.0001% false-postive --> 1:1 falsely accusing the > innocent (50/50 chance of working) > - 99.99999% accurate, 0.00001% false-postive --> 1:10 falsely accusing the > innocent (better than even chance or working) > > You would need a system that is 99.99999% accurate with only 0.00001% > false-postive rate to have it actually catch more terrorists than innocent > people. Nothing is that perfect with that low an error rate. No > "probabilities" dealing with random human persnalities are that precise. > Random human variation acts as noise that obscures what you are trying to > measure. It simply doesn't work. > > -- > Harvey Newstrom > CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP > > From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Aug 24 04:09:36 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:09:36 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2008/8/24 BillK : > I am only a mere man, of course, but I wouldn't go to the dentist > without painkillers, far less childbirth. The problem is that there is a double standard: women are sometimes made to feel like failures for requesting pain relief because childbirth is "natural", whereas they would quite rightly be outraged if they were denied pain relief for something *less* painful, like a dental procedure. -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Aug 24 04:46:46 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:46:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <580930c20808140430p438ed9daq3891e9a1c2589ec5@mail.gmail.com> <036b01c902ce$ca2bb3b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808200757s5ef27aeav7dd1f0665017c336@mail.gmail.com> <160001c903ea$2856d660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808231049q5774246etd70cb4d1d6e9ba25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007001c905a4$b355a640$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano writes > Lee wrote: > >> The reason I advance for favoring Homo Sapiens in a contest >> for my affections over some lizard race from Sirius is two-fold. >> For one, similarity of structure (including all the aforementioned >> traits such as emotion and so on). For two, we naturally have >> a certain solidarity with our cell-mates, our fellow city residents, >> our national comrades, and even (up to a point) our gender or >> racial brethren. > > Actually, I am rather inclined to accept such order of ideas as > "natural" myself, even though it might end up having both of us > labelled as specieists, racists, ethnocentrists, nationalists, male > chauvinists, or just chauvinists. :-) Oh, that could happen all right---but I've been called far worse :-) For me, the 11th commandment might read "Thou shalt not defect against thy brethren", whether that means for me (strongest case) fellow life-boat survivors from the Titanic, or (weakest case) fellow men. > (In fact, I tend instead to consider that diversity can only be based > on everybody's love for their own identity). What does that mean? I can't parse it at all. Diversity (or diverseness) is to me an objective *condition* that may or may not hold to some degree about one group of entities compared to another (more homogeneous) group of entities. > But all this is *synchronic*. Diacronically, and as far as offspring > are concerned, what one really would like is not to have one's children > (or, for that matter, one's clones) *exactly* identical to what one > is. He or she usually wants them to be as much better, more > accomplished, stronger, healthier and more successful as possible. Yes, but there are many possible versions of *me* that are stronger, healthier, smarter, etc. I surely would prefer them to some extremely risky genetic lottery with a..., with a *woman*. > This is after all what sexual selection, education, preventive > medicine and the drive towards genetic engineering is about. Yes, that's what those things are about all right. Each of them you mention is indeed aimed at improving human stock (one way or another). But *my* preferences don't always coincide with that, as I've said. Better us, say I, than entirely non-human entities a billion times our superiors in every way, if it's an either-or choice. > One would expect replicators whose bearers tend to favour > similar vehicles over more different ones to get a reproductive > edge, wouldn't one? Well, actually, not *too* similar. I think that the rather striking way that so many brothers fail to closely resemble each other and the way that so many sisters fail to closely resemble each other is that evolution has found it a good idea to cover its bets. E.g., let's make a fat one and a thin one because the climate, physical hardiness, and sexual opportunities are not so predictable. > What I am say here is that for sure to restrict the usage of H+ > technology to the (hardly natural) preservation of humanity as close > as possible to its current average traits for as long as possible > would not really be a good bet for the survival of the human clade in > vastly different context. I guess you're right. > The clades - the , if you prefer, the > lineages or the monophyletic groups - last as much as they are able to > change, branch, diversify and adapt... The others are much more > vulnerable to extinction, namely in the sense not of just not being > around any more in their past forms, but more radically of leaving > just fossils behind. True enough. > This is why those who believe that "survival" - in some other sense > than individual, physical survival - should be considered as a primal > value, should hardly fear a posthuman change in terms of an > "existential risk". Well, at the risk of repeating myself, I cannot agree. By the "similarity of structure" criterion, there is everything to fear. >>> and would lead us to conclude that it would have been a >>> good idea for our simian ancestors, at least from their >>> point of view, to put in place an eugenic programme >>> aimed at avoiding the kind of evolutionary change that >>> ultimately led to ourselves. >> >> Heh, well of course it would have been a good idea---for *them*! > > Mmhhh. They may well not have survived anyway, at least they have > descendants they could be to some extent be proud of... :-) To me, such "pride" is misplaced. In fact, now that I think of it (thanks!), how much pride I *may* experience lies along almost exactly the same continuum as the solidarity continuum I was speaking of earlier. I can feel almost zero pride at being white, or being an American, because I didn't do anything to achieve that, nor did my family, nor did my office-mates at work. I'm just a bit more proud that we Californians seem to have (or to have had) a level of egalitarianism and lack of corruption that is in advance of a number of other states I could mention. But suppose the big S occurs, the solar system sports only entities who are to us as we are to amoebas, and they come into stellar conflict with a still-DNA molecularly reproducing people (with tails, four legs, six eyes, and a fondness for tyrannical government) who nonetheless appreciate art and music in ways not altogether different from us, and who have the same kind of loyalty/solidarity continuum that I've just described. I would be on *their* side, not on the side of my inhuman descendants. This last point is similar to the points made in certain popular movies such as "The Bad Seed" and "The Good Son" in which a parent tries to kill or show extreme disfavor to an evil offspring, and instead favors another child who is not related but who has a much superior purity of soul. Lee > And, in any event, "animal eugenism [eugenicism]" regularly tends to > eliminate less-than-average Darwinian bets, not better-than-average... From spike66 at att.net Sun Aug 24 05:02:03 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:02:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <007001c905a4$b355a640$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200808240502.m7O522HQ018626@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ... On Behalf Of Lee Corbin ... > ...For me, the 11th commandment might read "Thou shalt > not defect... Lee Lee have you ever counted the commandments? There are already 11 of them. No kidding, see Exodus chapter 20. I know we often hear of the ten commandments, and we use a figure of speech for a really good rule as the 11th commandment, but if one actually counts them, there are eleven there. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Aug 24 05:26:34 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:26:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <200808240502.m7O522HQ018626@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <007001c905a4$b355a640$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200808240502.m7O522HQ018626@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080824002054.0238eec0@satx.rr.com> At 10:02 PM 8/23/2008 -0700, spike wrote: >Lee have you ever counted the commandments? There are already 11 of them. >No kidding, see Exodus chapter 20. Are you counting these as 2? 1: 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 20:5 2: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. perhaps on the grounds that even if you don't *engrave* your own, you'd still better not worship anyone else's? Either way, it's pretty obvious that we have to get rid of the Hubble telescope as soon as possible. And those submarine cameras like the gadgets in "Titanic" are an abomination, surely deserving of several generations of iniquity visiting, whether it's the 1st or 2nd commandment they breach. Damien Broderick From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Aug 24 05:42:26 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:42:26 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: <001d01c90553$0ff72790$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808231105h6c892caag25caccaf27266357@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c90553$0ff72790$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: 2008/8/24 Olga Bourlin : >> I have always considered the term "sociopaths" as referred to >> individuals who are dysfunctional in their inability to conform to the >> social norms of their community - sometimes perhaps with good cause, >> but this is another story. >> >> Definitely not as referred to individuals that simply behave as ideal >> utility maximisers in the sense of classic economic theory. > > I agree with you. I thought "narcissist" was the going term for those > individuals ... The DSM-IV groups a number of personality disorders under "cluster B": antisocial, borderline, narcissistic and histrionic. Often a clear diagnosis cannot be made, even using the prescriptive DSM (which changes the criteria with each new version), and sometimes we end up saying something like, "she has borderline and narcissistic personality traits". There is a lot of controversy regarding personality disorders in psychiatry and some clinicians or services will dismiss someone as being "not mentally ill" on the grounds that they have a personality disorder, or "Axis II" diagnosis in the DSM, rather than an "Axis I" diagnosis such as schizophrenia or depression; the practical difference being that the latter is treatable with drugs while the former is not. Getting back to sociopaths, the fundamental problem seems to be that they don't care about other peoples' feelings and have no internalised moral sense (narcissists do care about other peoples' feelings insofar as they have a high opinion of themselves and want others to admire them). An additional problem is that they behave recklessly and impulsively, which results in them ending up in prison and makes it into the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria. But we can imagine a quasi-sociopath who was rational and calculating, preferring to use legal methods to get his way, and only breaking the law when certain he could get away with it. -- Stathis Papaioannou From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Aug 24 06:01:59 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 01:01:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808231105h6c892caag25caccaf27266357@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c90553$0ff72790$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080824005617.02376278@satx.rr.com> At 03:42 PM 8/24/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote: >narcissists do care about other peoples' feelings insofar >as they have a high opinion of themselves and want others to admire >them Some claim, rather, that narcissists do care about other peoples' feelings insofar as they have a frighteningly low opinion of themselves and desperately need others to admire and validate them. (Narcissus, after all, fwiw, thought mistakenly that the face reflected in the pond was that of Another who gazed up at him with smitten adoration.) (And I suppose at this point Lacan would say something gnomic about the Mirror Stage. But then I don't care what Lacan says about anything.) Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 24 07:17:32 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:17:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080824002054.0238eec0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <155752.14700.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the > LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers > upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; > 20:6 > And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my > commandments.[*] * According to some sources close to Moses there was a footnote on the original stone tablet (the one he broke) that read: "This offer not valid to residents of flood plains, hurricane corridors, earthquake faultlines, volcanic chains, tornado alleys, brushfire zones, and asteroid impact areas. Employees of the LORD thy God and their families are not eligible. Void where prohibited." Stuart LaForge "A portion of mankind take pride in their vices and pursue their purpose; many more waver between doing what is right and complying with what is wrong." - Horace From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Aug 24 11:23:42 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:23:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <580930c20808240423l2899f029w1dad4fa3cb115571@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > To explain my position, I > have witnessed and assisted at several dozen deliveries during my > medical training, and in most of those, the mother was in terrible > pain: worse pain than I have seen in emergency departments, surgical > wards or cancer palliative care wards. One wonders how pain would be measured and compared in such different contexts. Might it be a misinterpretation of symptoms on the part of the (male) physician? Moreover, one wonders why so few women have ever committed suicide to stop the pain, or demanded euthanasia, and how more than a few refuse anesthesiac or analgesiac treatments that would be very poor candidates for resisting even bland torture. In principle, pain signals body damage in order to have the organism take whatever action is possible to avoid it. In the context of birth-giving, may it be that the "interpretation" by the woman of the "pain" involved ends up being different either for biological or for cultural reasons, even in a culture obsessed with pain and stress avoidance and with an average very low pain threshold? Lastly, there are a few women who (allegedly) give birth without even realising it, and thinking they had to go to the toilet. This suggests that at the very least a wide range exists with regard to birth-giving pains... Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Aug 24 11:29:39 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:29:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808231105h6c892caag25caccaf27266357@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c90553$0ff72790$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <580930c20808240429i30551e4bn1837dc2ea5f737a8@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > But we can imagine a > quasi-sociopath who was rational and calculating, preferring to use > legal methods to get his way, and only breaking the law when certain > he could get away with it. Why, if you deal with the economic analysis of law, say Posner, this is what humanity is supposed to be composed of, at least for the sake of legislative, contractual and judiciary strategies... :-) Stefano Vaj From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Aug 24 12:43:33 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:43:33 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction In-Reply-To: <580930c20808240423l2899f029w1dad4fa3cb115571@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20808240423l2899f029w1dad4fa3cb115571@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2008/8/24 Stefano Vaj : > On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> To explain my position, I >> have witnessed and assisted at several dozen deliveries during my >> medical training, and in most of those, the mother was in terrible >> pain: worse pain than I have seen in emergency departments, surgical >> wards or cancer palliative care wards. > > One wonders how pain would be measured and compared in such different > contexts. Might it be a misinterpretation of symptoms on the part of > the (male) physician? Moreover, one wonders why so few women have ever > committed suicide to stop the pain, or demanded euthanasia, and how > more than a few refuse anesthesiac or analgesiac treatments that would > be very poor candidates for resisting even bland torture. Pain is in the first instance measured by the loudness of the screams and the urgent demands for analgesia. It's true, they do sometimes refuse analgesia despite the terrible pain, but this is the point I am making: the same level of pain is deemed "acceptable" in one situation but not in another. There are also instruments such as the McGill Pain Index which rate labour pain as among the worst it is possible to experience, as in the Textbook of Obstetric Anaesthesia excerpt I quoted in a parallel thread. Acute pain is fundamentally different to chronic pain in that it does not generally lead to suicide or demands for euthanasia: the pain will eventually stop, after all. But the pain of surgical procedures (and for that matter, torture) is also acute and self-limited, and we don't think it's OK to do away with anaesthetics on that basis. > In principle, pain signals body damage in order to have the organism > take whatever action is possible to avoid it. In the context of > birth-giving, may it be that the "interpretation" by the woman of the > "pain" involved ends up being different either for biological or for > cultural reasons, even in a culture obsessed with pain and stress > avoidance and with an average very low pain threshold? No doubt cultural factors modulate pain threshold and the overall distress that a given amount of pain will cause. If you have a niggle in your stomach which you are sure is benign, it isn't going to bother you as much as the same niggle which you suspect may be due to a malignant process. Still, we don't expect that people will put up with terrible pain on the grounds that they understand it is self-limited and not likely to result in permanent damage or disability. > Lastly, there are a few women who (allegedly) give birth without even > realising it, and thinking they had to go to the toilet. This suggests > that at the very least a wide range exists with regard to birth-giving > pains... Yes, as in any other case. Some people have surprisingly little pain after trauma or surgery and others have a lot. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Aug 24 12:56:25 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:56:25 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: <580930c20808240429i30551e4bn1837dc2ea5f737a8@mail.gmail.com> References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808231105h6c892caag25caccaf27266357@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c90553$0ff72790$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <580930c20808240429i30551e4bn1837dc2ea5f737a8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2008/8/24 Stefano Vaj : > On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> But we can imagine a >> quasi-sociopath who was rational and calculating, preferring to use >> legal methods to get his way, and only breaking the law when certain >> he could get away with it. > > Why, if you deal with the economic analysis of law, say Posner, this > is what humanity is supposed to be composed of, at least for the sake > of legislative, contractual and judiciary strategies... :-) Which is all the law should care about. Lee's original question was whether someone who could be demonstrated to be sociopathic despite an ability to hide it should be treated differently by the law than his non-sociopathic counterpart. But if he were really good at hiding his sociopathy he would not be any more likely to commit a crime than anyone else. This is like a variation on the philosophical zombie argument: what if someone *honestly believed* that everyone else was a zombie (or equivalently, that no-one else's feelings mattered even if they did have feelings) but was committed to behave as if they weren't because it would make life easier for him? -- Stathis Papaioannou From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Sun Aug 24 13:37:28 2008 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:37:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080824002054.0238eec0@satx.rr.com> References: <007001c905a4$b355a640$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808240502.m7O522HQ018626@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080824002054.0238eec0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <9B8CC6878CB2432F9037CF5E918BCC40@Catbert> "Damien Broderick" , >>Lee have you ever counted the commandments? There are already 11 of them. >>No kidding, see Exodus chapter 20. > > Are you counting these as 2? See . -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From pharos at gmail.com Sun Aug 24 13:41:43 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:41:43 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <200808240502.m7O522HQ018626@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <007001c905a4$b355a640$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200808240502.m7O522HQ018626@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 5:02 AM, spike wrote: > Lee have you ever counted the commandments? There are already 11 of them. > No kidding, see Exodus chapter 20. I know we often hear of the ten > commandments, and we use a figure of speech for a really good rule as the > 11th commandment, but if one actually counts them, there are eleven there. > We call them ten commandments because we have ten fingers and that is the easy way to remember them. Of course, these declarations from a savage, primitive tribe who lived in a world of magical powers and sorcery, where slavery was customary and women were property, and whose God ordered genocide on neighboring tribes, orginally had a completely different meaning to the hygienic modern version served up by religious leaders. http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewten0c.htm BillK From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Sun Aug 24 13:05:30 2008 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:05:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell? In-Reply-To: <005201c9059f$1568d2e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <16ea01c9046a$4bddee90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><172201c9055a$b4fa7c40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><178AAD35D64542D995F4C33208FF3788@Catbert> <005201c9059f$1568d2e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0B092EDE99734DFEA402198E9C970F84@Catbert> "Lee Corbin" wrote, > Harvey writes (forgive me for chopping up your email and replying to > various parts, perhaps out of order) That's what e-mail is for. :-) > Well, to keep the issues straight, you are suggesting that > if a known criminal X (of whatever race) passes through > an airport that today's present face-recognition programs > are pretty much useless? Yes. Because of the statistics I exemplified, the system will not only spot the known criminal, but a large number of people who are not wanted. They will waste their time with 10,000 unwanted people for every watned one. Over the course of a year, that means they will detain 27 innocent people every day for a year before they get one wanted guy. The system won't last that long. They will yank it and declare it doesn't work. I'm not just theorizing this. We tried to use such a system in Florida at our Bowl game a few years ago to catch wanted criminals and deadbeat dads (not paying child support). Bowl security was swamped with hundreds of false positives. They did not find a single wanted person, even though there probably were some in the crowd. They then theorized that pre-bowl publicity kept criminals from going to the game. So they deployed this in Tampa's Ybor district and used it for a whole year. Not one real recognition was made. All they got were false positives. Google for "florida super bowl face recognition" > (Whereas human spotters, I presume, are not at all useless.) I don't have evidence for this, but anectodally, humans were not much better. The system matched exact facial dimensions, but got gender, height, weight, race, and other obvious traits wrong. But if the criminal had altered their appearance, with beard, hair colr, different hair-cut, glasses, etc., the computer would still match it but the human double-check would likely think it was a poor match. In general, I don't think facial recognition (human or computer) works that well. Detecting fingerprints, DNA, electronic IDs, vehicle registrations, RFID tags, and other exact matches would probably work better. As well as actually trying to track down a suspect to their actual location rather than randomly looking around and expecting them to walk by. Again, it's all statistics. The number of non-matches just overwhelms the (human and machine) systems. > Or, contrariwise, do you mean terrorist-spotting software, > e.g. which for argument's sake say are quite effective at > distinguishing Middle-Eastern young men from Indian young > men, are useless because of these statistical facts you adduce? Yes. Such software is notoriously poor at recognizing race, which cannot be precisely defined between groups. Even a small 1% overlap between racial groups can cause the statistical large number of false positives. I can't find the rigorous studies I have seen, but I found a couple of examples new to me that describe the difficulties. http://www.anonequity.org/weblog/archives/2007/06/are_biometrics_raceneutral.php http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1770976 > And (on the same point as this last paragraph) terrorist-spotting > humans at, say the Tel Aviv airport---using every clue they can > ---get way too many false positives to be of any use? Tel Aviv does not rely on racial profiling or other profiling like the US is trying to do. (They may use it, but it isn't key.) They screen every single bag. They screen every single passenger. They lock passengers out of the cock-pit. They have strong security unstead of underpaid TSA contractors. And most importantly, they profile behaviors or dangerous materials they want to detect, and not secondary characteristics like race or religion that a very large number of innocent people have. Thus, they don't get this massive list of false positives. Tel Aviv has the strategy of keeping dangerous materials off planes by looking for those materials, and keeping suspicious people off planes by detecting suspicious behavior. The U.S. strategy seems to be trying to tell who is guilty by their past credit histories and what they look like, while doing a poor job searching their bags or watching their current/actual behavior. The former strategy is more direct to the goal and more objectively measurable than the U.S. strategy. > Also, let me weaken that entirely separate claim a little bit to two > questions, A and B: > > A: "Are telling me that a row of six or more recent convicted > terrorist bombers could not be distinguished at the ninety-percent > level of confidence from a numerically similar row of Londoners > picked at random" Surely you agree that I'm right about *that*, No, I don't agree. As I showed with my statistical correlation, that false-positives overwhelm the systems a thousand times over. How would you distinguish them? Are you saying they look different? Are you saying they act different? Do you suppose there are forensics traces of dangerous materials in their clothes? What do you claim to be looking for that could be distinguished? Race isn't enough, because there are a lot of middle-easterners in London. Religion, language, even hatred toward other groups is not a good predictor of terrorism. Could you be more specific about what exactly you think you could see? There is a reason we have trials with evidence and just don't convict people because they "look" guilty. > B: "are you telling me that a row of six or more recent convicted > terrorist bombers could not be distinguished at the ninety-percent > level of confidence from a numerically similar row of Londoners > of completely matching age and sex?" I explained how a 9.9999% accurate system with only 0.0001% error rate still isn't good enough. Your 99% or 90% aren't even in the ballpark. I know it sounds counter-intuitive (as with much of Baysean statistics). But if you work the numbers out of your random sampling, you simply won't get correct answers more than you get wrong answers. The numbers just don't work out most of the time. (Being in the security field, I really am interested in new ideas and schemes that might work. But many of the "obvious" schemes have already been tried and failed.) -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Sun Aug 24 13:09:23 2008 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:09:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction In-Reply-To: <580930c20808240423l2899f029w1dad4fa3cb115571@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20808240423l2899f029w1dad4fa3cb115571@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2761D42E338549FDB762F730970C191B@Catbert> "Stefano Vaj" wrote, > Moreover, one wonders why so few women have ever > committed suicide to stop the pain, or demanded euthanasia, and how > more than a few refuse anesthesiac or analgesiac treatments that would > be very poor candidates for resisting even bland torture. Actually, while I was Googling last night in response to this thread, I ran accross the statistic that over half the women who refuse pain-killers change their mind and demand pain-killers during the actual labor. Even under their determination not to use them, most of them cannot. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Aug 24 14:29:23 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:29:23 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Subject: Re: Human extinction In-Reply-To: <2761D42E338549FDB762F730970C191B@Catbert> References: <580930c20808240423l2899f029w1dad4fa3cb115571@mail.gmail.com> <2761D42E338549FDB762F730970C191B@Catbert> Message-ID: <580930c20808240729s68756f72t37e6af49c6f6961e@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > Actually, while I was Googling last night in response to this thread, I ran > accross the statistic that over half the women who refuse pain-killers > change their mind and demand pain-killers during the actual labor. Even > under their determination not to use them, most of them cannot. Yes, and so it is the case for people who object to painkillers on health or naturist grounds, and then develop an occasional migraine. And some women, unless they are administered c-section, do have more difficult than average labours, owing to the fact that troubles in giving birth has become a less and less selected-off trait. But I understand that highly motivated, bold, hard, fully-conditioned, ready-to-martyrdom Al Qaeda executives crumbled after five minutes of officially-endorsed, non-life threatening torture, albeit winning the admiration of US agents who could never stand forty seconds of it. How can we suppose that far-from-heroic women who at least in the framework of a "normal" labour manage to do without drugs are simply brain-washed to do so? Screaming may well have physiological or evolutionary purposes, their interpretation by the proximate public as extreme pain being possibly one of them. Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Aug 24 14:36:10 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:36:10 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808231105h6c892caag25caccaf27266357@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c90553$0ff72790$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <580930c20808240429i30551e4bn1837dc2ea5f737a8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20808240736v7570ec54ke162068cb751f3b9@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >This is like a variation on the philosophical zombie > argument: what if someone *honestly believed* that everyone else was a > zombie (or equivalently, that no-one else's feelings mattered even if > they did have feelings) but was committed to behave as if they weren't > because it would make life easier for him? Why, isn't supposing that other subjects have (similar to yours) feelings simply a projection, "hallucinating" in NLP terminology? :-) Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Sun Aug 24 14:46:22 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 07:46:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080824002054.0238eec0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200808241446.m7OEkOuW015254@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Damien Broderick > Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 10:27 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Human extinction > > At 10:02 PM 8/23/2008 -0700, spike wrote: > > >Lee have you ever counted the commandments? There are > already 11 of them. > >No kidding, see Exodus chapter 20. > > Are you counting these as 2? > > 1: > > 20:4 > Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any > likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in > the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. > 20:5 > > 2: > > Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for > I the LORD thy God am a jealous God... Ja we suspected that all along. Now get a load of this: > ...visiting the iniquity of > the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth > generation of them that hate me... sincerely, God What is that about? If I am a pious guy whose grandfather, whom I might never have met, was a son of a bitch, then my life will be screwed too? In any case, a customary way for Protestants to count them is to see verse 3 of Exodus 20 as the first commandment: 3: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Then verses 4 and 5 about graven images becomes number 2. Then in order to get to ten commandments, the hapless protestants are forced to combine the last two commandments into one, verse 17, that bit about coveting they neighbor's wife, his house, his manservant, maidservant, ox, ass, or anything that is thy neighbor's. What that does is equate thy neighbor's wife with his other possessions. But most people today can see a critical reason why coveting thy neighbor's wife is *completely* different from coveting his stuff. Secondly, the verse tacitly sanctions slavery. The manservant and maidservants are surely not hired hands, otherwise one would merely offer them more money to come over. So here is slavery, endorsed in words written in stone by god himself in Exodus 20 verse 17. spike From dharris234 at mindspring.com Mon Aug 25 01:25:46 2008 From: dharris234 at mindspring.com (David C. Harris) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:25:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <45055.12.77.169.52.1219401169.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <200808212216.m7LMG10v014764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <008801c903fd$9354d7b0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <45055.12.77.169.52.1219401169.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <48B20A1A.7070407@mindspring.com> MB wrote: > I've heard that the C-section is now sometimes preferred as a way to avoid lawsuits. > Bizarre. > > Regards, > MB > > Avoiding lawsuits and dealing with the problem of birth times being unpredictable. Obstetricians, like other doctors, expect to make hundreds of dollars an hour to pay for staff, building, etc. --- and their salary. Natural childbirth has a huge randomness in its timing. The OB's can avoid standing around often late at night, when babies seem to come naturally, if they use labor-inducing drugs like Pitocin (synthetic oxytocin) or cut the baby out in a C-section (aka Caesarean section, after Julius Caesar). Midwives work with the natural timing, which reduces their births/month productivity. And midwives have "scope of practice" rules that indicate when they should take a serious problem to medical institutions. The scheduling problem is similar to the time of death which makes cryonics transport teams spend a lot of time waiting for death to occur. Both ends of life are hard to schedule, as are a lot of natural processes in between. ;-) -David Harris From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Aug 25 02:48:14 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:18:14 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Got blog! Message-ID: <710b78fc0808241948s61001650w24ce38285f1d82fd@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, I stopped working full time about a year and a half ago, and it's taken me this long to adjust. Phew! But adjust I have, and now it's time to do something really productive with that time. But better than doing something would be to blather on about stuff at great length, so I've decided to do that. I've kicked off three new blogs, as follows: "point7" (http://point7.wordpress.com) is a serious blog that my wife Jodie and I are writing together, on downshifting, materialism, and maybe the possibility of finding an authentic life. The title refers to my shift to 0.7 of full time work hours. This blog is where I'm at my most hardcore, and will probably irritate capitalism enthusiasts. "Speaking of Freedom - Great speeches of our time" (http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com) is a video feed blog, strictly for talks and speeches loosely about freedom and creativity in the internet connected world. Very specific, but I do run across these things, often long and excellent. It might become a miro channel if things work out, but in any case you can subscribe to the cast at http://feeds.feedburner.com/SpeakingOfFreedom. I actually created it as a channel for myself, because I like a place to put these kinds of talks so I can watch them at my leisure, but you might find it interesting too. "Actualizer" (http://actualizer.wordpress.com) is a link blog of stuff of interest to people who do stuff, culled from the zillions of lists and feeds and nonsense that I subscribe to in this eWorld. Curt descriptions, interesting links. Hopefully these are of interest to some of you. Also, as mentioned above I subscribe to a lot of lists and feeds and so forth, but I always want more. Who's got blog? Or got recommendations? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com - my home http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks on eCulture http://actualizer.wordpress.com - for doing stuff From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Aug 25 03:10:44 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:10:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Got blog! In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0808241948s61001650w24ce38285f1d82fd@mail.gmail.co m> References: <710b78fc0808241948s61001650w24ce38285f1d82fd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080824220751.0238b098@satx.rr.com> >"point7" (http://point7.wordpress.com) is a serious blog that my wife >Jodie and I are writing together, on downshifting, materialism, and >maybe the possibility of finding an authentic life. The title refers >to my shift to 0.7 of full time work hours. This blog is where I'm at >my most hardcore, and will probably irritate capitalism enthusiasts. Some interesting points, Emlyn! Keep it up, and eventually Google will buy you out for $3.2 billion and you'll be able to hire thousands of serfs to write the blog for you. :) Damien Broderick! From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Aug 25 04:12:40 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:12:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR References: <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com><00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer><001201c90168$e982a690$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <003601c90541$c26c9980$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: <003c01c90668$d71346e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> John Clark writes > You're not screwed. I think you would agree that if relativity is > consistent and the string breaks in one point of view it must break in > them all. Yes, but that does not address the heart of the mystery. I need to go dig out that excellent paragraph you wrote which I vividly remember as a complete explanation (much better than my own earlier and longer one). > So let's forget about the string for the moment and just imagine > observing 2 distant spaceships at rest relative to you in the night sky > 90 degrees apart. Suddenly at the same instant (from your point of > view) both start accelerating to the same very high speed in the > same direction. The apparent distance between spaceships does not > change, but imagine if it did; 90 degrees of the night sky would start > to contract to a point even though neither you nor any of the trillions > of stars in that part of the sky changed their motion one bit. > > Obviously it's crazy that now we can only see 270 degrees of the > universe because of what two distant spaceships did. Sorry, but I find all this quite baffling. I don't know what some imaginary decrease in that geometry you describe has to do with anything. First you say that they're 90 degrees apart in my field of vision, then they take off in the same direction (presumably away from me). The apparent distance between them *does* decrease; I think you must mean the *measured* distance (which corrects for distance, relative velocities, light signal delay, and so on). > Now forget the spaceships and just observe a string moving very > fast, it will contract in the direction of motion just like spaceships; > put these two things together and you can only have a broken string. Yes, but some readers may wonder why the spaceships don't break and the strings do. For example, your argument might be applied to the front end and the back end of a spaceship, thus suggesting that perhaps spaceships should break too. And the answer is *not* that it's merely that spaceships are built of sterner stuff. No, the answer is that the spaceships are independently powered. If all the spaceships were on a Union Pacific train each tied down to its own flat car, the entire train would contract, and the strings between the spaceships would not break. > Although it can be a useful approximation if things don't become too > extreme there really is no such thing as an "accelerating frame of > reference". Right. When people attempt to see what's really going on in this paradox and they begin to use this phrase, it's a sign that they should stop right there and see if they can't express their thoughts in other language. > For example, an observer on the lead ship will know > with certainty that he is accelerating and know the direction it is > occurring, he will note that the following spaceship is keeping up > with him so it must be accelerating too. Well, no, that's not correct. According to his *measurements* (beyond mere observations) the trailing spaceship is not keeping up with him. See Part Four of a dialog I just wrote and will post next. It's how Galileo himself might have understood Bell's Spaceship paradox, and my entire goal in writing the essay was to demonstrate on an intuitive level (allowing not even one equation) why logic dictates that the string must break. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Aug 25 04:19:14 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:19:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Intuitive Solution to Bell's Spaceship Paradox Message-ID: <004901c9066a$3e89ad40$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Intuitive Guide to SR and Bell's Spaceship Paradox or Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Spaceship Systems Avoiding mathematics almost entirely, we proceed to Step 1: Permanently disabuse oneself that simultaneity is real or frame-independent Step 2: Despite step 1, know what constitutes a line (or a plane) of simultaneity in a reference frame Step 3: Determine the *measurements* and logical conclusions that the ground observers and the spaceship travelers must come to. To this end, I am imagining a conversation I might have with Galileo, were I instantly transported back to 1612 along with (a) a thorough knowledge of Italian and the ability to articulately speak his dialect (b) a few trinkets such as pocket calculators, wristwatches, mechanical pencils and so forth with which to convince him that I was as much ahead of him in history as he is ahead of Aristotle, or more so. The dialog is divided into four parts: Part One: Objective Simultaneity Exposed as a Fraud Part Two: Galileo Learns About Cartesian Coordinates Part Three: Galileo Derives Properties of Special Relativity Part Four: Solving Bell's Spaceship Paradox in the Seventeenth Century Part One: Me: Good day, Signore Galileo. As I introduced myself to you last night, I promised you some fine discussion for today, encompassing strange and wondrous future knowledge. GG: Good morning! Ah, to have a protracted philosophical discussion with someone from a future time is bound to be most enlightening, one way or another. Please proceed. Me: As will not surprise you, you are quite right in your conclusions concerning the relativity of motion. But there are some incredible further consequences that can be deduced that took a full three centuries after your time to develop! GG: I'm eager to hear of them. Pray continue. Me: The first effect that I will convince you of is that it really is not possible to suppose that in any absolute sense two things can take place at exactly the same time, if there is any spatial distance whatever between them. GG: Unbelievable! But surely one must happen before the other, or *else* they occur at the same time? Me: First, we discovered in the 1880s the astonishing fact: the speed of light is finite and even constant, no matter who is measuring it, whether it be a person in motion or one at rest---or of two people, as you would put it, who are in relative motion to one another. All the measurements will yield precisely the same velocity. GG: How could this possibly be? Me: From the year 1880 or so until 1950, the finest philosophers in the entire world were just as baffled as you now find yourself to be, and even after that many went to their graves unwilling to admit that it could really be true, so outlandish and so offensive to common sense were the implications. Perhaps you can think of what some of those consequences might be. At this point, Galileo shuts his eyes, starts muttering to himself, and after three for four minutes---the equal of you or me doing so for an hour---says: GG: If I have understood the facts as you state them, and if these are indeed unimpeachable experimental results, then it must follow that the means of measuring this velocity of light, or the assumptions that go into doing such, are faulty in some fundamental and most peculiar manner. Now if someone is to say that an object, or even a ray of light, is approaching him or passing him by at a certain velocity, and this computation is at odds with another witness's, then from the standpoint of one witness, the other is making an error either in his measurement of distance or in his measurement of time, because velocity is simply the ratio of the two! And, though I don't see how this could be true, it follows inescapably from what you have said. Me: Yes, you have put your finger on the precise point. Either the other person's measurement of how much time has passed as the object moved from A to B, or the other person's measurement of what the actual distance is between A and B is---from our point of view---faulty. So let's say that there is one specific location, take the middle of the Piazza della Signoria in Florence for one, and another specific location, take the Leaning Tower in Pisa, and let there be a cannonball that travels at uniform velocity between the two. Which will you have it, Signore, that the person traveling alongside the cannon ball no longer measures the distance between Florence and Pisa as do we, or that his computation of the elapsed time is confounded? GG: (Galileo pauses and thinks for a minute) Ah, but one must entail the other! For if as you say, were we to erect a giant mirror at the Tower and from the distant Piazza, and send a beam of light there and have it reflect back to us, we must measure a different time interval than someone moving relative to us, I can intuitively feel that we would encounter a contradiction should we assume either that the distance he now measures between A and B has changed and the time remains the same or the other way around. I believe that I could show this mathematically. Let's see... Me: Wow, I don't know how you did that, and I still don't quite see it myself, but it happens that you are quite right! For now, please, let us delay your calculations for the benefit of whosoever might be reading this dialog at some future time. I think that all you have just succeeded in intuitively feeling---because, sir, you are certainly one *tremendous* natural philosopher---I say, I think all this can be expressed in simple words as follows. Consider a very long Venetian galley proceeding at a very fast clip in a strong wind and with the rowers doing their utmost. In the twentieth century there are small, well-known devices called "flashbulbs" that emit an extremely bright but nearly instantaneous flash of light in all directions, at which point a flashbulb is said to "used up" or "shot". Is it clear that if you and I had a flashbulb in our hands right here and now, that a spherical expanding shell of light would spread out---at the speed of light, of course ---with this point where we stand remaining at the center of the various spheres as seen over time? GG: Nothing could be clearer. But wait... I believe I see that there may be a difficulty here, if what you were saying about the constant--- Me: Yes, but please allow me. Let us suppose that along the banks of the canal in Venice, we have set up a system of very precise clocks which measure time with the utmost accuracy, and which have all been completely synchronized. This is possible because the clocks are not in motion with respect to one another, and none of the difficulties I mentioned before will--- GG: Yes, in fact, one could send light signals between them, and when finally, after an adjustment period, each person standing next to his clock would receive simultaneously the hour signal from the clock to his left and the clock to his right, even though he would have sent his own hour signal already. Me: Your speed of comprehension is truly staggering. But yes, it's exactly as you say. This is possible only because there is no relative motion--- GG: Yes, as you had explained before: on this point, every witness measures the same times that it takes light to travel between any given clock and the ones to the left or right. Me: Now let's suppose that just as the front end of the train is passing a clock that reads 12:00 the back end of the train is passing--- GG: Train? Me: Sorry, the front end of the galley has a flash bulb that explodes just as an adjacent clock hits 12:00 and a flash bulb explodes simultaneously next to a clock at the back end of the moving galley. Now given what we have said concerning the expanding spheres of light, you will admit that a witness situated exactly half way between these two clocks will see the flashbulb explosions at precisely the same instant. GG: Of course. But... ah! Now you are going to insert some additional clocks, if I am not mistaken, and this new series of clocks will be on the moving galley! Me: Very good! Precisely. Now if we--- GG: Ah, but the witness on the galley who is at the exact midpoint of the galley will *not* see the two signals at the same time! Ah ha! And this could be proved! Suppose that at the exact instant the flash of light from the front of the vessel is made to cause a cannon to fire in one direction, and the light from the stern of the vessel causes a different cannon to fire. Then we must logically have that the cannon set to receive the signal from the front of the galley will fire first! Me: And? GG: And so... the witness next to the two cannons at the center of the galley must calculate---must measure, as you would say---that the flashbulb at the front of the ship exploded first! Wait. I think that I can calculate an exact formula for this effect. Suppose that v is the velocity of the ship, and the velocity of light is... Me: Not now, please. You are about to derive formulas discovered between 1880 and 1905 known variously as "the Lorentz contraction", the "time-dilation effect", and so on. But let us see how much further it's possible to go without mathematics as yet. GG: But my belief is that nature is written in the language... Me: Oh yes, oh yes, we know all about your views on that, but again, please: not now. GG: Well, you have persuaded me absolutely that if your "facts" concerning the speed of light are true, then indeed there can be no absolute simultaneity. It would all depend on relative motion. If one witness claims that A and B occurred simultaneously, then a traveler moving relative to him and towards B will claim---or, excuse me---measure that B happened before A. Me: Yes. Well, let's take a break, if you don't mind and you can give me a nice little tour of Padua. * * * Part Two. Galileo Learns About Cartesian Coordinates GG: As we walked and ate, I was thinking these things through, and though I do have a visceral understanding, I think, it would be very, very hard to persuade anyone. Me: Are you aware of Cartesian coordinates? No, I think that this came around 1637, quite some time from now. What Descartes proposed was to draw a picture of the trajectory of a moving object by utilizing two lines, one of them horizontal that we will call the distance axis (or x-axis) and one vertical, which we shall call the time axis (or t-axis). Then it would be a simple matter to plot a coordinate pair, the x distance indicating the position, and the t distance indicating the time, both of which describe an object at a certain point in its trajectory. GG: A very simple idea. I've played around with such conceptions, though they don't seem to aid the understanding in any particular way. Me: It was found that such diagrams make the understanding of these thorny issues about light and time actually much simpler. Now if we were to calibrate the horizontal line in feet, and the vertical line in seconds, you can see that while this would suffice perfectly for describing, oh, say our just completed walk around Padua. But when we talk of--- GG: Ah, when we talk of the velocity of light, then such calibration... would be almost useless. Me: Indeed, you seem to anticipate my every move! Anyway, we eventually found it most convenient to use one unit of distance on the x-axis correspond visually to one unit of time on the t-axis so that the speed of light would make a half a right angle. GG: You mean that on such a diagram, while the rate of progress of a man walking would be scarcely distinguishable from the x-axis itself, something else moving at the velocity of light would make a forty-five degree angle, and the beam of light would be said to advance as far to the right as it does upward, supposing that we send light from the left to the right. Me: Just so. Now let us imagine another horizontal line situated not at t=0, but at t=1. That is, a horizontal line which indicates all the possible space and time positions that are simultaneous with our clock as our clock reads 1 second. GG: Very well. Of course, there is an entire network of such horizontal lines, each one corresponding to a different precisely measured time. Me: We call any such line a "line of simultaneity", for the simple reason that all the clocks at those indicated positions in space and time have precisely the same readings. GG: Provided that they are at rest with respect to our clock. Me: Er, yes, that's is exactly correct. Now the next thing that we must do is to attempt a very peculiar description on this so-called spacetime diagram. We are going to try to draw a new line that will correspond to all the spacetime position/events that are measured as simultaneous by the witness on the galley! GG: I see. Hmm. Let me think about this for a moment. Suppose that we bring ashore and assemble all the witnesses who were on the passing galley at the times of interest. Well, firstly, we shall have to draw upon our diagram the single report we already have, namely that the voyager at the galley's midpoint measures the flashbulb explosion at the ship's bow to have preceded the flashbulb explosion at the ship's stern. But we need something that he would have measured to be simultaneous, if we are to make progress on your suggestion that we depict a line of simultaneity as he would measure it. Me: Let us say that the galley is moving from left to right. Now let A indicate the back end of the galley on the diagram at the moment we measured the flashbulb explosion to have occurred, and let B indicate the position of the front end of the galley at that exact time. GG: Then we will have A at the center of the diagram where you have the time axis and the space axis cross... Me: We call that the origin of the Cartesian Coordinate diagram... GG: and so we we should place B about here, letting the distance between them on the x-axis represent the length of the galley. Me: What we require is two events, two flashbulb explosions that will be recorded as simultaneous by the person at the center of the galley--- GG: Or in fact anywhere along the galley, because we must allow that they have set up a network of synchronized clocks every bit as well calibrated as our network of clocks. Me: Yes. So where should we mark A' and B', two possibly new points on the diagram that will correspond to flashbulb explosions that will be recorded as simultaneous by the galley's passengers? GG: Well, very clearly, in order to compensate for the effect so far discussed, we must have the flashbulb explosion at the rear of the vessel take place first. This will neatly account for the extra time it takes---from our measurements ---to reach the center of the galley since the galley is in motion. For simplicity, let us have A' coincide with A at your "origin" of the coordinate system. Me: And B'? GG: B' will lie somewhere over here to the right, probably right above B, but at say, for convenience x=1, t=.5. Me: As a matter of fact, B' does not quite lie directly above B, if you recall your initial insight that one of the effects of time and space must entail the other. Galileo shuts his eyes and after a while says, GG: Hmm, I think that B' will lie above and slightly to the right of B! Is that right? Me: Well, I have *no* idea how you saw that, but then I'm not Galileo Galilee, one of the greatest physicists of all time, but yes, you are correct according to all the books I have read, and according to my own calculations as I have learned from several places how to perform. But it doesn't matter now. The essential point is that we now have two points on the galley's "line of simultaneity": one at the origin, and one at the position x=1, t=.5. What other points will there be? GG: Quite obviously if there were a parallel galley in motion along side our first galley, and it were twice as long, then the effect would scale up, and a flashbulb explosion at x=2, t=1 would be measured as simultaneous with the ones at x=1, t=.5 and x=0, t=0. And so this is the "line of simultaneity" we obtain once we fill in all the intermediate locations? Me: Yes. Well, I need to take a break before getting to the next important phenomenon to tell you about, called time dilation. GG: Care for some wine? * * * Part Three. Galileo Derives Properties of Special Relativity Me: Very good. Now let's forget about the first galleys we were discussing and I would like you to imagine an immense galley that is twenty thousand feet long and one thousand feet high. That is, in particular, the distance from the floor to the ceiling of the hold is 1000 feet. GG: A most impressive craft. You have in your time such enormous ships? Me: No. Big, but not that big. The purpose here is to make very concrete your earlier intuition that the time measurements of someone moving relative to you are systematically distorted from your measurements. Suppose that on the floor of the hold there is a perfectly flat mirror, and an equally perfect mirror adorns the ceiling of the hold. This is what I call the "Walt Disney arrangement" because when I was a boy a famous artist and entertainer drew a succession of many fine diagrams and presented them in a dramatization that made all of this very clear. I can now tell you something about the velocity of light. It so happens that light travels one foot in about one billionth of a second! And so, a beam of light that began at the bottom mirror would reach--- GG: In one millionth of a second it would strike the upper mirror and be reflected towards the bottom one, and this too would take just one millionth of a second. Light indeed travels most rapidly, if I am to believe your numbers. Me: Yes, quite. Let us use the word "microsecond" for this millionth of a second. Now everyone's measurements are in perfect agreement so long as the galley has not yet begun to move. One microsecond up, one microsecond down. But what will the measurements be when the vessel is in motion? GG: Ah, let me see. There must indeed be some effect. As I wrote in my own book---well, it's not published yet, but I intend to get around to that---a person in the hold of a vast ship cannot discern any motion, for in principle it could be he who is at rest and the docks and the distant mountains that are moving. Me: It so happens that in your honor we call this the "Galilean Principle of Relativity". So just to be perfectly clear, what times of transit up and down do the travelers on the the galley measure for the motion of the light between the mirrors? GG: As I said, one microsecond up and one microsecond down. But I see where you are going with this. We who are ashore must measure something rather different, because to us the light is not moving straight up and straight down, but on diagonal paths. (more muttering and then a long pause) Ah, incredible. But it seems inescapable. Their very *time* is proceeding at a rate less than our own! Unbelievable. This is truly travolgente [mind-boggling]. The very passage of time itself is not the same for them as it is for us. Now let's see, since the path length according to their measurements is ct (the speed of light times one micro-second), and the path length for us is by the Pythagorean Theorem--- Me: Not now. Please, our future readers--- GG: must be the square root of one minus the ratio of the velocity of movement to the speed of light, each multiplied by itself. Me: Yes, you've done it again. But let's return to principle here, the most vital component of understanding, the engine of intuition. For in reality the mathematics is pretty useless without a certain feel, or grasp of what is going on. So---what could you *now* say about the travelers who accompany the cannon ball flying between the Piazza and the Leaning Tower? GG: Their measurement of elapsed time for the journey will be less than our measurement. Ah! But! Since they are moving at a known velocity---and by symmetry all our measurements, theirs and ours, agree on that---then... they... must... measure the distance between the two cities to be less than we do! Incredible! Have I not made a mistake in reasoning somewhere? Me: No, you have not. You are completely correct in every particular. Indeed, they will *measure* the distance between Florence and Pisa to be less than the "true" distance, if by true we mean--- GG: If by "true" we mean the distance as measured by the cities themselves or rather by the presumed stationary inhabitants of the cities! Me: Precisely. In fact, every mile of the distance will be, according to their measurements, less than one mile! And if they measure a donkey they pass by, it will be measured to be length-contracted in the direction of motion by the same token. GG: This is simply too travolgente. Come, let us rest for a while and let me consider all this. Me: Well, next, we will consider the most travolgente example of them all, the Bell Spaceship Paradox! * * * Part Four. Solving Bell's Spaceship Paradox in the Seventeenth Century GG: (Some time later.) What, may I ask, is a spaceship? Me: A hypothetical device mentioned in many fantastical tales of my time that in some ways resembles an ordinary ship, but enables one to travel to the planets or even the stars. GG: You may know that an eccentric correspondent of mine, who has many crazy but ingenious ideas about tides and about the paths of the planets, has fashioned precisely such a fantastical account of travel to the moon. Me: Oh yes, he's almost as famous in our time as you are. GG: But he did not make use of your "spaceships". So what is the big paradox all about? Me: Imagine two of these vessels at rest with respect to the Earth, pointed in the same direction, but at the outset separated by one mile. Next imagine they begin to accelerate, and they accelerate in identical motions according both to our measurements as seen from the Earth and also according to the directions of the owners that the captains of each are following. A number of troubling questions arises concerning what occurs to them. GG: Such as? Me: First, can we be completely sure that according to *our* measurements they remain at the same original distance from each other? GG: Well, that is what you yourself postulated. But yes, if I were to arrange to have one iron cannonball dropped from the top of the Pisa Tower and at the exact same instant another one dropped from a point half way down the tower, since the acceleration of each is the same, then there is no question that by our measurements their trajectories would be congruent. And so they would remain at the same "half-tower" distance apart with which they started, until the lower one struck the ground. Me: Ah, but what about witnesses that were dropped alongside them? What would they measure? GG: That is a very complicated question, because the velocities are not constant, and I sense that many difficulties will present themselves. I'm sure it can be worked out, but I think that I would like to work with one of those spacetime diagrams. Me: You're getting ahead of me once more, Signore. Now, firstly, we know that according to our measurements, the lengths of each spaceship will contract, correct? GG: That is so, because it would be entirely analogous to the distance between Florence and Pisa, or analogous to the donkey. Me: A certain very well known professor of our own time dreamt up a very interesting device concerning these two spaceships. He imagined a piece of string tied to the stern of the foremost spaceship and tied to the bow of the rearmost one. Now as the spaceships become shorter according to our measurements (but not according to the measurements of the occupants!), will the strings break? GG: Oh, I see the problem! On one account, the entire arrangement of spaceship+string+spaceship may be regarded as a single entity, and so by our measurements the string will not break, and this is also the answer that I believe would be arrived at by the passengers. But on an equally good account, the spaceships---as you postulated and as seems so reasonable---must remain at the same distance from each other; and so the strings would break! Me: So do you see any way to find out the fact of the matter? After all, either the strings break or they do not, and all the witnesses by day's done must agree on that! GG: It is a little clearer to me that the distances between the spaceships must remain the same, from our measurements at least, perhaps because you began by postulating that, or nearly so. An account could probably be told by which the opposite conclusion would come first to mind. Yet there is something troubling about regarding the spaceship+sting+spaceship as a single object, though I cannot put my finger on it. Me: Didn't you once use a piece of string yourself to intellectually demolish some argument of Aristotle's? GG: Quite so. He believed that bodies fall at a velocity corresponding to their masses. So I imagined what would happen if you took two slowly falling bodies, and attached them with a string. Do they truly constitute one body at this time? Not really, because the string can be made so insubstantial by degrees. But as we gradually convert the string to a strong cord, then to a fastener made of iron, are we to expect that each increase will bring about a larger velocity? It seemed highly unlikely to me, and when I tried such experiments, it proved that the connector had nothing to do with it. Me: So in this spaceship case, would the string break? GG: I'm thinking. (pause) What concerns me is this. Yes, it's clear on one account that the string would break, but the chief argument for this outcome arises from measurements that *we* would make who were not on board the ships. What measurements would they make? Let's produce one of those spacetime diagrams. Me: Very well. Now let me ask you, what shape of curve should we use to depict the trajectories of the two spaceships. GG: That's very simple. I proved long ago that these will be the conic section known as the parabola. You see, on this diagram the spaceship begins moving---well, you know what I mean---upwards on the diagram because it's hardly changing its x-coordinate at all. Now, as it picks up speed, its motion begins to tilt to the right, like so. The motion is parabolic because of the law of falling squares: if an object falls one unit in one unit of time, then it will have fallen four units in two units of time, nine in three, and so on. Me: I probably should let you just work that out, because you'll get the right answer so far as the string goes. But you may be interested to know that the actual motion is a different conic section: the hyperbola. GG: What!? Why? Me: It's very complicated as to exactly why it's a hyperbola, and it's been many decades since I worked that out for myself, but fortunately we don't need to know the exact shape in order to resolve the Bell Spaceship Paradox. Here is a hint, though. Remember that I said that all experimental results indicate that all travelers, whatever their velocity, will measure the speed of light to be the same? GG: Yes. You treated that as an axiom, and as odd as it seems, something tells me that this indeed could be the case. Me: So imagine someone in a spaceship that goes faster and faster. At what velocity will he get away from light that is shining on him from behind? GG: Hmm, since he measures it to be always constant..., why, at no velocity relative to us will he be able to escape the impingement on his vessel of the light shining from behind! And yet, of course, at any instant, in according to his measurements he's not the one moving anyone, it's all the rest of us. Me: So? GG: Therefore, on a spacetime diagram his velocity would asymptotically approach that of light according to our measurements. And his time would dilate to almost nothing. Hmm. And the curve would approach the fixed angle of forty-five degrees. So perhaps it would be a hyperbola indeed. Me: The trouble with a parabola being what? GG: Were we to draw a parabola here, then eventually its slope would become so small that the velocity depicted would exceed any given quantity---and movement faster than light would be possible, which is forbidden by what we have said. But why a hyperbola, exactly? Me: As I say, I don't remember. The argument is a bit subtle. But you'll probably figure it out not long after I retire. Anyway, so what we do know for a fact is that the spaceship curve begins in some sort of arc that leans more and more over to the right. GG: Yes. Ultimately approaching the forty-five degree line. Me: Now, let us consider two such trajectories, one for the spaceship in advance, and one for the one behind. How would these be drawn? GG: Clearly they would be congruent geometrical figures, for the precise reason that if I arrange to have two cannonballs dropped from different heights from a tower at precisely the same instant, then their trajectories will describe entirely congruent figures. So one curve is an exact copy of the other, just shifted one unit to the right. Me: All right, so I see you have drawn the two approximately hyperbolic curves. Now comes the ultimate trick. We superimpose on the diagram a line of simultaneity for one of the moving spaceships at some point on its trajectory. GG: Very well, such a line begins at the origin and cuts through both spaceship trajectory curves. Me: Well, let's study that line a bit. Would you say that it strikes each parabola or hyperbola, whatever, at the same inclination? GG: Why, no. Since the two curves are congruent and the line of simultaneity has a slope, then it cuts the first curve at a lower point than it cuts the second curve. And it won't be at quite the same angle either. For the curve on the right is being cut at a point further up, and so makes a smaller angle. Me: Yet this *is* a line of simultaneity for all the points on the line, and in particular for the two points where the two spaceships are. GG: Yes. Me: Now let's pause a moment and ask ourselves how the trajectory lines of two galleys appear, when one of the galleys is moving quite a bit faster than the other---but, for simplicity's sake--- at constant velocities. GG: They have different slopes. The slower moving galley might have a line on the spacetime diagram that is nearly vertical, whereas the more quickly moving vessel has a line that is much more steeply inclined. Me: Exactly. So let's look again at these two key points where the line of simultaneity cuts the trajectories of the two spaceships. What can be said about the velocities of the spaceships at those two points? GG: The instantaneous slope conveys the magnitude of the velocity. So we see that along the line of simultaneity where it cuts the two spaceship trajectories, the rearmost spaceship is moving more slowly! Me: Because the tangent to the curve is less at that point than at the other point where the line of simultaneity cuts, right? GG: Yes, just so. The tangent is a good way of seeing the instantaneous velocity. Hmm, well, together with this Descartes' coordinate system, I might very well go invent derivatives if I have some time next week, and thereby anticipate some other rather clever fellows later on. Me: Yes, but now, what will the measurements made by each navigator on the two spaceships yield? GG: On the lead spaceship, the navigator will be forced to report to his captain that the trailing spaceship is moving at a slower velocity---and, oh, that makes perfect sense! No wonder the string breaks! In their instantaneous coordinate system, the spaceships are actually pulling apart. The trailing spaceship, in their coordinates but not ours, is falling behind more and more! Me: Yes, and I think that that is the final explanation. All the loose ends seem tied up now. From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Aug 25 04:42:13 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:12:13 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Got blog! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080824220751.0238b098@satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0808241948s61001650w24ce38285f1d82fd@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080824220751.0238b098@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0808242142i34a73220we79b9b370a8674bc@mail.gmail.com> 2008/8/25 Damien Broderick : > >> "point7" (http://point7.wordpress.com) is a serious blog that my wife >> Jodie and I are writing together, on downshifting, materialism, and >> maybe the possibility of finding an authentic life. The title refers >> to my shift to 0.7 of full time work hours. This blog is where I'm at >> my most hardcore, and will probably irritate capitalism enthusiasts. > > Some interesting points, Emlyn! Keep it up, and eventually Google will buy > you out for $3.2 billion and you'll be able to hire thousands of serfs to > write the blog for you. :) > > Damien Broderick! > It could happen; would make as much sense as anything they do. Thanks for the heads up, I'll go upgrade my paypal account in anticipation... Uh I mean Google Checkout account. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com - my home http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks on eCulture http://actualizer.wordpress.com - for doing stuff From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Aug 25 06:00:01 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:00:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Whimsy or error? References: <06ae01c904ab$7515a000$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <48AFB1B7.10603@mac.com> <001301c90571$7f6a8360$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080823175244.02602118@satx.rr.com> <003201c90576$698c9330$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080823182137.024a15a0@satx.rr.com> <003801c90589$54a8d920$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080823204539.0243d408@satx.rr.com> <003c01c90594$8fb9ffc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080823220414.02436fd0@satx.rr.com> <004801c9059c$473d3340$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080824000716.024f5288@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <004e01c90678$465c3520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien was kind enough to correct one of my spelling errors off-list, and we ended up talking about grammatical errors. I wrote >> An old friend of mine from South Africa once told me >> that he was appalled that I had said something like >> >> "There's far too many grammatical errors in everyday >> American speech as would be detected by any >> objective sample." >> >> I cursed my mid-western roots, for I could see that it >> was going to be very hard to ever extirpate that particular >> error from my spoken discourse. [Well, I thought it was >> a definite error: should be "There're" instead of "There's" >> but Damien says not to get overly worried about that.] And Damien replied > I find "none of these politicians are worthy to run a 7-11 store" far > more horrid, yet almost everyone does it. I *think* that if one were > to change that to "not one of these politicians are worthy to run a > 7-11 store", people might look askance, but maybe not. Yes, surely a larger percentage of people would pick up the error in the latter. Embarrasing to relate, I make the former error a lot. But consider: fill in the following sentence, i.e., what is the correct form for sentence # 4 here? #1 There six people in the boat. #2 There four people in the boat. #3 There two people in the boat. #4 There zero people in the boat. "There are zero people in the boat" sounds a lot more natural to me! > (You'll notice that I put the comma after the close-quotes, > as a good UK/Aussie ought; since "..." tells us that what's > enclosed is a quotation, or stressed as exemplary. I hate it > when people drag in commas and semicolons--- Oh, me too. It was hard to believe that in Amercan grammar books one reads that sentences such as Central to topology is the concept of "limit point." Choke! Actually, in fact, I found that particular sentence in a math book written as Central to topology is the concept of "limit point". and I believe that the author's mathematical good taste simply would not permit him to place the ending quote *after* the period. > even while I agree that a sentence must finish with the period or > exclamation mark or question mark inside closing quotes. Traitor! Where is your fine UK/Aussie brainwashing when you need it most? Well, so be it. I shan't ever change! We will fight in the poetry, in the history, and on mathematics! We shall never surrender! It *so* goes against logic. > But I can fit in with the locals if I must. I guess. Now what is logical in the following? "That guy," he said, gesturing yonder, "must have had a *bad* day." I say that our usage, here, which , now looks rather normal to me, is in fact not logical, because no one would say "That guy, must have really had a bad day" unless one were out of wind or something. Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Aug 25 06:26:17 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:26:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Whimsy or error? In-Reply-To: <004e01c90678$465c3520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <06ae01c904ab$7515a000$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <48AFB1B7.10603@mac.com> <001301c90571$7f6a8360$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080823175244.02602118@satx.rr.com> <003201c90576$698c9330$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080823182137.024a15a0@satx.rr.com> <003801c90589$54a8d920$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080823204539.0243d408@satx.rr.com> <003c01c90594$8fb9ffc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080823220414.02436fd0@satx.rr.com> <004801c9059c$473d3340$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080824000716.024f5288@satx.rr.com> <004e01c90678$465c3520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080825012204.02374758@satx.rr.com> At 11:00 PM 8/24/2008 -0700, Lee wrote: >Damien was kind enough to correct one of my spelling >errors off-list "Kind enough" my foot! I nearly choked to death and someone had to pay. Here's the relevant portion of the exchange (Lee can now blush): =========================== >Jef was correct in labeling me mischievious (at times). Ack! Choke! "mischievious"? Or this another instance of whimsy? (Good dog, I pray it is.) =========================== But don't go getting mistook about this, Lee and me, we-all's good e-buddies, so it don't signify no-how. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Aug 25 06:28:34 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:28:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><580930c20808231105h6c892caag25caccaf27266357@mail.gmail.com><001d01c90553$0ff72790$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z><580930c20808240429i30551e4bn1837dc2ea5f737a8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006601c9067d$fb0be830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > Stefano wrote: > >> Stathis wrote: >> >>> But we can imagine a quasi-sociopath who was rational and >>> calculating, preferring to use legal methods to get his way, and >>> only breaking the law when certain he could get away with it. >> >> Why, if you deal with the economic analysis of law, say Posner, this >> is what humanity is supposed to be composed of, at least for the sake >> of legislative, contractual and judiciary strategies... :-) I think that business would be more prosperous if business people had more integrity. I've interviewed a number of my bosses, and compelled them to give me a number. They say that about 2/3 of the other business people they have to deal with cannot be trusted. Moreover, even a sociopath who is pure [ly selfish] at heart, and [pretends to] says his prayers by night, can become a lawbreaker, cheater, and liar when no one's looking, and the August moon is bright. So *some* criminal behavior is prevented solely by certain people's consciences. If you have one, then you know what I'm talking about. It can haunt you, and punish you excessively sometimes even for minor misdeeds. > [Should] someone who could be demonstrated to be sociopathic despite an > ability to hide it should be treated differently by the law than his > non-sociopathic counterpart[?]. But if he were really good at hiding his > sociopathy he would not be any more likely to commit a crime than > anyone else. Isn't this quite false? For, unlike the people who have real consciences, the sociopath will break the law, or lie and cheat with abandon when there is no fear of being caught. > This is like a variation on the philosophical zombie > argument: what if someone *honestly believed* that everyone else was a > zombie (or equivalently, that no-one else's feelings mattered even if > they did have feelings) but was committed to behave as if they weren't > because it would make life easier for him? It would only make life easier (for such a person to thus pretend) up to a certain point. Again, when no one was looking, in effect, his behavior would be different. I, for one, would cease to leave tips in restaurants I know I will never visit again and I would never give anyone an even break in traffic---why should I? No one is really there to benefit from my "charitable" moves. Lee From pharos at gmail.com Mon Aug 25 08:28:20 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:28:20 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Whimsy or error? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080825012204.02374758@satx.rr.com> References: <06ae01c904ab$7515a000$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <7.0.1.0.2.20080823182137.024a15a0@satx.rr.com> <003801c90589$54a8d920$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080823204539.0243d408@satx.rr.com> <003c01c90594$8fb9ffc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080823220414.02436fd0@satx.rr.com> <004801c9059c$473d3340$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080824000716.024f5288@satx.rr.com> <004e01c90678$465c3520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080825012204.02374758@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > "Kind enough" my foot! I nearly choked to death and someone had to pay. > Here's the relevant portion of the exchange (Lee can now blush): > > =========================== > >> Jef was correct in labeling me mischievious (at times). > > Ack! Choke! "mischievious"? Or this another instance of whimsy? (Good dog, I > pray it is.) > > =========================== You might enjoy the Urban Dictionary comment: But Google gets 366,000 hits for 'mischievious' so as with much of the yoof vernacular, it is maybe a lost cause. There are at least two pop groups using 'Mischievious', it's used in a book title, websites, a World of Warcraft Guild, etc. BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Aug 25 08:53:12 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:53:12 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Whimsy or error? In-Reply-To: <004e01c90678$465c3520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <06ae01c904ab$7515a000$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <003201c90576$698c9330$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080823182137.024a15a0@satx.rr.com> <003801c90589$54a8d920$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080823204539.0243d408@satx.rr.com> <003c01c90594$8fb9ffc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080823220414.02436fd0@satx.rr.com> <004801c9059c$473d3340$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080824000716.024f5288@satx.rr.com> <004e01c90678$465c3520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: 2008/8/25 Lee Corbin : > And Damien replied > >> I find "none of these politicians are worthy to run a 7-11 store" far more >> horrid, yet almost everyone does it. I *think* that if one were to change >> that to "not one of these politicians are worthy to run a 7-11 store", >> people might look askance, but maybe not. > > Yes, surely a larger percentage of people would pick up > the error in the latter. Embarrasing to relate, I make the > former error a lot. > > But consider: fill in the following sentence, i.e., what is > the correct form for sentence # 4 here? > > #1 There six people in the boat. > #2 There four people in the boat. > #3 There two people in the boat. > #4 There zero people in the boat. Six of the politicians are worthy. One of the politicians is worthy. Not one of the politicians is worthy. None (=not one) of the politicians is worthy. But: Zero politicians are worthy. Zero of the politicians are worthy. (awkward) No (=zero) politicians are worthy. -or- No (=not one) politician is worthy. -or perhaps- None (=zero) of the politicians are worthy. The last is wrong if "none" is forced to have its original meaning of "not one". Interestingly, it appears that one is grammatically singular but zero is grammatically plural! -- Stathis Papaioannou From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 25 08:33:25 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:33:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <650240.34278.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Jeff Davis wrote: > Everything I've googled up suggests that the string breaks. Everything you Googled probably referenced Bell. People love to hide behind authority. Personally I am rather certain you are right. So much so I will bet $100 USD on the results of any experiment using two real masses under equal accelerating forces and a real string. Case 1- No string: Two 100 meter long spaceships that weigh in at 100 metric tons each start at relative rest, one 100 meters behind the other stern to bow without a string and accelerate to .7071 c in 24 hours (86,400 seconds). This is a huge amount of acceleration, a little more than 250 g's worth. Enough to squash any would be astronaut flat against the back of the ship with about 25 tons of force. But lets say the astronauts have really soft cushions on their back rests or the ships are unmanned. At the point the ships reach .7071 light speed, the rear ship bounces a radar signal off of the stern of the front ship. The radar would read the distance between the ships at 100 meters*(1+ sqrt(1-(.7071c)^2)) or about 129.29 meters. In other words, the length of the spaceships themselves contracted from 100 meters long each to 70.71 meters long each but their centers of mass remained the same 100 meters distance apart. Case 2- a string connects the spaceships: To asses what happens when you join the two spaceships stem to stern with a 100 meter string, one must realize that as John Clark said, both the space ships and the string have to skrink. So lets say that as in the first example they start out at rest and accelerate at 250.53 g. Now in the 24 hours that the ships accelerated to .7071 lightspeed, the string would have to shrink by by 100 meters*(1- sqrt(1-(.7071c)^2))=29.29 meters due to its own relativistic contraction winding up a mere 70.71 meters long just like either of the two space ships. This means that the centers of mass of the two ships will be closer together with the string than without. The only way this is possible is if the string in the process of contracting generates a force on the space ships that accelerate their center of masses closer together by exactly 58.58 meters (29.29 meters for the string and 14.645 meters for each of the two ships) in 24 hours. How big of a force will be needed for this? Well as an approximation, acceleration =2*distance/time^2. So the shrinkage acceleration will be about 2*58.58 meters/(86,400 seconds)^2 or 1.57E-8 meters/second^2. Since the two 100 ton space ships weigh a total 200,000 kilograms, the force on the poor string is a truly underwhelming .00314 newtons. This is the equivalent of a string able to support 320 milligrams or an aspirin tablet in earths gravity. I imagine belly button lint woven together into a 100 meter string would have enough tensile strength to pull the ships together under fitzgerald contactile forces alone. The real challenge for the string would be surviving its own 250 g acceleration. But I assure you that any string that is capable of being accelerated to relativistic speeds will not snap because of Bell's Paradox. Stuart LaForge "A portion of mankind take pride in their vices and pursue their purpose; many more waver between doing what is right and complying with what is wrong." - Horace From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 25 09:57:46 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: <650240.34278.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <945266.13850.qm@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Just wanted to correct some typos. --- The Avantguardian wrote: > Case 1- No string: > > At the point the ships reach .7071 light speed, the rear ship bounces a radar > signal off of the stern of the front ship. The radar would read the distance > between the ships at 100 meters*(1+ sqrt(1-(.7071c)^2)) or about 129.29 > meters. > In other words, the length of the spaceships themselves contracted from 100 > meters long each to 70.71 meters long each but their centers of mass remained > the same 100 meters distance apart. The centers of mass would remain 200 meters apart. > Case 2- a string connects the spaceships: > To asses what happens when you join the two spaceships stem to stern with a > 100 > meter string, one must realize that as John Clark said, both the space ships > and the string have to skrink. So lets say that as in the first example they > start out at rest and accelerate at 250.53 g. Now in the 24 hours that the > ships accelerated to .7071 lightspeed, the string would have to shrink by by > 100 meters*(1- sqrt(1-(.7071c)^2))=29.29 meters due to its own relativistic > contraction winding up a mere 70.71 meters long just like either of the two The equation above should read 100 meters*(1- sqrt(1-(.7071)^2))=29.29 meters. Stuart LaForge "A portion of mankind take pride in their vices and pursue their purpose; many more waver between doing what is right and complying with what is wrong." - Horace From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Aug 25 11:00:35 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:00:35 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: <006601c9067d$fb0be830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808231105h6c892caag25caccaf27266357@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c90553$0ff72790$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <580930c20808240429i30551e4bn1837dc2ea5f737a8@mail.gmail.com> <006601c9067d$fb0be830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: 2008/8/25 Lee Corbin : >> [Should] someone who could be demonstrated to be sociopathic despite an >> ability to hide it should be treated differently by the law than his >> non-sociopathic counterpart[?]. But if he were really good at hiding his >> sociopathy he would not be any more likely to commit a crime than >> anyone else. > > Isn't this quite false? For, unlike the people who have real > consciences, the sociopath will break the law, or lie and > cheat with abandon when there is no fear of being caught. But it's the little things that will give him away. If he really wanted to hide he would only be able to indulge in sociopathic behaviour when he was *guaranteed* of not being caught. Perhaps many non-sociopaths would also indulge in such behaviour if they had a guarantee of impunity: the pangs of guilt would eventually go away, as in systematic desensitisation therapy for anxiety disorders. Is it possible that (again by analogy with zombie arguments) to behave just as if you have or haven't a conscience is the same as actually having or not having a conscience? -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Aug 25 12:08:11 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:08:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Human extinction In-Reply-To: <007001c905a4$b355a640$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1218650575_25116@s8.cableone.net> <580930c20808140430p438ed9daq3891e9a1c2589ec5@mail.gmail.com> <036b01c902ce$ca2bb3b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808200757s5ef27aeav7dd1f0665017c336@mail.gmail.com> <160001c903ea$2856d660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808231049q5774246etd70cb4d1d6e9ba25@mail.gmail.com> <007001c905a4$b355a640$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808250508k14d134d0s753cada4be2d3475@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: >> (In fact, I tend instead to consider that diversity can only be based >> on everybody's love for their own identity). > > What does that mean? I can't parse it at all. Diversity (or diverseness) > is to me an objective *condition* that may or may not hold to some > degree about one group of entities compared to another (more > homogeneous) group of entities. What I mean, is that a love for what you are is a love for what makes you different, and by loving what you makes it different you end up not liking the prospective of such difference getting lost... :-) > Yes, that's what those things are about all right. Each of > them you mention is indeed aimed at improving human > stock (one way or another). But *my* preferences don't > always coincide with that, as I've said. Better us, say I, > than entirely non-human entities a billion times our superiors > in every way, if it's an either-or choice. But there are no well-defined boundaries or quantum leaps! Once you like having successors, and you like such successors to be an improved, enhanced version of yourself even at the cost of an "identical" reproduction of your self, you are well on the way to define (species) extinction not as the fact that your species has evolved and/or branched, but as the fact that the inability to do so or the misplaced effort to keep it unnaturally as equal to itself as possible along time has increased the risk of its disappearance altogether. >> This is why those who believe that "survival" - in some other sense >> than individual, physical survival - should be considered as a primal >> value, should hardly fear a posthuman change in terms of an >> "existential risk". > > Well, at the risk of repeating myself, I cannot agree. By > the "similarity of structure" criterion, there is everything > to fear. Yes. But you conceded that keeping all and every subsequent specimen as similar as possible to a "model" (and which one, exactly? an absolutely average and abstract human being vintage 2005?) is hardly a satisfactory plan... > But suppose the big S occurs, the solar system sports only > entities who are to us as we are to amoebas, and they come > into stellar conflict with a still-DNA molecularly reproducing > people (with tails, four legs, six eyes, and a fondness for > tyrannical government) who nonetheless appreciate art and > music in ways not altogether different from us, and who have > the same kind of loyalty/solidarity continuum that I've just > described. I would be on *their* side, not on the side of > my inhuman descendants. Wouldn't they be both your "descendants"? Of course, most or all of the DNA-based "race" would not be literally part of your offspring, but there again the "children-of-the-mind" godlike race would not either, so if you were you still around I think you could plausibly take side for either of them, exactly depending on affinities of one kind or another. But what happens if you are not around, and a single "race" is there, or multiple "races" that are equally removed in evolutionary terms or general structure from current humanity? What I am saying is that I am not especially concerned by the fact that they may end up as different from me as I am from a distant ancestor. Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Aug 25 12:54:21 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:54:21 +0200 Subject: [ExI] End of Story? Re: QT and SR Message-ID: <580930c20808250554x4e2691b2j8d344b38deb86b0b@mail.gmail.com> So, should we eventually conclude that it is not a good think for near-c flying spaceships to have parts independently accelerated, or for that matter more than one motor (as it would amount to the same, at the end of the day), as otherwise they would break? But I am again confused. Shouldn't the engine itself, which has an extention in space along the movement directions, and molecules that individually react to the forces applied to them, break at some point? Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Aug 25 13:03:14 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:03:14 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing In-Reply-To: <006601c9067d$fb0be830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20808231105h6c892caag25caccaf27266357@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c90553$0ff72790$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <580930c20808240429i30551e4bn1837dc2ea5f737a8@mail.gmail.com> <006601c9067d$fb0be830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20808250603n699a18c5xe25eb9d0b7bac4e6@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stathis writes > I think that business would be more prosperous if business > people had more integrity. I've interviewed a number of > my bosses, and compelled them to give me a number. They say that about 2/3 > of the other business people they > have to deal with cannot be trusted. What I am used to say to my clients, is that business would already be much more simple if people could be trusted to act in *their own* best interest. Unfortunately, you cannot even consistently expect them to do so... :-) > Isn't this quite false? For, unlike the people who have real > consciences, the sociopath will break the law, or lie and > cheat with abandon when there is no fear of being caught. In fact, I think that the real, clinical sociopath is likely to do that *irrespective* of the probability of being caught. But then you are right that even for an ideal utility optimiser the inability to develop some kind of a superego, and the need to "calculate" and "weigh" gains, losses and probabilities thereof all the time any time the opportunity is offered to infringe a social norm, is already a dysfunctional enough trait... :-) Stefano Vaj From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Aug 25 13:03:58 2008 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:03:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Got blog! In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0808241948s61001650w24ce38285f1d82fd@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0808241948s61001650w24ce38285f1d82fd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520808250603g3bfdd6a1x7321e68f4261c063@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Emlyn wrote: > Hi all, > > I stopped working full time about a year and a half ago, and it's > taken me this long to adjust. Phew! But adjust I have, and now it's > time to do something really productive with that time. > > But better than doing something would be to blather on about stuff at > great length, so I've decided to do that. > > I've kicked off three new blogs, as follows: > > "point7" (http://point7.wordpress.com) is a serious blog that my wife > Jodie and I are writing together, on downshifting, materialism, and > maybe the possibility of finding an authentic life. The title refers > to my shift to 0.7 of full time work hours. This blog is where I'm at > my most hardcore, and will probably irritate capitalism enthusiasts. Emlyn, GREAT blog. I am really enjoying it, keep posting. I agree with mostly everything. I would love to downshift, but there are those bills to pay, not cheap. I run my own small company, work 16 hours a day, earn less than half I used to earn in my previous life, but nothing could persuade me to go back to that pile of shit. > "Speaking of Freedom - Great speeches of our time" > (http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com) is a video feed blog, strictly > for talks and speeches loosely about freedom and creativity in the > internet connected world. Very specific, but I do run across these > things, often long and excellent. It might become a miro channel if > things work out, but in any case you can subscribe to the cast at > http://feeds.feedburner.com/SpeakingOfFreedom. I actually created it > as a channel for myself, because I like a place to put these kinds of > talks so I can watch them at my leisure, but you might find it > interesting too. > > "Actualizer" (http://actualizer.wordpress.com) is a link blog of stuff > of interest to people who do stuff, culled from the zillions of lists > and feeds and nonsense that I subscribe to in this eWorld. Curt > descriptions, interesting links. > > Hopefully these are of interest to some of you. > > Also, as mentioned above I subscribe to a lot of lists and feeds and > so forth, but I always want more. Who's got blog? Or got > recommendations? My blogs: http://transumanar.com/ http://metaxlr8.net/ From scerir at libero.it Mon Aug 25 16:00:38 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:00:38 +0200 Subject: [ExI] End of Story? Re: QT and SR References: <580930c20808250554x4e2691b2j8d344b38deb86b0b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000401c906cb$b8687130$72e71e97@archimede> Stefano Vaj > So, should we eventually conclude that it is not a good think for > near-c flying spaceships to have parts independently accelerated, or > for that matter more than one motor (as it would amount to the same, > at the end of the day), as otherwise they would break? It is not safe for spaceships to fly one after the other, because their computers desynchronize, and their travellers age differently. It is not safe to use a single looong spaceship, because the front and the back like to accelerate differently and ... people who take seats in front age differently from the people who are on the back. > But I am again confused. Shouldn't the engine itself, which has an > extention in space along the movement directions, and molecules that > individually react to the forces applied to them, break at some point? No, you are not confused. You realized why those ufo-aliens prefer flying rotating platforms to ordinary spaceships. (Oh wait, there is that damnit Ehrenfest paradox, but they have solved it.) From sondre-list at bjellas.com Mon Aug 25 14:21:57 2008 From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (Sondre) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:21:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing Message-ID: <48b2c005.0116300a.5aac.ffff8d69@mx.google.com> What do you do in business the day most people are wearing HUD-eyeglasses and wearable computers that can easily tell you if the people you're interacting with is telling the truth or not? The sociopath believe their own lies, but for you and me, it's going to become increasingly akward to have direct social connection with other people. Second Life to the rescue! - Sondre ----- Opprinnelig melding ----- Fra: Stefano Vaj Sendt: 25. august 2008 15:03 Til: Lee Corbin ; ExI chat list Emne: Re: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stathis writes > I think that business would be more prosperous if business > people had more integrity. I've interviewed a number of > my bosses, and compelled them to give me a number. They say that about 2/3 > of the other business people they > have to deal with cannot be trusted. What I am used to say to my clients, is that business would already be much more simple if people could be trusted to act in *their own* best interest. Unfortunately, you cannot even consistently expect them to do so... :-) > Isn't this quite false? For, unlike the people who have real > consciences, the sociopath will break the law, or lie and > cheat with abandon when there is no fear of being caught. In fact, I think that the real, clinical sociopath is likely to do that *irrespective* of the probability of being caught. But then you are right that even for an ideal utility optimiser the inability to develop some kind of a superego, and the need to "calculate" and "weigh" gains, losses and probabilities thereof all the time any time the opportunity is offered to infringe a social norm, is already a dysfunctional enough trait... :-) Stefano Vaj _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Aug 25 21:36:34 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:36:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR References: <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com><00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer><001201c90168$e982a690$0301a8c0@MyComputer><003601c90541$c26c9980$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <003c01c90668$d71346e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <002701c906fa$b66e91a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> "Lee Corbin" > First you say that they're 90 degrees apart in my field of vision, > then they take off in the same direction (presumably away > from me). If the spaceships are going directly away from you that would lead to a rather dull thought experiment. I thought it was obvious they were moving parallel to you. Apparently not. My point was that if the spaceships were 90 degrees apart when they were stationary they would remain 90 degrees apart when they were moving fast, although each individual spaceship would contract in the direction of motion. The string would contract too, so something's got to give. > The apparent distance between them *does* decrease Probably not spaceships but things in space very often do accelerate up to very high speeds. If the above were true the night sky would look chaotic. I do not observe the night shy to be chaotic, it's not engineered but it's not chaotic. > Well, no, that's not correct. According to his *measurements* >(beyond mere observations) the trailing spaceship is not keeping > up with him. I should have said almost keeping up with him, certainly he will know the other ship must be accelerating and will note that the guy's clock is running fast. I'm not sure I know what you mean by measurements beyond mere observations. > Yes, but that does not address the heart of the mystery. > I need to go dig out that excellent paragraph you wrote which > I vividly remember as a complete explanation (much better > than my own earlier and longer one). Is this what you're talking about? "If tacked a string inside the cockpit of my accelerating spaceship from the front to back the string would NOT break because the atoms and electromagnetic fields inside the string would shrink at the same rate as the atoms in the cockpit walls. However if I tied a string from the front of my spaceship to the back of another 10 feet ahead of mine and accelerating at the same rate the string would break because the atoms in the sting would shrink just as they did before but there is nothing else between the two spaceships to counterbalance that effect, there is only empty space." "Also, when you hear the term "same frame of reference" it usually refers to an inertial frame of reference, but this one is accelerating so you have to be careful; then you can have all sorts of pseudo forces operating WITHIN the frame, like tides. For example, General Relativity tells us that rockets firing their engines is equivalent to them falling in a gravitational field. If they were falling toward a Neutron Star the lower one would be a little closer to the star and so puller a little faster than the one above and so the string would break even though some might say they are in the same frame of reference." John K Clark From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Aug 25 22:00:55 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:00:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR References: <0ffc01c8e706$f2c8b900$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240807161943x3a70b951s629b1b79c9c53e7f@mail.gmail.com><00aa01c8e85b$8efe2f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer><001201c90168$e982a690$0301a8c0@MyComputer><003601c90541$c26c9980$0301a8c0@MyComputer><003c01c90668$d71346e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <002701c906fa$b66e91a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: <004c01c906fe$1839f0c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> It occurs to me that this entire spaceship and string deal would make an absolutely first rate MythBusters episode. John K Clark From jrd1415 at gmail.com Tue Aug 26 01:33:39 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:33:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR In-Reply-To: <002701c906fa$b66e91a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> References: <001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <001201c90168$e982a690$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <003601c90541$c26c9980$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <003c01c90668$d71346e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <002701c906fa$b66e91a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 2:36 PM, John K Clark wrote: > he will know the other ship must be accelerating and > will note that the guy's clock is running fast. Will someone help out with a clarification? From my limited understanding of SR, in a strictly inertial frame of reference -- ie no acceleration -- two observers in motion relative to one another will each observe the other's clock to be running slower than their own. Under what conditions will one observe another's clock to be running faster? Jeff Davis From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Aug 26 02:05:10 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:35:10 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Got blog! In-Reply-To: <470a3c520808250603g3bfdd6a1x7321e68f4261c063@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0808241948s61001650w24ce38285f1d82fd@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520808250603g3bfdd6a1x7321e68f4261c063@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0808251905v42627418rd2c46301acf6b9cf@mail.gmail.com> 2008/8/25 Giu1i0 Pri5c0 : >> "point7" (http://point7.wordpress.com) is a serious blog that my wife >> Jodie and I are writing together, on downshifting, materialism, and >> maybe the possibility of finding an authentic life. The title refers >> to my shift to 0.7 of full time work hours. This blog is where I'm at >> my most hardcore, and will probably irritate capitalism enthusiasts. > > Emlyn, GREAT blog. I am really enjoying it, keep posting. Thanks Giu1i0, I will. > > I agree with mostly everything. I would love to downshift, but there > are those bills to pay, not cheap. Yeah I think my next post might be about the downside, which is not having much money. There are bright sides even to that, imo. (At least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it) > I run my own small company, work 16 > hours a day, earn less than half I used to earn in my previous life, > but nothing could persuade me to go back to that pile of shit. I've been noticing that our downshifting is reaching fever pitch - I don't think I've ever been busier. Writing free software, making music, writing blogs now (what an idiot). It's a sickness or something, surely. > My blogs: > http://transumanar.com/ > http://metaxlr8.net/ -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com - my home http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks on eCulture http://actualizer.wordpress.com - for doing stuff From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Aug 26 02:24:34 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:24:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] QT and SR References: <001a01c8f8ae$270201a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><002c01c8faac$07a82c80$0301a8c0@MyComputer><001201c90168$e982a690$0301a8c0@MyComputer><003601c90541$c26c9980$0301a8c0@MyComputer><003c01c90668$d71346e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><002701c906fa$b66e91a0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: <00b401c90723$6f09c1d0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jeff writes > Will someone help out with a clarification? From > my limited understanding of SR, in a strictly inertial > frame of reference -- i.e. no acceleration -- two > observers in motion relative to one another will > each observe the other's clock to be running > slower than their own. > > Under what conditions will one > observe another's clock to be running faster? Under the conditions that you have stated, namely no accelerating reference frames or forces of any kind, no one will ever measure another's clock to be running faster than his own. John Clark writes > It occurs to me that this entire spaceship and string deal > would make an absolutely first rate MythBusters episode. I assume that you read Stuart's excellent analysis. So you must be suggesting that even with a current expenditure running into the billions, it is *John Bell's* and *Special Relativity's* so-called "myths" that would be busted. However, Stuart or someone could certainly have the absolutely last word on this paradox by calculating a set of (acceleration, mass, string-length, time) quadruples under which the string does break, as theoretically but correctly noticed by John Bell, by the first two pages of the Matsuda and Kinoshita article http://www.aapps.org/archive/bulletin/vol14/14_1/14_1_p03p07.pdf . (which unfortunately, after the first two pages, for the beginning reader no longer supplies any intuitive backdrop for what is being said mathematically), or as I myself explained from a 17th century viewpoint in Part Four of a dialog with Galileo that I posted yesterday in "Intuitive Solution to Bell's Spaceship Paradox". As for Stefano's remark > So, should we eventually conclude that it is not a good thing for > near-c flying spaceships to have parts independently accelerated, Yes > or for that matter more than one motor (as it would amount to the > same, at the end of the day), as otherwise they would break? No, if they're mounted in parallel no problems arise. > But I am again confused. Shouldn't the engine itself, which has an > extension in space along the movement directions, and molecules that > individually react to the forces applied to them, break at some point? It ought to depend on engine architecture. The simplest case of reaction mass---particles are somehow ejected with tremendous force from the back end of the spaceship---does not pose any problem because the counter-force accelerating the spaceship would apply at just one point, or over a very small area. Then the inter-molecular forces between *those* atoms and the rest of the spaceship would gradually be spread throughout the length and breadth of the vessel. (However, if we were to take unrealistically extreme views of the forces able to be exerted on a single point, then indeed the force on such a reactive point might damage any known substance so severely that the body of the spaceship would not able to contain the force.) Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Aug 26 02:38:17 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:38:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell? References: <16ea01c9046a$4bddee90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><172201c9055a$b4fa7c40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><178AAD35D64542D995F4C33208FF3788@Catbert> <005201c9059f$1568d2e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0B092EDE99734DFEA402198E9C970F84@Catbert> Message-ID: <00b601c90724$d6dacb50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Harvey wrote > I'm not just theorizing this. We tried to use such a system in Florida at > our Bowl game a few years ago to catch wanted criminals and deadbeat dads > (not paying child support). Bowl security was swamped with hundreds of > false positives. They did not find a single wanted person, even though > there probably were some in the crowd. They then theorized that pre-bowl > publicity kept criminals from going to the game. So they deployed this in > Tampa's Ybor district and used it for a whole year. Not one real > recognition was made. All they got were false positives. > > Google for "Florida super bowl face recognition" > > >> (Whereas human spotters, I presume, are not at all useless.) > > I don't have evidence for this, but anecdotally, humans were not much > better. The system matched exact facial dimensions, but got gender, height, > weight, race, and other obvious traits wrong. But if the criminal had > altered their appearance, with beard, hair color, different hair-cut, > glasses, etc., the computer would still match it but the human double-check > would likely think it was a poor match. In general, I don't think facial > recognition (human or computer) works that well. Right now, from your description, it sounds as though a human/computer team is needed, for the purpose, say, of identifying a certain passenger who is leaving an aircraft! Such a pity that all the movies have it wrong about The Authorities waiting at the end of a gang plank to apprehend someone. From now on, they'd be well-advised to get help from some traitorous family member, who might stand a decent chance of recognizing a husband or other close relative, or a personal acquaintance of long standing. >> A: "Are telling me that a row of six or more recent convicted >> terrorist bombers could not be distinguished at the ninety-percent >> level of confidence from a numerically similar row of Londoners >> picked at random" Surely you agree that I'm right about *that*, > > No, I don't agree. As I showed with my statistical correlation, that > false-positives overwhelm the systems a thousand times over. How > would you distinguish them? Are you saying they look different? Yes. Now it so happens that I don't travel at all, and have not been to London, and know of the bombings which occurred there only by means of my admittedly very faulty memory, but I could have sworn that *all* those arrested and convicted in the recent bombings were born in the Middle East, and have the same ethnic profiles that allow me to often recognize the origins of people I meet. Hence my guess that at the 95% level of confidence, six such individuals would be chosen as "the probable convicts" and the other six average Londoners of the same age and sex chosen as the "non-terrorist" group. And only 5% of the time would the group of Londoners picked at random---which surely includes a very wide variety of people, nothing so nearly homogeneous (I thought) as the bombers' group---be identified as "the terrorists" by an ordinary set of citizens seeing each group in a line-up. Lee From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Aug 26 02:55:03 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:55:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Got blog! In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0808251905v42627418rd2c46301acf6b9cf@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0808241948s61001650w24ce38285f1d82fd@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520808250603g3bfdd6a1x7321e68