From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 02:34:40 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:34:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <50F26855-0269-4874-B29C-8BC16B2964CB@mac.com> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200806292157.00912.kanzure@gmail.com> <50F26855-0269-4874-B29C-8BC16B2964CB@mac.com> Message-ID: <200806302134.40675.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 30 June 2008, Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Jun 29, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > > On Sunday 29 June 2008, Bryan Bishop wrote: > >> On Sunday 29 June 2008, Kevin Freels wrote: > >>> I'm sorry. Do you not see the necessity of an economically stable > >>> and prospering civilization to have the resources available to > >>> develop the new technologies necessary to bring about > >>> singularity? > >> > >> Resource availability has little to do with finances at this time. > > > > Oops, please excuse me. I meant to say that resource availability > > in ? the > > context of finances that are necessitated for a singularity; in > > general, finances can be used to access resources, but that's > > assuming people will accept those finances and economics, etc. > > This is not a great improvement. ?Want to try again? I'm not sure if there is anything more that I can really add. I don't see how whether or not there happens to be a large moon in orbit (as there has been in our historical context) has anything to do with a stable civilization, for instance. Granted, we can talk about blowing up the moon because of an unstable civilization, but I doubt that this is what Kevin was getting at. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue Jul 1 02:23:49 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:23:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New animation - is it familiar to you? Message-ID: <4558B939C25840829CFC47D25EEA7674@GinaSony> Nanogirl here ~ I began work on this new animation project on the 22nd. This was something I have wanted to do for sometime, but I have a lot of ideas that I want to pursue and I set them aside because there are bigger projects that I am working on. I tried to ignore this just the same, but there is a painting hanging above the bed and every night I see it, until finally I could resist no longer. Now that I am finished with the animation, the painting will speak to me in a different way. I worked very hard on this animation every day (and night), and I am so happy to have it completed. You will be able to see the actual development of the animation itself, in this piece ~ I'm calling it a "work in process animation". Oh, and when you see the first credit, it's not the end it's the middle and it's an indicator that you will be going backwards... There is more information about this online, but I'm going to put it on a special separate page so that you (my extropy friends) can watch the movie without any information so that there is the element of surprise. I think and wish upon star that you will really like this one because you will most likely be familiar with part of it... turn up your volume. Here is the link: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/newanimation.html (you'll want to read this page fully!). Best wishes 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 kanzure at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 02:42:18 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:42:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <1214800600_578@s2.cableone.net> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200806292239.06878.kanzure@gmail.com> <1214800600_578@s2.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200806302142.18254.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 29 June 2008, hkhenson wrote: > At 08:39 PM 6/29/2008, Bryan wrote: > > On Sunday 29 June 2008, Kevin Freels wrote: > > > A cell phone without civilization is just a paper weight. > > > > That's not true ... just throw up some towers/antennaes, a few > > electrical generators and also some distribution equipment. you can > > make a rudimentary hydrodynamic power generator with wires (or less > > optimally other shapes) of magnetic materials wrapped around other > > conductive metals basically, etc. etc. > > I was going to just punt this one, but what the heck. ?Bryan, how > much do you know about what's involved in a cell tower? Although I am sure that there is a lot of proprietary electrical circuits that you can call me out on, I still don't see what's so difficult. Hell, I have a few friends that get their connectivity via tin cans and wraps of wire. Kind of like this except more technically competent: http://binarywolf.com/249/ Over the years I've been reading a lot about antennaes: http://www.ac6v.com/antprojects.htm http://fab.cba.mit.edu/classes/MIT/862.06/students/temi/ http://www.dxzone.com/catalog/Antennas/Theory/ http://web.telia.com/~u85920178/antennas/anten.htm http://www.cebik.com/trans/ant-design.html http://www.diylive.net/index.php/2006/01/19/diy-cell-phone-antenna/ http://www.turnpoint.net/wireless/has.html http://www.borg.com/~warrend/guru.html http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2006/06/beerquad_diy_wifi_antenna.html http://snulbug.mtview.ca.us/books/RadioAntennaEngineering/ http://www.rfcafe.com/references/design_data/antenna_design_data.htm http://openfm.adaptedconsulting.com/index.php/Main_Page http://www.ac6v.com/antprojects.htm http://www.dxzone.com/catalog/Antennas/Theory/ http://www.cebik.com/trans/ant-design.html http://www.rfcafe.com/references/design_data/antenna_design_data.htm http://www.usbwifi.orcon.net.nz/ http://www.freeantennas.com/ http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/28/how-to-add-your-own-external-gps-antenna/ http://www.diylife.com/2008/01/24/the-10-super-wireless-internet-antenna/ http://martybugs.net/wireless/biquad/ Haven't gotten around to building much yet. And when I investigate antenna theory, all that I see is that nobody knows what the EM fields actually are when it comes to quantified electrodynamics theories, and I have yet to see a theory of antenna EM field shape, and if you might happen to know of a predictive framework for that ... - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 02:43:19 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:43:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <6CA5B6E9-DD22-4D34-88EA-0262750A0E30@mac.com> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200806292154.51391.kanzure@gmail.com> <6CA5B6E9-DD22-4D34-88EA-0262750A0E30@mac.com> Message-ID: <200806302143.19645.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 30 June 2008, Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Jun 29, 2008, at 7:54 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > > On Sunday 29 June 2008, Kevin Freels wrote: > >> I'm sorry. Do you not see the necessity of an economically stable > >> and prospering civilization to have the resources available to > >> develop the new technologies necessary to bring about singularity? > > > > Resource availability has little to do with finances at this time. > > ?Do you actually follow finances or economics at all? You are confused. The resources are /there/ already. Go get them. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 02:47:26 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:47:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200806291559.32367.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200806302147.26070.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 30 June 2008, Samantha Atkins wrote: > The idea that the Singularity is going to come real soon now (RSN) > and ? save us all before we get into too bad a pickle is far worse > than Wishful Thinking. ? IMHO of course. So, the way that I verbalize this is that it's somewhat of a 'blackswan'. It's not a good idea to base any of your plans, ever, on any strategy whatsoever that relies on a blackswan, since that instantly makes it ungrounded and completely impractical until some staggering innovation comes along that you just don't have the path to access to. I'm not saying that some marvelous technology will soon be invented out of the voids and depths of human society to save us all. I've given rather specific details before, so just hand waving it as a 'absurdly complex, impossible Singularity' is ridiculous. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 1 02:44:58 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:44:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Prufrock References: <02d101c8d8fc$53caffb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><02e001c8d8ff$e0f34ac0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080628114036.026764d0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <039201c8db24$f5325040$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jeff writes > When Lee wrote: > >>>"The women come and go, >>>speaking of fellatio." > > I experienced a spasm of fussiness. The rhythm/meter is > unsatisfying,... not quite in correspondence to the original: > > ...speaking of Michaelangelo. Yeah, well, it still works---and it still makes the point about the cultural shift. Sorry my cynicism didn't appeal to you as much as it could have. > Lee, for his part, was no doubt faithfully reproducing the variant of > the phrase as he had encountered it. Sir! The substitution was my own invention I conceived of it several months back; actually when looking at a little of Eliot's poetry in response to an article by John C. Wright, who so beautifully expressed my own sentiments about moral decline. And decline in a lot of other things, for that matter. (Not that I'm damn glad to be living now rather than any time before, mind you.) > But I thought it sad, because it > was, to my way of thinking, an entirely unnecessary defect. For > instance, it could have employed the original "Mi" of Michaelangelo > and, preserved the meter with: > > "Speaking of my fellatio." > > A bit too personal, that first person? "A bit"??? Of course. This doesn't work at all. > Then it could have been: > > "Speaking of thy fellatio." You're getting somewhere now, it seems, though I'll quickly grant you have a better ear for this than I do. Actually, I was aware that the meter (or whatever) was a bit off---at least not matching the original. It hardly seemed to matter, because if a modern Eliot had wrecked the poetic artistry of the line so much the better. > Or, > > "Speaking of 'Cry fellatio!'" > > referring perhaps to a campaign of the anti-war activism where "Cry > 'Havoc!' and release the dogs of war" is countered with > "Cry 'Fellatio!' and release the bawds galore." You're back to stretching again. :-( > Or perhaps > > "...Try fellatio." A campaign to broaden sexual horizons. Or > > "Speaking of sly fellatio." Moving beyond the vanilla version, or > > "...High Fellatio." Enhanced, documented, and certified by the > F?d?ration Internationale pour le Sexualit?. Ah. Maybe the best so far! Very good. Yes. "The women come and go, speaking of high fellatio." Wait. Mic-al-ANG-i-o doesn't match Hi-fel-Lat-i-o. Hmm. Or does it. Isn't there something still ab it off? Can't put my finger on it, though. I wish I'd said "high fellatio". Thanks. In the future, I'll be sure to run my poetic fancies past you before posting. > "...fly fellatio.", if the women in question were nerdy collegiate > entomology majors. Puh-leeze! > At which point I concluded that I had way too much time on my hands Yeah, I guess maybe you do. Or---think of it this way (always works for me!)---you just needed a lighthearted break from your other efforts to create wealth or save the world. Lee From amara at amara.com Tue Jul 1 02:53:49 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:53:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] New animation - is it familiar to you? Message-ID: Oh Gina.... That is so lovely. How did you _know_ that Starry Night is my favorite Van Gogh painting! And painted to one of my favorite symphonic pieces too... :-) When your health gets better, I will _show you_ the exact place in Provence where Van Gogh painted "Starry Night over St. Remy". There is a marker at that place and you can imagine yourself there, transported back in time to when he painted it. "Everything is extraordinarily beautiful here! Everything and everywhere the color of the sky is an admirable blue, the sun shines like pale sulfur, it is sweet and charming like the combinations of blues and yellows in the skies of the Vermeer of Delft." ... "The subject of painting night scenes or night effects and night itself interests me tremendously. Night is more alive and more colorful than day." (Vincent Van Gogh writing to his brother Theo in 1888 and 1889) "Don't forget that little emotions are the great captains of our lives." (Vincent Van Gogh, Arles, 1888). Thank you again, Gina. Take care, Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Tue Jul 1 02:56:21 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:56:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <1214799556_80@s8.cableone.net> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200806271459.00630.kanzure@gmail.com> <1214641925_9520@S3.cableone.net> <1214688352_9942@s6.cableone.net> <1214799556_80@s8.cableone.net> Message-ID: > so > >many time I wonder why people continue to use that phrase. > > Unfortunately history has examples, Greenland Norse, Easter > Island, > and Mayans where things fairly well went down the drain.? I > happen to > be an engineer who is used to being given a problem and marching > orders to solve it.? But there are problems, backwards time > travel > and FTL travel that are probably in the "can't be done" > category.? Others such as diverting an asteroid collision > on short > notice can't be done if we don't have enough time. > OK. Granted I was getting a bit over the edge. I'm glad you saw my point through the rhetoric. > There may well be other ways, a vast scale up > of nuclear > power of a new design, the pebble bed reactors, might to it for > long > enough to reach some kind of singularity where we or our machine > offspring or some combination get smart enough to get more power > or > run on less. > I'm very impressed with the pebble bed reactors by the way. I wish I could build my own. :-) These reactors look to be an excellent way to go for the short term. > > It's impossible to get as much performance out of batteries as > you > can get out of hydrocarbons.? If you think of them in > battery terms, > 65% of the battery come out of the air and you don't have to > carry > it.? Trucks on batteries?? Not likely.? Trains > can be > electrified.? Aircraft are being taken out of service by > the > thousands because of high fuel cost. Which was my point. Thanks. >> I put my money on the > >ability > >to find solutions to scaling up. > > A lot of them don't scale up.? That was the point of the > exposition > on converting trash to oil, there just isn't enough trash.? > There > isn't enough land do grow bio fuels.? No. And it wasn't my intention to put trash generation or grass clipping up as the sole method of making fuels. I probably should have more correctly said gasoline produced from "some oilless method as yet to be determined". The picture I had in my head was of various methods being around all producing the same product. One way may produce a bit and get rid of a lot of garbage at the same time with the mass production still being carried out by specialized facilities. The "open source" part was a beautiful mental picture that would probably never happen and I should have left it out. The overall point was producing regular gasoline, diesel and jet fuel out of raw materials cheaper than the cost of drilling and refining oil. I really don't care if it's little machines, or gen en bacteria (is there a difference?). If it can be made by nature, it can be made by us more efficiently. > From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Tue Jul 1 02:57:31 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:57:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <1214803358_654@s2.cableone.net> References: <200806291557.27370.kanzure@gmail.com> <200806300443.m5U4hDpJ004206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1214803358_654@s2.cableone.net> Message-ID: > >Ja.? We have all those chemicals strongly associated with > reproductive harm, > >yet ethanol is so often a factor in reproductive success. > Ha! That's funny! From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Tue Jul 1 03:01:22 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:01:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <4380BC59-1D3A-45BA-A085-F7924BB9DCA1@mac.com> References: <1214688352_9942@s6.cableone.net> <200806290550.m5T5oDL8028048@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1214768699_668@s2.cableone.net> <4380BC59-1D3A-45BA-A085-F7924BB9DCA1@mac.com> Message-ID: ? There > are means to make? > starvation less likely including vertical farming in urban > areas, and? > algae and fish farming.? Part of starvation is wasting a > lot of grain? > feeding cattle and adding a lot of cost to transport food > large? > distances.? By going to a less cattle intensive diet and > finding means? > to produce much of what is consumed locally the problem could > be? > decreased in dire consequences. Let's not forget the meat manufacturing plants. The PETA prize is out there. :-) > > What we cannot and will not do is be sanguine about mass die- > offs.??? > Of course we (as a species, nothing personal)? usually are > as long as? > the dying is somewhere else.??? I have heard too > many educated and? > generally caring people banter the notion that the world would > be? > better off with around 90% less people.?? They > entertain this notion? > without admitting the horrors of getting there and while they > insist? > they are not promoting mass death. > I couldn't agree more Samantha....Thanks for bringing that up. From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 03:11:08 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:11:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bryan & Kevin's exchange on technology In-Reply-To: <958531.95774.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <958531.95774.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200806302211.08408.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 30 June 2008, Tom Nowell wrote: > Apologies for the length of this, but I have to add my comments to > the discussion between two people, and I want to make sure I've > quoted accurately. Hey Tom. Let's see where this goes. > To quote Kevin Freels and Bryan: > On Sunday 29 June 2008, Kevin Freels wrote: The technology necessary > for singularity isn't going to be made by some guy in a cave. Bryan > replied: > Excuse me, but where do you think we started if not in a cave? So how > is everything else after that not by the same tech, to some extent > also manufactured from within a cave anyway? Okay, so we moved ten > meters outside the mouth of the cave, so what? You can walk that in a > couple of seconds. > > My response to this: the difference between us and the cavedwellers > is a succession of big changes in society and technology. We've What is the difference between a big change and a small change? Is this a degree of emotion that it stirs in you, or is there some real quantification that can be done to illustrate it? I don't need the actual quantification, just an idea of what we're talking about. > recently seen in the media pictures of an uncontacted tribe aiming > their bows at a plane flying overhead. They are unlikely to play a > part in causing the singularity, for reasons I shall outline. Just because they are thinking about the same problems in different ways doesn't mean that they aren't going to do it. I agree that it does seem unlikely considering the historical context, but just from the basis of "uncontacted tribe", that means little. What if they are passing on rituals of logic circuits and advanced mathematics, orally ? Or some such. > According to Toffler's wave theory (check wikipedia under "The Third > Wave" if you're not familiar with it), the first wave involves > adoption of agriculture and early states forming. This takes you away Sounds familiar, but I've never heard of Toffler or these wavethings. > from everybody gathering their own food, with a low population > density, to food being cultivated by a proportion of the community, > leading to much higher population densities and allowing some people > not to work in agriculture at all. These people can take up crafting Yes, but this can be done with technology anyway and it's becoming quite the interesting development (check the news), so there's no need to bring up arguments that "so therefore this specialization must still exist if we are to allow people to do anything but agricultural work". > The conditions most conducive to developing technologies for the > singularity are these: 1. Somebody gets funding for their new tech > idea, has the money to pay specialists to devote their working week > to it, and the facilities to develop it. Eventually this will be > taken to market, and the investors will either make money or have to > write the investment off. 2. A group of highly educated people devote > spare hours outside of their working week to an open source project, > and people donate excess money generated by their jobs if a > manufactured end-product is needed. 3. A government uses the tax > money from the economy to pay people to work on a project, and then > subsidises it to production. 1 & 2 are most likely in a society with > a market economy, with a widely educated workforce, and sufficient > economic freedom to let people do this. 1 probably requires decent > intellectual property laws. Even for 3, the more educated people > there are, the better the odds of finding the right team. As a > result, even if we were to take someone from a hunter-gatherer > society, teach them to read, give them a computer and tell them to > look everything up on wikipedia and search the net for things, they > would have a colossal difficulty adapting to way in which we produce That sounds more like the societal context in which the innovations are introduced. Everyone can create. Maybe you're just being subtle and telling me that I'm having colossal difficulties -- you've basically described my entire life. Taken from an isolated environment, taught to read, given a computer, and then I've been reading on the net ever since. Seems to work so far for me. ;-) > technological innovations. Many of the technologies transhumanists > are interested in require considerable education and/or > specialisation (as people complaining about lack of physics education > on this list know all too well). The existence of autodidactism might show otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidactism > Autodidacticism (also autodidactism) is self-education or > self-directed learning. An autodidact, also known as an automath, is > a mostly self-taught person, as opposed to learning in a school > setting or from a tutor. > > A person may become an autodidact at nearly any point in his or her > life. While some may have been educated in a conventional manner in a > particular field, they may choose to educate themselves in other, > often unrelated areas. > > Self-teaching and self-directed learning are not necessarily lonely > processes. Some autodidacts spend a great deal of time in libraries > or on educative websites. Many, according to their plan for learning, > avail themselves of instruction from family members, friends, or > other associates (although strictly speaking this might not be > considered autodidactic). Indeed, the term "self-taught" is something > of a journalistic trope these days, and is often used to signify > "non-traditionally educated", which is entirely different. Back to the email: > To cover other points that Kevin and Bryan talked about: > Kevin> Technology requires industry. > > Bryan> Don't know what you mean by this. Arguably, biology is > technology. And biology came before human industry. I think what > Kevin meant was "you don't build an Intel chip at home, and backyard You certainly don't build an Intel chip at home, but you can build vacuum tubes, and then you can assemble the vacuum tubes in an organization that mimics an Intel microprocessor, although you'd be very stupid to do this :-) and should probably use a RISC architecture instead. > rockets don't compete with the Apollo programme." If you need Are you sure? I haven't heard of any backyard rockets even attempting to compete with Apollo, so it's not that it's impossible, just that nobody bothered to do that when the Apollo program was around. > high-tech manufactured goods, the odds of you having the knowledge to > design it, the knowledge to use it, the knowledge to build it and the > tools to build it all at once are small. You are likely to need to Yes, but we're fixing this, remember? http://heybryan.org/exp.html > get a lot of people to help you out, and for the manufacturing end > the straightforward solution is to pay people to make it. As for That's completely straightbackwards. The notes on exp.html mention the idea of the formal encapsulation of this knowledge and information so that it can be repeated on more than one occassion, and this is essentially much like the scientific method, except that the majority of scientific publications are still in natural language form instead of a computationally executable format -- but there are projects that are moving towards fixing this: http://expo.sf.net/ the "robot scientist" > non-manufactured goods - whether it's music or software or something The human brain manufactures music and software. > else rapidly copiable - in order to get these spread, you and all > your potential audience need to pay communications companies so you Haha. That's funny because a good number of my friends aren't paying communications companies. In my last email or so in reply to Keith I mentioned how many of them have tin can antenna setups to steal the access and do wireless meshes to hop from node to node. > can spread them. The bands on myspace rely on everyone paying > telecommunication companies for internet access, and collaborative > software development relies on email, file transfer, and people > communicating with each other lots. You need to look up the mesh projects. :-) These are pretty awesome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_network http://cuwireless.net/ "The CUWiN Foundation develops decentralized, community-owned networks that foster democratic cultures and local content. Through advocacy and through our commitment to open source technology, we support organic networks that grow to meet the needs of their community." http://weblog.mrbill.net/archives/2005/07/31/mesh-network-completed/ http://bcwireless.net/moin.cgi/Mesh http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3520231 http://www.vdomck.org/blog/2005/07/22/how-to-build-a-mesh-network-with-wrt54gs/ http://csircoin.blogspot.com/2005/06/setting-up-olsr-mesh-on-linksys.html http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=WRT54G+mesh+network&sourceid=opera&num=50&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 etc. There was this one open source mesh network that has been developing over the internet for a while now, and has something like a few ten thousand contributors that have their wireless networks intersecting each other. And you don't know how many of them are using proprietary networking equipment, or if they have built their own. Chances are that they are still using proprietary, but the system is designed to be robust so that they can go replace the modules with other modules that they build (or their friends build for them, or their machines in a garage somewhere). > Kevin> Industry requires economies. > > Bryan> Certainly, look at ecosystems, but it's not the same thing as > money. I think Kevin was trying to say that money-based economies > provide clear, obvious mechanisms to encourage industrial production > and reward innovation. Certainly, the beginnings of better production > and new products took a great leap in England after the > monetarisation of the economy in the thirteenth century, and the > invention of double-entry accounting in medieval Italy revolutionised > commerce and encouraged the spread of goods. There may be other ways > of encouraging industry and production, but none of them so far have > worked as well as money. I'd point to open source in general. It's worked very, very well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software > Kevin> A cell phone without civilization is just a paper weight. > > Bryan> That's not true ... just throw up some towers/antennaes, a few > electrical generators and also some distribution equipment. you can > make a rudimentary hydrodynamic power generator with wires (or less > optimally other shapes) of magnetic materials wrapped around other > conductive metals basically, etc. etc. > > Well, in Burma the cyclone took the telecoms network down. Telecoms > Sans Frontieres offered to send in telecoms engineers to put up a > temporary network and offer every refugee a phone call to someone, so > they could let relatives know what was happening. The temporary > network would also allow aid agencies on the ground to co-ordinate > better. The Burmese government rejected this, and kept aid agencies > out. In Burma, your cell phone IS just a paper weight. As to Bryan's > point - a cellular network requires a fair amount of technology, > you're not likely to knock this up in your backyard. Without a > certain degree of civilisation, it's hard to rebuild a downed > network. Go read some of the antenna documents I linked to Keith. It is not impossible to do communications in your backyard. In the case of wired communication, go get a string and place it between two cups and whisper in one cup, listen through the other, over a suitable distance that I sadly forget the mathematical definition of. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Tue Jul 1 03:09:57 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:09:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bryan & Kevin's exchange on technology In-Reply-To: <958531.95774.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <958531.95774.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Nowell Date: Monday, June 30, 2008 15:36 Subject: Re: [ExI] Bryan & Kevin's exchange on technology To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Apologies for the length of this, but I have to add my comments > to the discussion between two people, and I want to make sure > I've quoted accurately. > > To quote Kevin Freels and Bryan: > On Sunday 29 June 2008, Kevin Freels wrote: The technology > necessary for singularity isn't going to be made by some guy in > a cave. > Bryan replied: > Excuse me, but where do you think we started if not in a cave? > So how is > everything else after that not by the same tech, to some extent > also > manufactured from within a cave anyway? Okay, so we moved ten > meters > outside the mouth of the cave, so what? You can walk that in a > couple > of seconds. > > My response to this: the difference between us and the > cavedwellers is a succession of big changes in society and > technology. We've recently seen in the media pictures of an > uncontacted tribe aiming their bows at a plane flying overhead. > They are unlikely to play a part in causing the singularity, for > reasons I shall outline. > ?According to Toffler's wave theory (check wikipedia under > "The Third Wave" if you're not familiar with it), the first wave > involves adoption of agriculture and early states forming. This > takes you away from everybody gathering their own food, with a > low population density, to food being cultivated by a proportion > of the community, leading to much higher population densities > and allowing some people not to work in agriculture at all. > These people can take up crafting professions, leading to a > higher quality of manufactured goods, and professions involving > thinking and learning (your early priests and scribes). This > division of labour allowing people to specialise is why > metalworking and writing come after the development of agriculture. > ?The second wave involves the adoption of mechanical > technology to factories, changing economies to allow > corporations, and mass education. Mass everything allows much > higher levels of production of material goods, more educated > societies, and more heavily urbanised societies. > ?The third wave is more loosely defined, but is more > broadly comparable to the concept of "the information age" - as > information technology and advanced communications take hold, > the economy becomes more knowledge based, and knowledge and > creativity are at least as important as manufacturing in the economy. > ?The conditions most conducive to developing technologies > for the singularity are these: > 1. Somebody gets funding for their new tech idea, has the money > to pay specialists to devote their working week to it, and the > facilities to develop it. Eventually this will be taken to > market, and the investors will either make money or have to > write the investment off. > 2. A group of highly educated people devote spare hours outside > of their working week to an open source project, and people > donate excess money generated by their jobs if a manufactured > end-product is needed. > 3. A government uses the tax money from the economy to pay > people to work on a project, and then subsidises it to production. > ?1 & 2 are most likely in a society with a market economy, > with a widely educated workforce, and sufficient economic > freedom to let people do this. 1 probably requires decent > intellectual property laws. Even for 3, the more educated people > there are, the better the odds of finding the right team. > ?As a result, even if we were to take someone from a hunter- > gatherer society, teach them to read, give them a computer and > tell them to look everything up on wikipedia and search the net > for things, they would have a colossal difficulty adapting to > way in which we produce technological innovations. Many of the > technologies transhumanists are interested in require > considerable education and/or specialisation (as people > complaining about lack of physics education on this list know > all too well). > > ?To cover other points that Kevin and Bryan talked about: > Kevin> Technology requires industry. > > Bryan> Don't know what you mean by this. Arguably, biology is > technology. And biology came before human industry. > ?I think what Kevin meant was "you don't build an Intel > chip at home, and backyard rockets don't compete with the Apollo > programme." If you need high-tech manufactured goods, the odds > of you having the knowledge to design it, the knowledge to use > it, the knowledge to build it and the tools to build it all at > once are small. You are likely to need to get a lot of people to > help you out, and for the manufacturing end the straightforward > solution is to pay people to make it. > ?As for non-manufactured goods - whether it's music or > software or something else rapidly copiable - in order to get > these spread, you and all your potential audience need to pay > communications companies so you can spread them. The bands on > myspace rely on everyone paying telecommunication companies for > internet access, and collaborative software development relies > on email, file transfer, and people communicating with each > other lots. > > Kevin> Industry requires economies. > > Bryan> Certainly, look at ecosystems, but it's not the same > thing as money. > ?I think Kevin was trying to say that money-based economies > provide clear, obvious mechanisms to encourage industrial > production and reward innovation. Certainly, the beginnings of > better production and new products took a great leap in England > after the monetarisation of the economy in the thirteenth > century, and the invention of double-entry accounting in > medieval Italy revolutionised commerce and encouraged the spread > of goods. There may be other ways of encouraging industry and > production, but none of them so far have worked as well as money. > > Kevin> Economies require stability. > > Bryan>Stability is good stuff, yes. > ?I just need to use the examples of Robert Mugabe's > Zimbabwe, Idi Amin's Uganda, and the comparative fates of North > and South Korea to show what instability and poor governance can do. > > Kevin> Without stable growing economies you get no advancing > industry and no advancing technology. > > This isn't strictly true - despite the terrible economy and the > starving people, North Korea still detonated what looked like a > nuke, and has some military technology. It's not a patch on what > the South can do (says the man with a Samsung phone in his > pocket and an LG TV in the house). > > Kevin> A cell phone without civilization is just a paper > weight.? > > Bryan> That's not true ... just throw up some towers/antennaes, > a few > electrical generators and also some distribution equipment. you > can > make a rudimentary hydrodynamic power generator with wires (or > less > optimally other shapes) of magnetic materials wrapped around > other > conductive metals basically, etc. etc. > > Well, in Burma the cyclone took the telecoms network down. > Telecoms Sans Frontieres offered to send in telecoms engineers > to put up a temporary network and offer every refugee a phone > call to someone, so they could let relatives know what was > happening. The temporary network would also allow aid agencies > on the ground to co-ordinate better. The Burmese government > rejected this, and kept aid agencies out. In Burma, your cell > phone IS just a paper weight. As to Bryan's point - a cellular > network requires a fair amount of technology, you're not likely > to knock this up in your backyard. Without a certain degree of > civilisation, it's hard to rebuild a downed network. > > Tom > > > Thanks Tom. I didn't think I needed to spell it out but I guess I was wrong. I did want to add one small point to one of your comments: > Kevin> Without stable growing economies you get no advancing > industry and no advancing technology. > > This isn't strictly true - despite the terrible economy and the > starving people, North Korea still detonated what looked like a > nuke, and has some military technology. It's not a patch on what > the South can do (says the man with a Samsung phone in his > pocket and an LG TV in the house). That technology was bought, borrowed, or stolen from stable economies that developed the technologies in the first place. From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Tue Jul 1 03:27:08 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:27:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bryan & Kevin's exchange on technology In-Reply-To: <200806302211.08408.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <958531.95774.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <200806302211.08408.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: I never intended for this thread to go this far. I just wanted it to be known that I was revising my previous position in other posts that the oil would one day run out. I'm not entirely sure where you stand but it seems to me that you see oilless gasoline as impossible but you think the singularity can happen in the midst of world economic collapse and devolution of society. Never mind the fact that any AI that can bridge human death can probably find a way to make gasoline cheaper than drilling oil. Regardless of where you stand, I'm done with this thread. Its gone on far too long for what I wanted to accomplish and it's just adding noise to the list at this point. One thing I do want to give you Bryan is a small piece of advice. You are an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable person. Widen your focus a bit and learn some more about people. History, sociology, psychology, and anthropology would all do you some good. You have to understand that as a single human being you can't even manufacture the metal and glass needed to make a light bulb by yourself. No man is an island. Take care. From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 03:39:00 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:39:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bryan & Kevin's exchange on technology In-Reply-To: References: <958531.95774.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <200806302211.08408.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200806302239.00942.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 30 June 2008, Kevin Freels wrote: > I never intended for this thread to go this far. I just wanted it to > be known that I was revising my previous position in other posts that > the oil would one day run out. I'm not entirely sure where you stand > but it seems to me that you see oilless gasoline as impossible but I don't think I've implied this. > you think the singularity can happen in the midst of world economic > collapse and devolution of society. Never mind the fact that any AI Yes, but that's not the scenario I'm hoping for. > that can bridge human death can probably find a way to make gasoline > cheaper than drilling oil. Sure. > Regardless of where you stand, I'm done with this thread. Its gone on > far too long for what I wanted to accomplish and it's just adding > noise to the list at this point. I thought it was an interesting discussion. I guess we'll stop. > One thing I do want to give you Bryan is a small piece of advice. You > are an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable person. Widen your > focus a bit and learn some more about people. History, sociology, > psychology, and anthropology would all do you some good. You have to > understand that as a single human being you can't even manufacture > the metal and glass needed to make a light bulb by yourself. No man > is an island. I guess now would be a bad time to pull out my references on glass blowing. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Tue Jul 1 03:36:44 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:36:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] New animation - is it familiar to you? In-Reply-To: <4558B939C25840829CFC47D25EEA7674@GinaSony> References: <4558B939C25840829CFC47D25EEA7674@GinaSony> Message-ID: It's interesting that you picked van Gogh. "Thatched Cottages at Cordeville" was mentioned in Chapterhouse: Dune. It's one of the few remaining things of the original Earth. Very fitting. Lovely work. From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue Jul 1 03:46:48 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:46:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New animation - is it familiar to you? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0195736A70AA48D3863528F5F830B071@GinaSony> Thank you so much Amara, I must confess after I finish my animations my very favorite thing is to hear feedback about them. It's sort of the reward after all the work. I'm so glad that you appreciate both selections, the painting and the music! It sounds so incredible to be there, I can only imagine! I appreciate your sharing that with me - it's a beautiful email Amara. Warm regards, 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." ----- Original Message ----- From: Amara Graps To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 7:53 PM Subject: [ExI] New animation - is it familiar to you? Oh Gina.... That is so lovely. How did you _know_ that Starry Night is my favorite Van Gogh painting! And painted to one of my favorite symphonic pieces too... :-) When your health gets better, I will _show you_ the exact place in Provence where Van Gogh painted "Starry Night over St. Remy". There is a marker at that place and you can imagine yourself there, transported back in time to when he painted it. "Everything is extraordinarily beautiful here! Everything and everywhere the color of the sky is an admirable blue, the sun shines like pale sulfur, it is sweet and charming like the combinations of blues and yellows in the skies of the Vermeer of Delft." ... "The subject of painting night scenes or night effects and night itself interests me tremendously. Night is more alive and more colorful than day." (Vincent Van Gogh writing to his brother Theo in 1888 and 1889) "Don't forget that little emotions are the great captains of our lives." (Vincent Van Gogh, Arles, 1888). Thank you again, Gina. Take care, 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 nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue Jul 1 03:47:47 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:47:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New animation - is it familiar to you? In-Reply-To: References: <4558B939C25840829CFC47D25EEA7674@GinaSony> Message-ID: <53D9432A64DC47D19005DF2CB06ED59C@GinaSony> Ah, very interesting point Kevin! Thank you and I'm so glad you like it! 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." ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Freels To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] New animation - is it familiar to you? It's interesting that you picked van Gogh. "Thatched Cottages at Cordeville" was mentioned in Chapterhouse: Dune. It's one of the few remaining things of the original Earth. Very fitting. Lovely work. _______________________________________________ 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 robotact at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 04:08:29 2008 From: robotact at gmail.com (Vladimir Nesov) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:08:29 +0400 Subject: [ExI] Savants and user-interfaces [was Re: [agi] WHAT SORT OF HARDWARE $33K AND $850K BUYS TODAY FOR USE IN AGI In-Reply-To: <3ae3aa420806302043v10873921mb6b19fa836a44285@mail.gmail.com> References: <3ae3aa420806302043v10873921mb6b19fa836a44285@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Interesting: is it possible to train yourself to run a specially designed nontrivial inference circuit based on low-base transformations (e.g. binary)? You start by assigning unique symbols to its nodes, train yourself to stably perform associations implementing its junctions, and then assemble it all together by training yourself to generate a problem as a temporal sequence (request), so that it can be handled by the overall circuit, and training to read out the answer and convert it to sequence of e.g. base-10 digits or base-100 words keying pairs of digits (like in mnemonic)? Has anyone heard of this attempted? At least the initial steps look straightforward enough, what kind of obstacles this kind of experiment can run into? On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Linas Vepstas wrote: > 2008/6/30 Terren Suydam : >> >> savant > > I've always theorized that savants can do what they do because > they've been able to get direct access to, and train, a fairly > small number of neurons in their brain, to accomplish highly > specialized (and thus rather unusual) calculations. > > I'm thinking specifically of Ramanujan, the Hindi mathematician. > He appears to have had access to a "multiply-add" type circuit > in his brain, and could do symbolic long division and > multiplication as a result -- I base this on studying some of > the things he came up with -- after a while, it seems to be > clear how he came up with it (even if the feat is clearly not > reproducible). > > In a sense, similar feats are possible by using a modern > computer with a good algebra system. Simon Plouffe seems > to be a modern-day example of this: he noodles around with > his systems, and finds various interesting relationships that > would otherwise be obscure/unknown. He does this without > any particularly deep or expansive training in math (whence > some of his friction with "real academics"). If Simon could > get a computer-algebra chip implanted in his brain, (i.e. > with a very, very user-freindly user-interface) so that he > could work the algebra system just by thinking about it, > I bet his output would resemble that of Ramanujan a whole > lot more than it already does -- as it were, he's hobbled by > a crappy user interface. > > Thus, let me theorize: by studying savants with MRI and > what-not, we may find a way of getting a much better > man-machine interface. That is, currently, electrodes > are always implanted in motor neurons (or visual cortex, etc) > i.e. in places of the brain with very low levels of abstraction > from the "real word". It would be interesting to move up the > level of abstraction, and I think that studying how savants > access the "magic circuits" in thier brain will open up a > method for high-level interfaces to external computing > machinery. > > --linas > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8550374&id_secret=106510213-004feb > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Vladimir Nesov robotact at gmail.com http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ From robotact at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 04:42:17 2008 From: robotact at gmail.com (Vladimir Nesov) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:42:17 +0400 Subject: [ExI] Savants and user-interfaces [was Re: [agi] WHAT SORT OF HARDWARE $33K AND $850K BUYS TODAY FOR USE IN AGI In-Reply-To: <3ae3aa420806302131x4896a50bge795ffcdab8125eb@mail.gmail.com> References: <3ae3aa420806302043v10873921mb6b19fa836a44285@mail.gmail.com> <3ae3aa420806302131x4896a50bge795ffcdab8125eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Linas Vepstas wrote: > > Why binary? > > I once skimmed a biography of Ramanujan, he started > multiplying numbers in his head as a pre-teen. I suspect > it was grindingly boring, but given the surroundings, might > have been the most fun thing he could think of. If you're > autistic, then focusing obsessively on some task might > be a great way to pass the time, but if you're more or less > normal, I doubt you'll get very far with obsessive-compulsive > self-training -- and that's the problem, isn't it? > If the signals have properties of their own, I'm afraid they will start interfering with each other, which won't allow the circuit to execute in real time. Binary signals, on the other hand, can be encoded by the activation of nodes of the circuit, active/inactive. If you have an AND gate that leads from symbols S1 and S2 to S3, you learn to remember S3 only when you see both S1 and S2 (probably you'll still need complementary symbol to develop negative, so you'll also need -S1, -S2 and -S3, so that -S3 is activated (recalled) when you see S1 and -S2, whole table. You'll also need separate symbols for each node in each gate. Probably randomly generated hieroglyph-like symbols are a good way to create new categories in the mind for new nodes in the circuit, and also to train yourself to recall the right answers on the gates, by drawing them together. -- Vladimir Nesov robotact at gmail.com http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ From spike66 at att.net Tue Jul 1 04:21:08 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:21:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bryan & Kevin's exchange on technology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807010448.m614lpoe021415@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Kevin Freels ... > > > Apologies for the length of this, but I have to add my... > > That technology was bought, borrowed, or stolen from stable > economies that developed the technologies in the first place. Kevin and others if applicable, please trim when you reply. Otherwise it makes the archives junky, repetitive and unusable for the sight impaired, thanks. spike From spike66 at att.net Tue Jul 1 05:20:50 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:20:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ants again Message-ID: <200807010521.m615Krlj008953@andromeda.ziaspace.com> OK here's a kick in the pants. Please someone check my line of reasoning. My fruit trees were infested with aphid-farmer ants, so I put a sticky barrier ring around the base. A few ants ventured into the goo, became... gooed, but the others apparently saw and did not follow, so the ants on the ground were stuck on the ground and the ants in the tree were stranded in the tree. The tree was heavily infested, with perhaps ten thousand ants, and even more aphids. So yesterday I noticed that the ants were milling about on the tree, but that they appeared to have forgotten their aphid flocks. Most of the aphids appeared untended. Today I noticed something even more curious. Most of the ants were gone! Still skerjillions of them on the ground milling about, but the trees had only perhaps 10 to 20 percent of the original number. So all I can figure is that ants apparently fall out of their trees. I don't know where else or how else they would be going? Ideas? If they routinely fall out of the trees upon which they farm, and just go around and climb back up, and if now they cannot get back up, and 80 to 90 percent are gone after two days, then it is close enough first order estimate that any given ant falls from the tree about once a day on average or slightly more often. Did anyone here know, or did you ever observe ants falling from trees? Perhaps we just weren't setting up the experiment correctly, or it is too difficult to see ants falling from trees. If an ant falls an average of about once a day, and I set up a piece of white cardboard under the tree on a platform that disallows ants from coming up from below, I should be able to observe an ant falling upon the cardboard at a rate of a couple per minute, ja? I always assumed that the ants protect the aphids. So what if now the ants fall out of the tree, but the aphids don't? Would I expect to see big mean ladybugs show up and begin to devour the unprotected aphids? Or would the ladybugs just assume the presence of ants and go elsewhere? Any ideas? Granted the extropic angle of this particular topic is tenuous at best, so feel free to reply offlist if this interests you, or post here until the drones start to complain. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robotact at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 07:27:17 2008 From: robotact at gmail.com (Vladimir Nesov) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:27:17 +0400 Subject: [ExI] Savants and user-interfaces [was Re: [agi] WHAT SORT OF HARDWARE $33K AND $850K BUYS TODAY FOR USE IN AGI In-Reply-To: <3ae3aa420806302302s246fccd0ycd42b87fa3239471@mail.gmail.com> References: <3ae3aa420806302043v10873921mb6b19fa836a44285@mail.gmail.com> <3ae3aa420806302131x4896a50bge795ffcdab8125eb@mail.gmail.com> <3ae3aa420806302302s246fccd0ycd42b87fa3239471@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Linas Vepstas wrote: > > What are you trying to accomplish here? I don't see where > you are trying to go with this. > > I don't think a human can consciously train one or two neurons > to do something, we train millions at a time. -- I'm guessing > savants only employ a few tens of million neurons (give or take a > few orders of magnitude) -- to do their stuff. > > Still, an array of 1K by 1K electrodes is well within current > technology, we just don't know where to hook this up to, > with the exception of simple motor areas, retina, and bit > of the auditory circuits. > Certainly nothing to do with individual neurons. Basically, it's possible to train a finite state automaton in the mind through association. You see a certain combination of properties, you think the symbol that describes this combination. If such automaton is trained not just to handle natural data (such as language), but to a specifically designed circuit plan, it'll probably be possible to use it as a directly accessible 'add-on' to the brain that implements specific simple function efficiently, such as some operation with numbers using a clever algorithm in a way alien to normal deliberative learning. You don't learn to perform a task, but to execute individual steps of an algorithm that performs a task. -- Vladimir Nesov robotact at gmail.com http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 1 08:42:40 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 01:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] ants again In-Reply-To: <200807010521.m615Krlj008953@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <294728.61635.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Today I noticed something even more curious. Most of the ants were gone! > Still skerjillions of them on the ground milling about, but the trees had > only perhaps 10 to 20 percent of the original number. So all I can figure > is that ants apparently fall out of their trees. I don't know where else or > how else they would be going? Ideas? Keen observation, Spike. Unfortunatly these guys beat you to it by a few years: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/02/09_ants.shtml > > If they routinely fall out of the trees upon which they farm, and just go > around and climb back up, and if now they cannot get back up, and 80 to 90 > percent are gone after two days, then it is close enough first order > estimate that any given ant falls from the tree about once a day on average > or slightly more often. According to the article, they fall off at will to avoid predators for example. The Peruvian species mentioned in the article apparently even glide to some degree, making 180 turns in midair to land on the same tree further down. > Did anyone here know, or did you ever observe ants falling from trees? > Perhaps we just weren't setting up the experiment correctly, or it is too > difficult to see ants falling from trees. If an ant falls an average of > about once a day, and I set up a piece of white cardboard under the tree on > a platform that disallows ants from coming up from below, I should be able > to observe an ant falling upon the cardboard at a rate of a couple per > minute, ja? Perhaps the wind is a factor? It would be interesting to see whether they are falling off by accident or purposely jumping. It would be cool if the species you are watching can glide like Cephalotes atratus. It does make a lot of sense to me too. Ants are essentially eusocial wingless wasps. The queens and drones in fact do have wings until they mate. So even without wings, a worker ant probably has most of the other "flight instrumentation" so to speak. > I always assumed that the ants protect the aphids. So what if now the ants > fall out of the tree, but the aphids don't? Would I expect to see big mean > ladybugs show up and begin to devour the unprotected aphids? Yes. Or the green lacewing whose larvae are called "aphid lions". Ladybug larvae are sometimes called "aphid alligators" because the kind of do look like little black alligators with orange markings. Lions and alligators, oh my. :-) > Or would the > ladybugs just assume the presence of ants and go elsewhere? Any ideas? Advertising? I am just kidding but it will probably take some time. Adult ladybugs would probably have to mate and lay eggs on your trees for a few generations to really make a dent in a formerly well-tended herd of aphids. Also the larvae of both ladybugs and lacewings are more voracious than the adults. I wouldn't leave it to chance. Army ants in the Amazon Rainforest build bridges out of their own bodies to cross piranha-filled rivers so I wouldn't put it past your ants to eventually figure out a way around your "ring o' sticky doom". If want to take advantage of the window of opportunity, you can buy ladybugs and green lacewings here for about $15. http://www.gardensalive.com/search.asp?ss=green+lacewings&eid=092706GA&sid=143369&gclid=CLmShr2UnpQCFR0ZagodMUsvtg&bhcd2=1214897007 http://www.gardensalive.com/product.asp?pn=5065&ss=ladybugs > Granted the extropic angle of this particular topic is tenuous at best, so > feel free to reply offlist if this interests you, or post here until the > drones start to complain. Considering that drones only live long enough to mate with the queen, why give them any say in this? ;-) Actually I could make a case for aphids being appropriate for the list but I will leave that as an exercise for the reader. Hint: it has to do with the females. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "In ancient times they had no statistics so that they had to fall back on lies."- Stephen Leacock From amara at amara.com Tue Jul 1 14:05:20 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:05:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] ants again Message-ID: Dear Spike, Is it possible that the male ants could be of the flying variety? If so, that's trouble for you.. they could carry off some of the aphids to another tree. I would make an all-out assault on the ants-aphids, if I were you, and unleash an army of ladybugs to deal with the problem. And show Isaac what happens when humans wish to modify their corner of an elaborate ecosystem. Could be educational for both of you! Last April, I gave my 7 year old nephew an ant farm for his birthday.. I should have just sent him to your fruit trees! ;-) Ciao, Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Tue Jul 1 14:21:47 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:21:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bryan & Kevin's exchange on technology In-Reply-To: <200807010448.m614lpoe021415@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200807010448.m614lpoe021415@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: > > > Kevin and others if applicable, please trim when you > reply. Otherwise it > makes the archives junky, repetitive and unusable for the sight > impaired,thanks. > > spike > > Yeah, that's my fault. I was using a clunky webmail interface at the time and couldn't figure out how to trim it. It wouldn't let me for some reason....... I do usually try to trim where applicable. :-) From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 1 15:10:09 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:10:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wondering if we'd be Better Off with Fewer People References: <1214688352_9942@s6.cableone.net><200806290550.m5T5oDL8028048@andromeda.ziaspace.com><1214768699_668@s2.cableone.net> <4380BC59-1D3A-45BA-A085-F7924BB9DCA1@mac.com> Message-ID: <040601c8db8c$b5bbd770$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes > Of course we (as a species, nothing personal) usually are [sanguine] as long as > the dying is somewhere else. I have heard too many educated and > generally caring people banter the notion that the world would be > better off with around 90% less people. I posit that in their imaginings they're not in the 90%. > They entertain this notion without admitting the horrors of getting > there and while they insist they are not promoting mass death. You have to break a few eggs to get an omelet, as they've been saying for well over a century. I'm with those who think the world is vastly underpopulated, and hope that various breakthoughs in coming years make it really obvious to everyone that many, many more people can be sustained than at present. Before colonizing space, humans could colonize the ocean bottoms, and before doing that, colonize antarctica and the deserts, and before that, the swamps. The only problem is that living in these places is just not as much fun, and that's why in the U.S. many of the middle states are losing population. Lee From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Jul 1 16:43:33 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:43:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] antennas and cell phones In-Reply-To: <200806302211.08408.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <958531.95774.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <200806302211.08408.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1214930797_873@S4.cableone.net> At 08:11 PM 6/30/2008, Bryan wrote: >On Monday 30 June 2008, Tom Nowell wrote: snip > > Well, in Burma the cyclone took the telecoms network down. Telecoms > > Sans Frontieres offered to send in telecoms engineers to put up a > > temporary network and offer every refugee a phone call to someone, so > > they could let relatives know what was happening. The temporary > > network would also allow aid agencies on the ground to co-ordinate > > better. The Burmese government rejected this, and kept aid agencies > > out. In Burma, your cell phone IS just a paper weight. As to Bryan's > > point - a cellular network requires a fair amount of technology, > > you're not likely to knock this up in your backyard. Without a > > certain degree of civilisation, it's hard to rebuild a downed > > network. > >Go read some of the antenna documents I linked to Keith. I have a story related to antennas I tell that I have meant to write up for a long time. In the summer of 1961, between freshman and sophomore years, I could not find a summer job so I studied up for a first class commercial radio telephone licence, something that doesn't even exist any more, but in those days was needed to operate a transmitter. I took the test, got it and moved to Tucson where I had been going to school. Went to work for KVOA-TV which was that summer building a new transmitter on top of the Catalina mountains north of Tucson. The building construction was mostly finished. What we were doing was to put in the transmitter, the controls, the microwave link up from the studio and such. There were 5 or 6 of us and we worked both at the studio and on the mountain depending on what needed to be done. Among other things I picked up the skill of brazing 4 inch wide grounding strips that were placed in all the cable troughs. One of my co-workers was from Turkey. His family was well off. He was bright enough to have a MS degree from MIT and was 6-8 years older than me. He showed me photographs of his master's project, a high gain Yagi antenna. From the dimensions of it, it was up in the current 2.4 GHz cell phone band. His family's intent was for him to go back to Turkey and eventually become the head of the national telephone company. He was working this physical level job to gain experience. Man did he need it. I have never run into a person so inept at the kind of skills I took for granted. A 6-32 tap isn't that sturdy. I have broken a few of them tapping holes, but this guy managed to break 6 of them in a day. One of the days we were working out of the studio I went into the shop area and found him tangled up like a kitten with a ball of string. He had been given the task of making a cable that ran from the transmitter to the control console. The cable was to be (as I recall) 30 wires each 30 feet long with lugs soldered on the ends. I found him trying to measure out these cables with a one foot ruler. He had about 6 cut and when the wires were made into the cable, the wires randomly varied by a few feet. I showed him the obvious way of turning over a chair and putting a pipe through the cable spool then marking off a distance on the floor by counting the one foot floor tiles. Then it was a matter of pulling a wire out and cutting it to length. This obvious stratagem did not occur to him. I was fascinated and spent some time when we were making the hour and a half drive up the mountain drawing him out about his childhood. He had never touched at tool nor even watched someone working on a car, this simply being below the social place of his family. >It is not >impossible to do communications in your backyard. In the case of wired >communication, go get a string and place it between two cups and >whisper in one cup, listen through the other, over a suitable distance >that I sadly forget the mathematical definition of. Ah, yes, the string telephone length function. Without new cell phones, how long would the cell network be useful? Keith From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 17:49:47 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:49:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] antennas and cell phones In-Reply-To: <1214930797_873@S4.cableone.net> References: <958531.95774.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <200806302211.08408.kanzure@gmail.com> <1214930797_873@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200807011249.48009.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 01 July 2008, hkhenson wrote: > Without new cell phones, how long would the cell network be useful? Alright, fine, we'll go with traditional radios from hand-made vacuum tubes. But remember the original discussion was more about the possibility of making these things and how economics doesn't make all of this 'magical' -- i.e., inaccessible to us. It just looks that way. As for cell phones, then radios, then just bit transmission with smoke stacks, we can go all the way down the line of technology, but that's missing the point. Here's an interesting kit I just found: http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/03/vacuum_tube_radio_kit.html There was a guy in France who recently got some fame for making his own vacuum tubes. I don't know why. Something about robotics, maybe. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/08/239209 Other vacuum tube links: http://www.pmillett.com/technical_books_online.htm http://www.tubeworld.com/tubes.html http://www.vacuumtubesinc.com/ http://www.repairfaq.org/ELE/F_Tubes.html#TUBES_024 http://www.vacuumtubes.net/How_Vacuum_Tubes_Work.htm I also read a lot on vacuum chambers, but some good that does us for radios, eh? - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 21:52:59 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 23:52:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Wondering if we'd be Better Off with Fewer People In-Reply-To: <040601c8db8c$b5bbd770$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1214688352_9942@s6.cableone.net> <200806290550.m5T5oDL8028048@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1214768699_668@s2.cableone.net> <4380BC59-1D3A-45BA-A085-F7924BB9DCA1@mac.com> <040601c8db8c$b5bbd770$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20807011452j6fbcc380l1893d8edee87bb29@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > I'm with those who think the world is vastly underpopulated, > and hope that various breakthoughs in coming years make > it really obvious to everyone that many, many more people > can be sustained than at present. Before colonizing space, > humans could colonize the ocean bottoms, and before doing > that, colonize antarctica and the deserts, and before that, > the swamps. The only problem is that living in these places > is just not as much fun, and that's why in the U.S. many of > the middle states are losing population. I am inclined to agree. My main concern, however, is what produces and is produced by the lowering of demographic pressure. A longevist society should not, and hopefully need not, be a society of the old. Stefano Va From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Jul 2 00:18:17 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:18:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wondering if we'd be Better Off with Fewer People In-Reply-To: <580930c20807011452j6fbcc380l1893d8edee87bb29@mail.gmail.co m> References: <1214688352_9942@s6.cableone.net> <200806290550.m5T5oDL8028048@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1214768699_668@s2.cableone.net> <4380BC59-1D3A-45BA-A085-F7924BB9DCA1@mac.com> <040601c8db8c$b5bbd770$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20807011452j6fbcc380l1893d8edee87bb29@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1214959304_2918@s2.cableone.net> At 02:52 PM 7/1/2008, you wrote: >On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I'm with those who think the world is vastly underpopulated, > > and hope that various breakthoughs in coming years make > > it really obvious to everyone that many, many more people > > can be sustained than at present. Before colonizing space, > > humans could colonize the ocean bottoms, and before doing > > that, colonize antarctica and the deserts, and before that, > > the swamps. The only problem is that living in these places > > is just not as much fun, and that's why in the U.S. many of > > the middle states are losing population. > >I am inclined to agree. My main concern, however, is what produces and >is produced by the lowering of demographic pressure. A longevist >society should not, and hopefully need not, be a society of the old. You can't avoid it. Exponential growth, even linear growth, will fill any finite carrying capacity. At that point the birth rate and the longevity become mathematically coupled. The math is in the Gregory Clark paper I have posted pointers to a number of times. Keith From brent.allsop at comcast.net Wed Jul 2 01:18:49 2008 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:18:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] New animation - is it familiar to you? In-Reply-To: <4558B939C25840829CFC47D25EEA7674@GinaSony> References: <4558B939C25840829CFC47D25EEA7674@GinaSony> Message-ID: <486AD779.1010100@comcast.net> Gina, As usual, was fun to watch. Brent Gina Miller wrote: > Nanogirl here ~ > I began work on this new animation project on the 22nd. This was > something I have wanted to do for sometime, but I have a lot of ideas > that I want to pursue and I set them aside because there are bigger > projects that I am working on. I tried to ignore this just the same, > but there is a painting hanging above the bed and every night I see > it, until finally I could resist no longer. Now that I am finished > with the animation, the painting will speak to me in a different way. > I worked very hard on this animation every day (and night), and I am > so happy to have it completed. You will be able to see the actual > development of the animation itself, in this piece ~ I'm calling it a > "work in process animation". Oh, and when you see the first credit, > it's not the end it's the middle and it's an indicator that you will > be going backwards... There is more information about this online, but > I'm going to put it on a special separate page so that you (my extropy > friends) can watch the movie without any information so that there is > the element of surprise. I think and wish upon star that you will > really like this one because you will most likely be familiar with > part of it... turn up your volume. Here is the link: > http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/newanimation.html (you'll want to > read this page fully!). > > Best wishes > > 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 nanogirl at halcyon.com Wed Jul 2 01:32:52 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:32:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New animation - is it familiar to you? In-Reply-To: <486AD779.1010100@comcast.net> References: <4558B939C25840829CFC47D25EEA7674@GinaSony> <486AD779.1010100@comcast.net> Message-ID: <787105D24DCE4670A220FF32419509C0@GinaSony> Thanks Brent! Gina ----- Original Message ----- From: Brent Allsop To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] New animation - is it familiar to you? Gina, As usual, was fun to watch. Brent Gina Miller wrote: Nanogirl here ~ I began work on this new animation project on the 22nd. This was something I have wanted to do for sometime, but I have a lot of ideas that I want to pursue and I set them aside because there are bigger projects that I am working on. I tried to ignore this just the same, but there is a painting hanging above the bed and every night I see it, until finally I could resist no longer. Now that I am finished with the animation, the painting will speak to me in a different way. I worked very hard on this animation every day (and night), and I am so happy to have it completed. You will be able to see the actual development of the animation itself, in this piece ~ I'm calling it a "work in process animation". Oh, and when you see the first credit, it's not the end it's the middle and it's an indicator that you will be going backwards... There is more information about this online, but I'm going to put it on a special separate page so that you (my extropy friends) can watch the movie without any information so that there is the element of surprise. I think and wish upon star that you will really like this one because you will most likely be familiar with part of it... turn up your volume. Here is the link: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/newanimation.html (you'll want to read this page fully!). Best wishes 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Jul 2 01:52:55 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:52:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] wicked cool astronomy video + 150th birthday for evolution Message-ID: <200807020219.m622JcuV019762@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Check out this my friends: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/21/the-hubble-dee p-field-the-most-important-image-ever-taken.aspx?source=nl Is this cool or what? And the trib to Sagan was just the thing. Happy 150th birthday, theory of evolution! http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/06/dayintech_0701?current Page=all# spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 2 01:55:45 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:55:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] ants again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <220232.85755.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > I would make an all-out assault on the ants-aphids, if I were you, > and unleash an army of ladybugs to deal with the problem. And show > Isaac what happens when humans wish to modify their corner of an > elaborate ecosystem. Could be educational for both of you! Indeed. A lesson in environmental engineering and a study of the benefits of a well executed strategy of "divide and conquer" rolled into one. Bueno! Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "In ancient times they had no statistics so that they had to fall back on lies."- Stephen Leacock From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Jul 2 03:50:45 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 20:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] New animation - is it familiar to you? Message-ID: <932279.90506.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It's funny how people can interpret a piece of artwork in so many different ways. I watched the clip and the first thing that I remembered was the music. I remembered how many times I danced to it as a young child and how many times my teacher or parents had taken me to see the ballet. They where very fond memories so thank you for the recall. I'm not much of connaisseur of painters or paintings so that too was great education. In all, I would put it in the lot of best performances:) Hope you are doing well. Anna Nanogirl here ~ I began work on this new animation project on the 22nd. This was something I have wanted to do for sometime, but I have a lot of ideas that I want to pursue and I set them aside because there are bigger projects that I am working on. I tried to ignore this just the same, but there is a painting hanging above the bed and every night I see it, until finally I could resist no longer. Now that I am finished with the animation, the painting will speak to me in a different way. I worked very hard on this animation every day (and night), and I am so happy to have it completed. You will be able to see the actual development of the animation itself, in this piece ~ I'm calling it a "work in process animation". Oh, and when you see the first credit, it's not the end it's the middle and it's an indicator that you will be going backwards... There is more information about this online, but I'm going to put it on a special separate page so that you (my extropy friends) can watch the movie without any information so that there is the element of surprise. I think and wish upon star that you will really like this one because you will most likely be familiar with part of it... turn up your volume. Here is the link: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/newanimation.html (you'll want to read this page fully!). Best wishes 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." __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Jul 2 04:20:06 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 21:20:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wondering if we'd be Better Off with Fewer People References: <1214688352_9942@s6.cableone.net><200806290550.m5T5oDL8028048@andromeda.ziaspace.com><1214768699_668@s2.cableone.net><4380BC59-1D3A-45BA-A085-F7924BB9DCA1@mac.com><040601c8db8c$b5bbd770$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><580930c20807011452j6fbcc380l1893d8edee87bb29@mail.gmail.com> <1214959304_2918@s2.cableone.net> Message-ID: <044101c8dbfb$82ba49a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > Stefano writes >> [Lee wrote] >> > I'm with those who think the world is vastly underpopulated, >> > and hope that various breakthoughs in coming years make >> > it really obvious to everyone that many, many more people >> > can be sustained than at present. Before colonizing space, >> > humans could colonize the ocean bottoms, and before doing >> > that, colonize antarctica and the deserts, and before that, >> > the swamps. The only problem is that living in these places >> > is just not as much fun, and that's why in the U.S. many of >> > the middle states are losing population. >> >>I am inclined to agree. My main concern, however, is what produces and >>is produced by the lowering of demographic pressure. A longevist >>society should not, and hopefully need not, be a society of the old. I would look forward to population growth the traditional way (at least at first). Of course it would be great if it became fashionable to take eugenic concerns into account. > You can't avoid it. Exponential growth, even linear growth, will > fill any finite carrying capacity. Malthus himself made this point, of course, and was entirely correct, but *only*, ironically, up to the very time in which he lived. Ever since, human standard of living has easily outpaced population growth, except in some places suffering from an inequality of capitalism and freedom. It's "merely" a matter of energy. Even forgetting a singularity, people won't need to be uploaded or become physically smaller for still a very long time. If we got to Trantor's population density (which I'd put at around 10,000 people per square mile - less that San Francisco's), then since the surface of the Earth is around 200,000,000 square miles (counting the oceans), we could get to 10^4 * 2*10^8, or around a couple of trillion before some people would have to be living on the surface of the oceans and some on the floors, and before we'd have to pack 'em in Manhatten style. Lee > At that point the birth rate and the longevity become mathematically > coupled. The math is in the Gregory Clark paper I have posted > pointers to a number of times. > > Keith From nanogirl at halcyon.com Wed Jul 2 04:37:17 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 21:37:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New animation - is it familiar to you? In-Reply-To: <932279.90506.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <932279.90506.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: It's very nice to hear that it brought some nostalgia to you, when I was a child we also saw the Nutcracker a few times so it has meaning for me as well. Thank you kindly for the compliment. I think it's wonderful that you feel it informed you in some way too : ) Yes, I am doing well (newest updates: http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/). Kind regards, 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." ----- Original Message ----- From: Anna Taylor To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:50 PM Subject: [ExI] New animation - is it familiar to you? It's funny how people can interpret a piece of artwork in so many different ways. I watched the clip and the first thing that I remembered was the music. I remembered how many times I danced to it as a young child and how many times my teacher or parents had taken me to see the ballet. They where very fond memories so thank you for the recall. I'm not much of connaisseur of painters or paintings so that too was great education. In all, I would put it in the lot of best performances:) Hope you are doing well. Anna Nanogirl here ~ I began work on this new animation project on the 22nd. This was something I have wanted to do for sometime, but I have a lot of ideas that I want to pursue and I set them aside because there are bigger projects that I am working on. I tried to ignore this just the same, but there is a painting hanging above the bed and every night I see it, until finally I could resist no longer. Now that I am finished with the animation, the painting will speak to me in a different way. I worked very hard on this animation every day (and night), and I am so happy to have it completed. You will be able to see the actual development of the animation itself, in this piece ~ I'm calling it a "work in process animation". Oh, and when you see the first credit, it's not the end it's the middle and it's an indicator that you will be going backwards... There is more information about this online, but I'm going to put it on a special separate page so that you (my extropy friends) can watch the movie without any information so that there is the element of surprise. I think and wish upon star that you will really like this one because you will most likely be familiar with part of it... turn up your volume. Here is the link: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/newanimation.html (you'll want to read this page fully!). Best wishes 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." __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at http://ca.toolbar.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 Wed Jul 2 07:36:06 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:36:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the vortices of Jupiter Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080702023000.023481c0@satx.rr.com> This looks really quite remarkable; I've done a bit of googling on the history of telescopic observation of Jupiter, and as far as I tell (am I right, though?) nothing could possibly have seen this well 80 years ago--indeed, perhaps until the 1970s: http://www.scifi.com/sfw/interviews/sfw19051.html Damien Broderick From jnh at vt11.net Wed Jul 2 09:08:54 2008 From: jnh at vt11.net (Jordan Hazen) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:08:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <200806302142.18254.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200806292239.06878.kanzure@gmail.com> <1214800600_578@s2.cableone.net> <200806302142.18254.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080702090844.GQ42544@vt11.net> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 09:42:18PM -0500, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Sunday 29 June 2008, hkhenson wrote: > > At 08:39 PM 6/29/2008, Bryan wrote: > > > On Sunday 29 June 2008, Kevin Freels wrote: > > > > A cell phone without civilization is just a paper weight. > > > > > > That's not true ... just throw up some towers/antennaes, a few > > > electrical generators and also some distribution equipment. you can > > > make a rudimentary hydrodynamic power generator with wires (or less > > > optimally other shapes) of magnetic materials wrapped around other > > > conductive metals basically, etc. etc. > > > > I was going to just punt this one, but what the heck. ?Bryan, how > > much do you know about what's involved in a cell tower? > > Although I am sure that there is a lot of proprietary electrical > circuits that you can call me out on, I still don't see what's so > difficult. Hell, I have a few friends that get their connectivity via > tin cans and wraps of wire. Kind of like this except more technically > competent: http://binarywolf.com/249/ Sure, building antennas is well within the range of individual endeavor. That would be the easy part. Antennas can be quite simple compared to all the microelectronics, UHF radios, GSM or CDMA encoders and decoders, precision filters, etc. required at a modern cell site. The real complexity is in indoor equipment racks, often housed in a small "hut" down at the tower's base. Consider that while many ham radio operators still custom-build antennas, very few try to construct their own radios any more, particularly for the UHF and microwave bands. Without some vestige of modern civilization, or access to advanced nanotech, how would you hope to fabricate even the simplest integrated circuit (or discrete transistor, for that matter) ? btw, cellular sites usually don't have any local autonomy for handling calls if they're cut off from their central-office switching system (MTSO; basically a specialized computer; one per carrier in each city controls many towers). So, with a conventional design one must add that, and the fiber-optic lines, muxes, etc. in between to the list of necessary infrastructure, which is more fragile than most people realize. -- Jordan. From jnh at vt11.net Wed Jul 2 09:22:40 2008 From: jnh at vt11.net (Jordan Hazen) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:22:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200806271459.00630.kanzure@gmail.com> <1214641925_9520@S3.cableone.net> <1214688352_9942@s6.cableone.net> <1214799556_80@s8.cableone.net> Message-ID: <20080702092240.GR42544@vt11.net> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 09:56:21PM -0500, Kevin Freels wrote: > I'm very impressed with the pebble bed reactors by the way. I wish I > could build my own. :-) These reactors look to be an excellent way > to go for the short term. They're a bit wasteful, though, in making it very difficult to reprocess spent fuel within the SiC kernels (though one could see that as an anti-proliferation benefit), while also increasing the mass & volume of waste by throwing away graphite moderator with the spent fuel pebbles. Burnup ratios can be higher than for LWRs, partly offsetting this. My favorite is still the Molten Salt Reactor design out of Oak Ridge, which can run on a wide variety of fuels, with the ability to consume transuranic waste from LWRs and/or operate as a breeder (just barely) without the need for liquid sodium. It allows for an online fueling and reprocessing system that never yields any separated Pu to be diverted. For some reason, the MSR has never gained much of a following, though... perhaps tainted by its early associated with the "atomic powered airplane" project for which is was first developed. -- Jordan. From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 10:09:26 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:09:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <20080702090844.GQ42544@vt11.net> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200806302142.18254.kanzure@gmail.com> <20080702090844.GQ42544@vt11.net> Message-ID: <200807020509.26955.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 02 July 2008, Jordan Hazen wrote: > Without some vestige of modern civilization, or access to advanced > nanotech, how would you hope to fabricate even the simplest > integrated circuit (or discrete transistor, for that matter) ? http://heybryan.org/alternate_transistors.html http://heybryan.org/graphene.html http://heybryan.org/instrumentation/instru.html There's a few options worth exploring: * vacuum tubes * graphene nanotransistors via AFM setups * LiquiFETs * Pneumatic/hydrolic systems * and a few others that I am forgetting > btw, cellular sites usually don't have any local autonomy for > handling calls if they're cut off from their central-office switching > system (MTSO; basically a specialized computer; one per carrier in > each city controls many towers). So, with a conventional design one > must add that, and the fiber-optic lines, muxes, etc. in between to > the list of necessary infrastructure, which is more fragile than most > people realize. I'm pretty sure that I remember hearing of analog switching stations. As for the fiber optic lines, just last night I was reading about the synthesis of GI POF fiber optics that does near 20 Gb/sec. It's basically synthesized via a polymerization reaction in a centrifuge running at 3k rpm @ 90 deg C for 7h. Not bad, in comparison to building glasseous fiber optics. But this is getting way, way too specific. Let's get a little bit more extropic. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From amara at amara.com Wed Jul 2 12:10:18 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 06:10:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the vortices of Jupiter Message-ID: I don't know if it is that amazing. An 8 in telescope can do a good job to display the cloud bands and even some variation within the bands. I don't see why a larger telescope 80 years ago could not have resolved some of the bands into eddies and smaller storms. Here, for example is a 2.6 meter telescope image of Jupiter from the Nordic Optical Telescope, located at La Palma Canary Islands): http://www.solarviews.com/cap/jup/jupiter3.htm Eddies are clearly visible. Even in this brief overview of Jupiter: http://www.solarviews.com/eng/jupiter.htm there is a description of the white oval cloud systems that formed in the 1930s, so the telescopes were resolving the white ovals back then. What Voyager contributed was an extremely high resolution (about 150 km) to the eddies and storms. I'm guessing that you are not finding Jupiter images from 80 years ago is more due to the fact that those old images are not digitized and online, than due to the fact that they don't exist. One check might be to find 80 year old scientific papers about Jupiter's storms, eddies, 'white storms (ovals)' and details of the atmosphere that describe changes over fraction of days. I.e. where these old weather patterns are described in words instead of images. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Jul 2 14:53:41 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:53:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Relays was Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <200807020509.26955.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200806302142.18254.kanzure@gmail.com> <20080702090844.GQ42544@vt11.net> <200807020509.26955.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1215010605_6076@s7.cableone.net> At 03:09 AM 7/2/2008, Bryan wrote: >On Wednesday 02 July 2008, Jordan Hazen wrote: > > Without some vestige of modern civilization, or access to advanced > > nanotech, how would you hope to fabricate even the simplest > > integrated circuit (or discrete transistor, for that matter) ? > >http://heybryan.org/alternate_transistors.html >http://heybryan.org/graphene.html >http://heybryan.org/instrumentation/instru.html > >There's a few options worth exploring: >* vacuum tubes >* graphene nanotransistors via AFM setups >* LiquiFETs >* Pneumatic/hydrolic systems >* and a few others that I am forgetting Bryan, have you ever rebuilt a gasoline engine? Put a roof on a house? Poured concrete? Wound a transformer? Run a milling machine or a lathe? Used a drill press? Arc welded? Built circuit boards with surface mounted parts? I am not trying to make fun of you, just trying to get a feel of how much you know about actually making real world things. Part of the reason I ask is this: "Really, for digital logic, all we need is a relay (switch). But the problem is that if you have 20 relays connected in sequence, you get voltage drop-off eventually (obviously) and the circuit just fails completely." Relays have problems, particularly they are slow, but this demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how you hook up a relay. If you have one relay switching the power for the next one, you can put 20 (or any number) in logical sequence and the final one closes just as solidly as the first. I went to a junior/senior high school. When I was in the 7th grade (about 1955) one of the seniors built a telephone relay setup for the science fair. It played Nim, slowly and with much clicking of the relays. His primitive special purpose computer won first place. I wish I could remember his name because I am sure he did well. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 2 16:59:55 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:59:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the vortices of Jupiter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080702114722.02548738@satx.rr.com> At 06:10 AM 7/2/2008 -0600, Amara wrote: >I don't see why a larger telescope 80 years ago could not have resolved >some of the bands into eddies and smaller storms. Here, for example is a >2.6 meter telescope image of Jupiter from the Nordic Optical Telescope, >located at La Palma Canary Islands): >http://www.solarviews.com/cap/jup/jupiter3.htm Okay, Mt. Wilson's 100in Hooker telescope had been seeing for nearly a decade years by then, so maybe. But the Nordic is described in pretty glowing terms, and I wonder what advances are incorporated into it (adaptive optics, say) that would have been unthinkable in 1928? Damien Broderick From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 18:14:41 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:14:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Relays was Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <1215010605_6076@s7.cableone.net> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200807020509.26955.kanzure@gmail.com> <1215010605_6076@s7.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200807021314.42391.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 02 July 2008, hkhenson wrote: > Bryan, have you ever rebuilt a gasoline engine? No. > Put a roof on a house? No. > Poured concrete? Yes. > Wound a transformer? No. > Run a milling machine or a lathe? Yes. > Used a drill press? No. > Arc welded? No. > Built circuit boards with surface mounted parts? Maybe? > Part of the reason I ask is this: > > "Really, for digital logic, all we need is a relay (switch). But the > problem is that if you have 20 relays connected in sequence, you get > voltage drop-off eventually (obviously) and the circuit just fails > completely." > > Relays have problems, particularly they are slow, but this > demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how you hook up a > relay. If you have one relay switching the power for the next one, > you can put 20 (or any number) in logical sequence and the final one > closes just as solidly as the first. That's good news. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 2 18:42:20 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:42:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Relays was Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <200807021314.42391.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200807020509.26955.kanzure@gmail.com> <1215010605_6076@s7.cableone.net> <200807021314.42391.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080702134025.02634318@satx.rr.com> At 01:14 PM 7/2/2008 -0500, Bryan wrote: > > Built circuit boards with surface mounted parts? > >Maybe? I don't think this is the sort of thing you can do inadvertently and then not be sure it happened. (But then I haven't built one.) Damien Broderick From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 18:51:03 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:51:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Relays was Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080702134025.02634318@satx.rr.com> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200807021314.42391.kanzure@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080702134025.02634318@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807021351.03540.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 02 July 2008, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 01:14 PM 7/2/2008 -0500, Bryan wrote: > > > Built circuit boards with surface mounted parts? > > > >Maybe? > > I don't think this is the sort of thing you can do inadvertently and > then not be sure it happened. (But then I haven't built one.) I'm not sure if it's the same thing as breadboarding, or if it's the same thing as wiring stuff up on a surface, etc. I tend to have this terminological gap problem. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 19:29:26 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 19:29:26 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Relays was Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <200807021351.03540.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200807021314.42391.kanzure@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080702134025.02634318@satx.rr.com> <200807021351.03540.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > I'm not sure if it's the same thing as breadboarding, or if it's the > same thing as wiring stuff up on a surface, etc. I tend to have this > terminological gap problem. > I think Keith is hinting that there is a big difference between reading a book on brain surgery and thinking 'I could do that. It doesn't look that difficult' and actually doing it on your kitchen table. At least that's what I found out when I tried it.. ;) BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 2 19:37:35 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:37:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] home neurosurgery In-Reply-To: References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200807021314.42391.kanzure@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080702134025.02634318@satx.rr.com> <200807021351.03540.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080702143621.0245bcd0@satx.rr.com> At 07:29 PM 7/2/2008 +0000, BillK wrote: >there is a big difference between >reading a book on brain surgery and thinking 'I could do that. It >doesn't look that difficult' and actually doing it on your kitchen >table. > >At least that's what I found out when I tried it.. ;) No, the trick is to try it first on *someone else*. From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 19:56:45 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:56:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] home neurosurgery In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080702143621.0245bcd0@satx.rr.com> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080702143621.0245bcd0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807021456.46002.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 02 July 2008, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 07:29 PM 7/2/2008 +0000, BillK wrote: > >there is a big difference between > >reading a book on brain surgery and thinking 'I could do that. It > >doesn't look that difficult' and actually doing it on your kitchen > >table. > > > >At least that's what I found out when I tried it.. ? ;) > > No, the trick is to try it first on *someone else*. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanation I wouldn't recommend it. There are many neurosurgeons and they do, in fact, train people. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 2 20:16:26 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:16:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the vortices of Jupiter In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080702114722.02548738@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080702114722.02548738@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080702151040.023f30d0@satx.rr.com> I looked for comparable pix of Mars; this classic Map of Mars by Eugene Michael Antoniadi (1925) [ at http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/timelines/mars_1700-1959.html ] isn't too hot, and makes me wonder whether one of Jupiter from that period would be any better. Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Jul 2 20:54:50 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:54:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Relays was Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <200807021351.03540.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200807021314.42391.kanzure@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080702134025.02634318@satx.rr.com> <200807021351.03540.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1215032274_897@S3.cableone.net> At 11:51 AM 7/2/2008, Bryan Bishop wrote: >On Wednesday 02 July 2008, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 01:14 PM 7/2/2008 -0500, Bryan wrote: > > > > Built circuit boards with surface mounted parts? > > > > > >Maybe? > > > > I don't think this is the sort of thing you can do inadvertently and > > then not be sure it happened. (But then I haven't built one.) > >I'm not sure if it's the same thing as breadboarding, or if it's the >same thing as wiring stuff up on a surface, etc. I tend to have this >terminological gap problem. Most PC boards these days are multi layer and covered with passive parts about the size of a millet seed and active parts with fine spacing (20 mills or less) on the leads. Normally they are built by machines that stick the parts into tiny lumps of solder paste then the whole board is run though an oven to melt the solder. But people sometimes build a few prototype boards with tweezers and a very steady hand. That's become very close to impossible when the board has been designed with ball grid array parts. I have done built boards in the last few years--under a microscope of course. Was surprised at Bryan having run a lathe or mill and not a drill press. The latter is much more common. I don't know what the minimum labor force might be to build modern day electronics. It's not hard for a small company to do it, but they have to depend on parts and services that employ hundreds to make PC boards and companies with tens of thousands or maybe millions for the people who build the integrated circuits. And this is the most heavily automated industry there is. I have done just about every task there is in the industry outside of semiconductor manufacturing, and I know what's involved there. The day may come when the processes are amiable to a home workshop, but at the present it takes the full capacity of an advanced industrial civilization. Keith Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Jul 2 21:15:37 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:15:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Relays was Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200807021314.42391.kanzure@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080702134025.02634318@satx.rr.com> <200807021351.03540.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1215033521_1016@S3.cableone.net> At 12:29 PM 7/2/2008, BillK wrote: snip >I think Keith is hinting that there is a big difference between >reading a book on brain surgery and thinking 'I could do that. It >doesn't look that difficult' and actually doing it on your kitchen >table. I learned just enough surgery for Alcor to have an appreciation of how hard it is. http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=1621 >At least that's what I found out when I tried it.. ;) Heh. Some of these skulls recovered from Peru look like Wiffle Balls Keith From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 21:33:09 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:33:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Relays was Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <1215032274_897@S3.cableone.net> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200807021351.03540.kanzure@gmail.com> <1215032274_897@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200807021633.09223.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 02 July 2008, hkhenson wrote: > At 11:51 AM 7/2/2008, Bryan Bishop wrote: > >On Wednesday 02 July 2008, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > At 01:14 PM 7/2/2008 -0500, Bryan wrote: > > > > > Built circuit boards with surface mounted parts? > > > > > > > > Maybe? > > > > > > I don't think this is the sort of thing you can do inadvertently > > > and then not be sure it happened. (But then I haven't built one.) > > > >I'm not sure if it's the same thing as breadboarding, or if it's the > >same thing as wiring stuff up on a surface, etc. I tend to have this > >terminological gap problem. > > Most PC boards these days are multi layer and covered with passive > parts about the size of a millet seed and active parts with fine > spacing (20 mills or less) on the leads. Normally they are built by > machines that stick the parts into tiny lumps of solder paste then > the whole board is run though an oven to melt the solder. I've certainly done my fair share of PCB boards. > I have done built boards in the last few years--under a microscope of > course. I used to use some clamps to steady boards. Seemed to help. > I don't know what the minimum labor force might be to build modern > day electronics. It's not hard for a small company to do it, but > they have to depend on parts and services that employ hundreds to > make PC boards and companies with tens of thousands or maybe millions > for the people who build the integrated circuits. And this is the > most heavily automated industry there is. In the likely case it's not going to look precisely the same as modern electronics. For instance, semiconductor manufacturing in the home is difficult unless you have very carefully calibrations on vacuum chambers and the CVD chambers and so on, and very carefully produced chemicals for the etching process etc. Easy alternatives might have to be explored. By easy I mean something that doesn't require a few ten thouand amps to purify silicon. > I have done just about every task there is in the industry outside of > semiconductor manufacturing, and I know what's involved there. The > day may come when the processes are amiable to a home workshop, but > at the present it takes the full capacity of an advanced industrial > civilization. Arguably I'd point to the beginnings of the industry. The semiconductor manufacturing technology consisted of some UV lamps and giant lenses taken from photography equipment bought at local shops. There's a good reason why Canon still sells semiconductor fabrication equipment, I specifically recall some photolithography lenses that they manufacture. This is for the 1 micrometer to 50 nm range (or less now, but there were some limits to optical methods). I'd be happy getting 1 mm. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 21:46:44 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 21:46:44 +0000 Subject: [ExI] the vortices of Jupiter In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080702151040.023f30d0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080702114722.02548738@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080702151040.023f30d0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > I looked for comparable pix of Mars; this classic Map of Mars by Eugene > Michael Antoniadi (1925) [ at > http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/timelines/mars_1700-1959.html ] > isn't too hot, and makes me wonder whether one of Jupiter from that period > would be any better. > Yes. The artist copied (and artistically enhanced) drawings or early photographs from astronomical telescopes. He has painted the Great Red Spot in the top hemisphere as astronomical telescopes reverse the image. The NASA spacecraft photos have the spot in the bottom hemisphere. Wikipedia says that astronomers had drawn the Great Red Spot and the bands since the 1800s, or even earlier. They knew all about how the spots changed and saw the new spots that appeared in the 1920s. Huge URL for looking inside a book There is a tendency for people to say that if it cannot be found on the web, then it doesn't exist (or never happened). You probably need to go to a big library that has old astronomy books from before 1930 to see drawings and photos from that time. BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 22:08:23 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 00:08:23 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Wondering if we'd be Better Off with Fewer People In-Reply-To: <1214959304_2918@s2.cableone.net> References: <1214688352_9942@s6.cableone.net> <200806290550.m5T5oDL8028048@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1214768699_668@s2.cableone.net> <4380BC59-1D3A-45BA-A085-F7924BB9DCA1@mac.com> <040601c8db8c$b5bbd770$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20807011452j6fbcc380l1893d8edee87bb29@mail.gmail.com> <1214959304_2918@s2.cableone.net> Message-ID: <580930c20807021508ge45d70dpc4a8b1ab740d373@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:18 AM, hkhenson wrote: > You can't avoid it. Exponential growth, even linear growth, will fill any > finite carrying capacity. Obviously, as would do equally well, with time, a linear growth. Only, whatever the demographic pressure of a given population, it never grows forever within the limits of its existing environment. It seeks new environmental niches into which to evolve, and is subject to external limiting factors. This applies both to one-day life span species and one-century life-span species, so that I do not see that an increase in human longevity would change much to it, but for the fact that some components of our species may deliberately opt for their progressive extinction in favour of others. Stefano Vaj From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Wed Jul 2 22:35:01 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:35:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] home neurosurgery In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080702143621.0245bcd0@satx.rr.com> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200807021314.42391.kanzure@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080702134025.02634318@satx.rr.com> <200807021351.03540.kanzure@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080702143621.0245bcd0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: > >At least that's what I found out when I tried it.. ? ;) > > No, the trick is to try it first on *someone else*. > Ja. The mirror method produced some negative results. Fortunately the reversal in the mirror was offset by the opposite side of the brain.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Wed Jul 2 22:37:04 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:37:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Relays was Oil will never run out In-Reply-To: <1215032274_897@S3.cableone.net> References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <200807021314.42391.kanzure@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080702134025.02634318@satx.rr.com> <200807021351.03540.kanzure@gmail.com> <1215032274_897@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: ? > ?The > day may come when the processes are amiable to a home workshop, > but > at the present it takes the full capacity of an advanced > industrial > civilization. > > Keith Gathering the raw materials and refining the metal alone would be a significant accomplishment for one person. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 2 22:40:59 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:40:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the vortices of Jupiter In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080702114722.02548738@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080702151040.023f30d0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080702173504.0245bff0@satx.rr.com> At 09:46 PM 7/2/2008 +0000, BillK wrote: >You probably need >to go to a big library that has old astronomy books from before 1930 >to see drawings and photos from that time. A consummation devoutly to be wished, but unlikely of occurrence. Thanks for the urls, Bill. I agree about the N/S inversion, but considered it perhaps a conceit of the artist, who knew that such perspectives are entirely arbitrary. I'd be more confident of this interpretation if the Red Spot had been shown headed up or down the page, say, or diagonally; there are certainly covers with the rings of Saturn displayed vertically. It is surprising, though, that Clarke--who was a lad at the time keenly interested in the topic--would not have know all this. Perhaps, though, in his dotage he'd simply forgotten what he knew then. What was I saying? Damien Broderick From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 01:43:58 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 20:43:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Kevin Kelly and Dave Gingery (was: Relays (was: Oil)) In-Reply-To: References: <4eaaa0d90806271134qa905ceem4a052b3092346f47@mail.gmail.com> <1215032274_897@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200807022043.58565.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 02 July 2008, Kevin Freels wrote: > ?Gathering the raw materials and refining the metal alone would be a > significant accomplishment for one person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._Gingery > Gingery is most famous for his Build Your Own Metal Working Shop From > Scrap series, which details how to build a reasonably complete > machine shop at low cost, often from scrap metal and other items. The > hobbyist starts by constructing a small foundry capable of melting > silicon-aluminum and zinc alloys from recycled automotive parts. Then > green sand castings are used to make a metal lathe. The lathe is the > first machine built since it can be used to help build itself. The > lathe and foundry are then used to make more complicated machine > tools. > > There is another book by Gingery, not usually counted as part of the > series, entitled "Building a Gas Fired Crucible Furnace", which can > be substituted for that describing the charcoal foundry. > > The dominant themes of the series are recycling, using inexpensive > and free materials, and bootstrapping the shop's capabilities. > Gingery is noted for using basic methods, seldom used today, in order > to make it possible for a skilled hobbyist to build the machines in > the book series, usually without the aid of power tools or other > expensive instruments. > > In addition to the Build Your Own Metal Working Shop From Scrap > series, Dave Gingery and his son Vincent have published a large > number of booklets on shop practices, engine construction and > mechanical miscellanea. And from our favorite editor, Kevin Kelly: http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2007/03/bootstrapping_t.php > A favorite fantasy game for engineers is to imagine how they might > re-invent essential technology from scratch. If you were stranded on > an island, or left behind after Armageddon, and you needed to make > your own blade, say, or a book, maybe a pair of working radios, what > would it take to forge iron, make paper, or create electricity? > > Occasionally tinkerers get to engage their fantasy. In February 1942, > R. Bradley, a British Officer in the Royal artillery in World War II > was captured and then held prisoner by Japanese in Singapore. Their > camp was remote, supplies were almost non-existent, and they were > treated roughly as POWs; when they rebelled they were locked in a > confinement shed without food. But they were tinkerers, too. Together > with some other POWs in his camp, Bradley stole hand tools from the > Japanese soldiers and from these bits and pieces he transformed scrap > metal into a miniature lathe. The small lathe was ingenious. It was > tiny enough to be kept a secret, big enough to be useful. It could be > disassembled into pieces that could be tucked in a backpack and > moved in the camp?s many relocations. Since large pieces of metal > were hard to acquire without notice, the tailstock of the lathe was > two steel pieces dovetailed together. The original bed plate was cut > with a cold chisel. > > The lathe was a tool-making egg; it was used to manufacture more > sophisticated items. With it the prisoners machined a duplicate key > for the solitary confinement shed (!), and manufactured a hidden > battery source for a secret radio. During the two years of their > interment the lathe remade the tools -- like taps and dies -- which > were first used to create it. A lather has those self-reproductive > qualities. > > Recently a guy re-invented the fabric of industrial society in his > garage. The late Dave Gingery was a midnight machinist in > Springfield, Missouri who enjoyed the challenge of making something > from nothing, or perhaps it is more accurate to say, making very much > by leveraging the power of very little. Over years of tinkering, > Gingery was able to bootstrap a full-bore machine shop from alley > scraps. He made rough tools that made better tools, which then made > tools good enough to make real stuff. > > > > Gingery began with a simple backyard foundry. This was a small > 5-gallon bucket packed with sand. In its center was a coffee can of > smoldering BBQ charcoal. Inside the can of charcoal was a small > ceramic crucible into which he threw scrap aluminum ? cans, etc. > Gingery forced air into this crude furnace via a fan, burning the > charcoal with enough heat to melt the aluminum. He poured the molten > metal into a mold of wet sand carved out in the shape he wanted. When > the cast was cool he had a workable metal holding plate, which became > the heart of a homemade lathe. Other lathe parts were cast. He > finished these rough parts with hand tools. His one ?cheat? was > adding a used electric motor ? although it is not impossible to > imagine a wind or water powered version. > > When the rough lathe was up and running he used it to turn out the > parts for a drill press. With the drill press and lathe operating he > constantly reworked pieces of the lathe itself, replacing parts with > improved versions. In this way, his tiny machine shop was an > upcreation device, capable of generating higher a machine of > precision than itself. He used this upcreation tool to manufacture > the pieces needed for a fully functioning milling machine. When the > milling machine was completed he could make almost anything. > > > > Gingery recapitulated the evolution of technology, the great pattern > by which simple tools create more complex tools and so on infinitum. > This expansion of upcreation power is the means by which an entire > culture lifts itself out of mud by pulling up on its bootstraps. Yet > is it obvious this little demonstration is not pure. As a way to make > your own machine tools, Gingerys? plans are fine and dandy. He uses > cast off washing machine motors and other junkyard scrap parts to > grow a fairly robust machine shop. But as an example of relaunching a > technological society in a kind of Robinson Crusoe maneuver ? landing > somewhere and starting civilization up -- it?s a cheat because in > this latter game you don?t get to start with discarded aluminum cans, > scavenged nuts and bolts, old electric motors and waste sheet metal. > To really navigate the minimum bootstrap path through the industrial > web, you?d have to start with finding your own ore, mining and > refining it with primitive tools, firing up bricks, rolling out sheet > metal, developing screws and bolts by hand ? all just to get you to > the point where you?d have enough tools and materials to make the > simple 5-gallon bucket foundry that Dave Gingery started with. > > About two dozen survival schools in the US will host, on any given > weekend, a class on how to make your own clothes from hides, chip a > knife from stone or bone, cut and assemble a shelter from trees, and > generally live off the land with self-made tools. They start where > Gingery does not ? with the elements as we find them in nature. It?s > a lot of work. Starting a fire without matches is possible, but only > after about as much practice as it takes to become an expert at a > video game. Even with all the tools the world?s best expert can make > from scratch this way (about 100 in total), it?s a hard life that > appeals to few. > > > > Beyond these primeval tools, the interdependency of created objects > is astounding. Select at random any one of the many thousands items > within the reach of where you now sit. None of them could exist > without many of the others around it. No technology is an island. > > Let?s take a very sophisticated item: one web page. A web page relies > on perhaps a hundred thousand other inventions, all needed for its > birth and continued existence. There is no web page anywhere without > the inventions of HTML code, without computer programming, without > LEDs or cathode ray tubes, without solid state computer chips, > without telephone lines, without long-distance signal repeaters, > without electrical generators, without high-speed turbines, without > stainless steel, iron smelters, and control of fire. None of these > concrete inventions would exist without the elemental inventions of > writing, of an alphabet, of hypertext links, of indexes, catalogs, > archives, libraries and the scientific method itself. To recapitulate > a web page you have to re-create all these other functions. You might > as well remake modern society. > > The more we try to untangle this web of interdependency, to tease a > single discovery away from the tangle of related and supporting > inventions, the more futile it becomes. We get the same web of > sustenance for any modern substance or device. Antibiotics? A field > of inventions starting with sterile techniques, to chemical pathways, > to pumping technology, packaging innovations, animal studies, testing > procedures, statistical analysis, and many more are needed > > This is why restarting a sophisticated society after a devastating > setback is so hard. Without all the adjacent items in a given > ecological bundle, a single technology can have no effect; therefore > you need them all working to get one working; therefore you have to > repair them all at once. When war, earthquake, tsunami, flood or fire > destroys a society?s infrastructure indiscriminately, the job of > restarting/rediscovering them all at once is impossible. The > conundrum of disaster relief is a testimony to this deep > interdependency: one needs roads to bring petrol but petrol to clear > roads, medicines to heal people, but healthy people to dispense > medicines, communications to enable organization but organization to > restore communications. We see the interdependent platform of > technology primarily when it breaks down. > > > > This is also the explanation of why we should not confuse a good > clear view of the future with a short distance. We can see the > perfect outlines of where technology is going, but we tend to > overestimate how soon it will come. Usually the delay (in our eager > eyes) is due to the invisible ecology of other needed technologies > that aren?t ready yet. The invention will hang suspended in the > future for many years, not coming any closer the now. Then when the > ignored co-technologies are in place it will appear in our lives in a > sudden, with much surprise and applause for its unexpected > appearance. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From spike66 at att.net Thu Jul 3 04:31:20 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 21:31:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the vortices of Jupiter In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080702114722.02548738@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807030458.m634w1G8027717@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 ... > Okay, Mt. Wilson's 100in Hooker telescope had been seeing for > nearly a decade years by then, so maybe. But the Nordic is > described in pretty glowing terms, and I wonder what advances > are incorporated into it (adaptive optics, say) that would > have been unthinkable in 1928? > > Damien Broderick For planets, a big mirror doesn't help as much as one might think. The atmosphere stirs around and messes up the detail on a planetary surface. Big mirrors are good for dim deep space objects, but planets are relatively bright. A smaller mirror coupled with the rare ideal calm atmospheric conditions would have allowed the viewing of Jovian vortices long before the Hooker telescope saw first light, and possibly allowed good sketches to be made before astrophotography. spike From amara at amara.com Thu Jul 3 12:38:30 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 06:38:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the vortices of Jupiter Message-ID: The Yerkes Observatory (refractor) probably had some the best optics for seeing planets in the early 1900s. http://astro.uchicago.edu/yerkes/ To check for other telescopes operating at that time observing the planets, it's better to consider the refractors than the reflectors. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From amara at amara.com Fri Jul 4 04:11:25 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 22:11:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Transgender man gives birth to a baby girl Message-ID: On March 26, when Spike said: >Amara, forgive me for being pessimistic, but I have suspected since this >first hit the headlines that this whole thing is a hoax. I answered: >Hmm, I don't think so, Spike. Let's wait four months, and we'll know >for sure." "US 'pregnant man' has baby girl" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7488894.stm There we have it. Thomas Beatie has given birth to a baby girl. :-) Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From spike66 at att.net Fri Jul 4 06:17:01 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 23:17:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Transgender man gives birth to a baby girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807040644.m646hfWJ012278@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ...On Behalf Of Amara Graps ... > "US 'pregnant man' has baby girl" > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7488894.stm > > There we have it. Thomas Beatie has given birth to a baby girl. :-) > Amara Cool! Good for him, and the, ummm, mother? Other? This is a good day for childbirth. Check this: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1376290.ece This mother claims to be 70. I don't know, but Fox News and CNN both bought it. The CNN article mentioned that the parents already had two daughters and several grandchildren, but wanted a male heir so badly that they sold everything and borrowed on a credit card to pay for the fertility treatments. If this is so, and the mother is 70 and the father is 78, now deeply in debt, I wonder what they thought this heir would inherit? Humans are a funny species. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jul 4 07:11:21 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:11:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transgender man gives birth to a baby girl In-Reply-To: <200807040644.m646hfWJ012278@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200807040644.m646hfWJ012278@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080704020043.024883c8@satx.rr.com> At 11:17 PM 7/3/2008 -0700, spike wrote: >If this is so, and the mother is 70 and the father is 78, now >deeply in debt, I wonder what they thought this heir would inherit? Enhanced longevity, according to some evo theories. Or a bunch of small extra defects, perhaps. "Transgender man gives birth to a baby girl"--isn't that another way of saying (pace the queer theorists) "Woman calling herself a man, and with a history of taking superfically masculinizing androgens currently suspended, with a brain long ago feminized in utero, gives birth"? Our spayed tomcat's name is Daisy; if we learn that he passed on his genes during his energetic nay rabid interval of complete masculinity, can we boast "Daisy, a girl cat (see, you can tell by the name--and look, no balls), fathers kittens"? As Anna would say, Just curious. Damien Broderick From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Jul 4 07:18:51 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 00:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Is this Extropic? Message-ID: <335644.92608.qm@web30403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY Just Curious, Anna __________________________________________________________________ Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and more... Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger at http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/ From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 08:53:00 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:53:00 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Transgender man gives birth to a baby girl In-Reply-To: <200807040644.m646hfWJ012278@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200807040644.m646hfWJ012278@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:17 AM, spike wrote: > > The CNN article mentioned that the parents already had two daughters and > several grandchildren, but wanted a male heir so badly that they sold > everything and borrowed on a credit card to pay for the fertility > treatments. If this is so, and the mother is 70 and the father is 78, now > deeply in debt, I wonder what they thought this heir would inherit? > > Humans are a funny species. > The original news report from India is here: Quote: Charan Singh was keen on having a son. 'We have plenty of agriculture land in Doghat village but we did not have any heir to look after us. In our clan, daughters are the 'assets of others'. Parents have to nurture them only to run others' household. In the absence of a son, parents are considered issueless,' Singh told IANS. His younger daughter Amrish is happy. 'On the request of our parents, we wanted to offer one of our children to our parents but our in-laws did not agree. Then our parents had no option but to go for a treatment,' Amrish said. Doghat town council chairman Vairan Panwar added: 'In our parts, the clan system still continues. Although Charan Singh had two grown-up daughters with six grandchildren, he was presumed issueless. If daughters' in-laws had agreed to offer one of their male children for adoption, the couple would not have to go for more children.' ---------- It's a very different world that they live in. BillK From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 14:38:38 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:38:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transgender man gives birth to a baby girl In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080704020043.024883c8@satx.rr.com> References: <200807040644.m646hfWJ012278@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080704020043.024883c8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807040938.38139.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 04 July 2008, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 11:17 PM 7/3/2008 -0700, spike wrote: > >If this is so, and the mother is 70 and the father is 78, now > >deeply in debt, I wonder what they thought this heir would inherit? > > Enhanced longevity, according to some evo theories. I wonder how many times this would have to be done. Suppose that we do it in parallel and 100 couples over the age of 70 go out for fertility treatments, and then we do this for, say, three or four generations ? It'll take 280 years (obviously), but how much of a starting population would you need to start seeing interesting phenomena? - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From aiguy at comcast.net Fri Jul 4 15:53:46 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:53:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Transgender man gives birth to a baby girl In-Reply-To: <200807040938.38139.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200807040644.m646hfWJ012278@andromeda.ziaspace.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080704020043.024883c8@satx.rr.com> <200807040938.38139.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <274E105643D54B1EA1985F8C6E9BCCBC@ZANDRA2> Bryan asked: >> I wonder how many times this would have to be done. Suppose that we do it in parallel and 100 couples over the age of 70 go out for fertility treatments, and then we do this for, say, three or four generations ? It'll take 280 years (obviously), but how much of a starting population would you need to start seeing interesting phenomena? >> My Response: It's already happening on a much larger scale with Asian-Americans immigrants that having ultrasound to determine the fetus birth and aborting if it's a female. >From NPR: "An analysis of the 2000 census suggests that some Asian-American parents of girls may be using advances in prenatal technology to ensure they get a boy the next time around." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89284549 From amara at amara.com Fri Jul 4 17:09:21 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:09:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms: _The Soviet Story_ documentary Message-ID: Hi freedom-loving folks, For some years I have used F.A. Hayek's 1930's _Road to Serfdom_ as a kind of map with guideposts to demonstrate how particular actions and propaganda by an unnamed large modern nation's federal government was building, piece-by-piece, the Total State. Just as those same actions and words 70 years ago at a faster pace, and more brutally, built Fascist States and Communist States. Hayek explained in exquisite philosophical detail that the two, Facism and Communism, were, in fact, just two sides of the same coin. Such a correspondence was easy for me to see, when my family historically experienced both systems, over the same piece of land, with the same results. We were split, half was sent in a cattle car to Siberia and survived but barred behind the Iron Curtain, the other half escaped as a refuge and then started over with a new life in a new country. Still, for me, as a child of a Baltic refugee, the horror of the Communist and Nazi experiments was mostly abstract. Then, last night, upon my distant, abstract, philosophical landscape, the documentary called _The Soviet Story_ landed. This two hour documentary made by mostly Latvians is making some waves in the Baltic countries and in the EU Parliament now. It is not just a simple historical film of all of the nasty things that Stalin did. It makes glaringly convincing connections of the collusion of activities between Hitler and Stalin to build a 'new world' and a 'new man' before and during WWII and by Stalin after WWII It has been some decades since I've seen film footage resembling what I saw last night. When I was about eight, living in Honolulu, my parents brought my sisters and I to a small gathering of a few dozen people meeting in a small, dark, windowless room, to view a film of WWII, as it was experienced by the Baltic people. I remember seeing scenes of torture and seeing mass graves and I remember my father telling me that one could identify who was in that mass grave by just their clothes; the Latvian men owned one good suit. One might think that a 1.5 hour event seen almost forty years ago as an eight year old would be quickly forgotten, but those images have remained with me. I predict that the scenes from _The Soviet Story_ will stay with you. It's rare for the world to see actual film footage of the atrocities committed by Stalin, but the film-maker had access to archives, that were never viewed by a wide audience. And if you didn't get the message seeing that scene once, then the film-maker made sure that you would get the message when that scene was repeated in front of your screaming conscious mind a few more times. This is a hard-hitting film. And thought provoking. And a graphic application of the philosophical principles involved when building a Total State, such as the extermination of races and classes, which included principles to build a 'new man' and a 'new society'. Of the latter points, I think that the transhumanists would benefit from viewing the documentary, to understand the criticism one occasionally hears when they talk about becoming better humans. The difference is that transhumanists want to be 'better' humans by their personal free choices and their diversity. The Nazi and Communist experiments were as far from individual choices as life and death. The new aspect for me in this film was not only the remarkably identical propaganda tools and brutal actions of the two systems, but also of the many close agreements and meetings between Hitler and Stalin and their colleagues. The famous Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement that split Europe between the Soviets and the Nazis was not an isolated agreement, there were many others that planned strategies for who was to get what, where, how and when. Moreover, the Soviets were experts at mass extermination before Stalin and Hitler met, and they continued to be experts at mass extermination after Hitler was gone. They were performing experiments on humans before, during, and after WWII and used the same experiment and death chamber facilities as the Nazis used after Hitler was gone too. So why is it that out of World War II, the only war crimes that were put on trial were committed by the Germans? Why was/is it a European policy that a WWII crime _must_ have been committed by a German? Many of those Soviets responsible for the mass exterminations are still alive, protected by Putin today. If there were any light moments in this film, then it was in the form of irony, when the film-maker spliced in 2005 Moscow parade scenes from the 60th anniversary of Nazi Germany's defeat. Political figures from all over the world attended the celebration, including the Italian and German and Japanese prime ministers. This event was boycotted by the presidents of the Baltic republics for the farce that it represented. One might add a bit more irony and coincidence when I note that the day in which I am writing this summary, July 4, is a U.S. holiday to celebrate the U.S. Constitution, in a time when that particular document is in shambles from the actions of its own government. So how might one view The Soviet Story documentary? At this time, I found one way: a bit torrent .avi file from here: http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4217790/The.Soviet.Story%5BDivX.2008.Eng%5D downloaded via Vuze and viewed in QuickTime. If I find it for sale anywhere I will certainly buy it, but I have not located it for sale yet. The film is mostly in English (narrated), with Latvian subtitles, but there are interviews with Russians that will not be understood if you don't know those languages. I found those moments of uncomprehension only a distraction though, since you still see the interviewee, can fill in the blanks what the interviewee said, and the narrator easily picks up and continues the story. Also, I don't recommend seeing the film before bedtime. I felt bludgeoned by the hard-hitting message and by the end, I began to be numb to seeing mass graves of starved and tortured people. So on this day of pondering your freedoms, I offer this perspective of where humans have been, where humans might be going, and what truths can humans accept today, in order to help you place the value of your freedoms. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From amara at amara.com Fri Jul 4 18:07:55 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:07:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Transgender man gives birth to a baby girl Message-ID: Bryan Bishop kanzure at gmail.com : >100 couples over the age of 70 go out for fertility treatments "couples over the age of 70" ^^^^^^^^ ?? I will repeat (said here before several times) the biological principle of a woman being unable to conceive using her own eggs starting sometime in her 40s. This is a fact of female human biology, Bryan. Today, there must be _at least_ THREE people involved for an older woman to have babies at an older age: - one younger woman as an oocyte-donor - one man as a sperm donor - one woman receiving the embryo, beating the probabilities to implant, and beating the probabilities to bear the baby through pregnancy and childbirth. Amara From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Jul 4 18:30:23 2008 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Vienna (Wien) - CR9 Conference on "Being Syncretic" Message-ID: <380-22008754183023321@M2W041.mail2web.com> If anyone is in Wien now, the conference at http://www.dieangewandte.at/ is exceptiona. There are a lot of media events going on. Consciousness Reframed Vienna, 3 July ? 5 July 2008 Theme: New Realities: Being Syncretic A transdisciplinary inquiry into art, science, technology and society. Partner and Host: University of Applied Arts Vienna Send me an email if you are here. -:) Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 21:28:02 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 16:28:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transgender man gives birth to a baby girl In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200807041628.03264.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 04 July 2008, Amara Graps wrote: > I will repeat (said here before several times) the biological > principle of a woman being unable to conceive using her own eggs > starting sometime in her 40s. This is a fact of female human biology, > Bryan. It was my understanding that we have cryo technologies for freezing. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 21:42:45 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 23:42:45 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Transgender man gives birth to a baby girl In-Reply-To: <200807041628.03264.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200807041628.03264.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20807041442j4562b6d2k1b1cc6cb63ce741c@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > It was my understanding that we have cryo technologies for freezing. Cryo is relatively easy for embryos, and quite trivial for spermatozoa, but much more difficult for ova., Recently, however, a few Italian researchers appear to be substantially improving the current success rate, or so I hear. Stefano Vaj From pjmanney at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 21:47:56 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:47:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: The best of humans at their worst in movies Message-ID: <29666bf30807041447j49d39ccm7a9f674d1e3a1c69@mail.gmail.com> It may not seem very H+ or extropic, but dystopic movies are among my favorites: I agree with the writer that "Dr. Strangelove" is one of the best ("Strangelove" is one of my favorite movies, period), but disagree with his diss of "Children of Men". PJ http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-bleakearth4-2008jul04,0,2725149.story >From the Los Angeles Times COMMENTARY The best of humans at their worst in movies Cinema has a way of turning dystopian visions into artistic, entertaining triumphs. By Michael Sragow Baltimore Sun July 4, 2008 The great Sam Peckinpah once said, "It's not just blowing up a bridge, it's the way you blow up a bridge." That's how I feel about apocalyptic or dystopian movies. It's not just blowing up the world, it's the way you blow up the world. Pundits questioned Pixar's decision to base "Wall-E" on a trash-strewn Earth, a robot hero and humans who've evolved into pudding pops. The last laugh is on the naysayers now that audiences are discovering the inventiveness, wit, emotion -- and, yes, hope -- that director Andrew Stanton and his team have invested in every inch of their sometimes bleak and barbed design. Of course, filming a cautionary tale without making it strident, or making audiences despondent, presents a steep challenge to filmmakers. For my money, even the gifted Alfonso Cuar?n ("Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban") flubbed that challenge with "Children of Men." But many moviemakers have covered the screen with art or entertainment glory when depicting humankind at its worst. Here's a handful of films that present beauty, humor or thrills -- as well as fear -- as humanity flirts with the end of days. 'Metropolis' (1927) When Fritz Lang's portrait of a dream city turned nightmare premiered in Berlin, no one had seen anything like it. H.G. Wells called it "quite the silliest movie." Yet George Lucas borrowed from it for "Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones," as Ridley Scott did for "Blade Runner." James Whale's laboratories in "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein" gave off the same whiff of retro-futuristic medievalism as the lair of Lang's mad scientist Rotwang; Rotwang himself was reborn as the title character of Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove"; and Rotwang's femme fatale robot, Hel, became Kubrick's HAL in "2001." At the center of this towering spectacle, which includes a flashback to the Tower of Babel, is class warfare between workers who live underground and the elite living the high life in their skyscrapers. But the movie's imaginative extremism is what still drives audiences wild. When the robot wiggles near-naked in front of wealthy men and winks at them with her mechanical eyes, these guys are lost. (Actually, what's nightmarish to us is how sexy the robot is when she's just a featureless automaton.) 'Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb' (1964) "Dr. Strangelove" started out as Kubrick's somber response to the nuclear brinkmanship of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Laboring on the screenplay while their stomachs rumbled in the wee hours of the night, Kubrick and his frequent collaborator, James B. Harris, wondered: What would happen if the denizens of their War Room were in the same position? Would they order out to the Gayety Delicatessen for sandwiches? Months later, Kubrick hired writer Terry Southern to help him counterpoint nuclear horror with absurdity. The result is a masterpiece of deadpan drollery. 'Planet of the Apes' (1968) The original, like the source novel by Pierre Boulle, was a scintillating mix of sci-fi adventure and allegory that spawned four big-screen follow-ups, a live-action TV series and a Saturday morning cartoon show -- all before Tim Burton got his hands on it. Younger kids loved the talking apes on the mystery planet who lorded over pathetic humans. College kids loved what they and Charlton Heston's astronaut antihero said, which replayed the slogans of the Vietnam and civil rights era in simian drag. Underneath the sweeping action, the whole movie was a take on "monkey see, monkey do," containing parables of minority persecution and revolt in both the ape and human realms. '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968) More apes. With typical audacity, Kubrick began his picture with tribes of ape men competing for food and water and being nudged into humanhood by a mysterious, perfect ebony slab that inspires their use of weaponry. The movie starts with the emergence of Homo sapiens; it ends with the emergence of Homo who-knows. Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea), the lone survivor of a space mission to Jupiter, undergoes a strange death and transfiguration under the spell of the same (or an identical) black slab. He becomes a figure in an astral fetal sac. Is he an upwardly mobile, evolutionary mutation or a monster capable of crushing a planet between his fingers? The movie's most famous character is the space mission's evil supercomputer, HAL, but what makes it haunting are the existential questions that Kubrick leaves hanging in midair. 'Weekend' (1968) Do you want to feel good about driving less? Jean-Luc Godard's phantasmagoria of a road movie plays better now than it did 40 years ago: It brought road rage to the edge of infinity and turned a traffic jam into a paradigm for the end of civilization as we know it. Suggested escapist alternative: George Miller's original "Mad Max" (1980). 'The Terminator' (1984) Every piece of action in James Cameron's exciting and intricate B movie adds to the master plan of the plot, in which a 2029 computer network sends a cyborg into the past to kill the mother of a future resistance leader. When Arnold Schwarzenegger took a scalpel to his wounded eyeball in the movie, it was an act of black-comic aggression: pop Luis Bu?uel. When he ran over a toy truck, viewers realized that his world had gone beyond dog-eat-dog to machine-eat-machine. In my favorite subplot, dogs were able to sniff out intruders in the good guys' ranks. In his own comic-book fashion, Cameron expressed a genuine, organic point of view -- he was against nuclear war and mechanization, and also against arrogant social planning. Michael Sragow is a film critic at the Baltimore Sun. From amara at amara.com Sat Jul 5 00:15:17 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:15:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Transgender man gives birth to a baby girl Message-ID: >> I will repeat (said here before several times) the biological >> principle of a woman being unable to conceive using her own eggs >> starting sometime in her 40s. This is a fact of female human biology, >> Bryan. >It was my understanding that we have cryo technologies for freezing. I should have qualified what I wrote. TODAY, and for the last ~5 years, we have had workable technologies for freezing oocytes. This is still a new technology, took decades to work out the cracking problems, and is not available everywhere. I've posted this before, but here it is again: http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/1022c.html TODAY, For a woman in her teens, 20s, 30s, that's one good insurance for have a child with her own genetic material, while she is in 40s and later. My challenge to you, is to convince a young woman to do it. TODAY, For a woman in her 40s, such a technology is useless to help her have children later. The age-related affects in her oocytes are still there. TODAY For a woman in her 50s, 60s, 70s, there are likely no oocytes of her own that can be harvested. Please tell me how a 70 year old woman could have had twins TODAY without an oocyte donor. If she didn't have a donor, then that factoid should be on the front page headline news. Amara From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 01:01:01 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 11:01:01 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Transgender man gives birth to a baby girl In-Reply-To: <274E105643D54B1EA1985F8C6E9BCCBC@ZANDRA2> References: <200807040644.m646hfWJ012278@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080704020043.024883c8@satx.rr.com> <200807040938.38139.kanzure@gmail.com> <274E105643D54B1EA1985F8C6E9BCCBC@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: 2008/7/5 Gary Miller : > It's already happening on a much larger scale with Asian-Americans > immigrants that having ultrasound to determine the fetus birth and aborting > if it's a female. Any imbalance will eventually be corrected through the mechanism of supply and demand. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 01:12:05 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 11:12:05 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms: _The Soviet Story_ documentary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2008/7/5 Amara Graps : > So > why is it that out of World War II, the only war crimes that were put on > trial were committed by the Germans? Why was/is it a European policy > that a WWII crime _must_ have been committed by a German? Many of those > Soviets responsible for the mass exterminations are still alive, > protected by Putin today. Because the victors rarely put themselves on trial. If they admit that bad things were done by their side, they justify it on the grounds of provocation by the enemy, who in contrast only do bad things because they are evil. -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at att.net Sat Jul 5 05:53:30 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 22:53:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms: _The Soviet Story_ documentary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807050621.m656Kpj1015814@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ...On Behalf Of Amara Graps ... > One might add a bit more irony and coincidence when I note > that the day in which I am writing this summary, July 4, is a > U.S. holiday to celebrate the U.S. Constitution... Well, actually the Declaration of Independence. Constitution day is 17 September. >... in a time > when that particular document is in shambles from the actions > of its own government... Actually we may be on the road to recovery. Five of the nine supreme court justices ruled recently that the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says. We have reason to be optimistic. Now if we can boot the four who apparently do not understand the meaning of shall not be infringed, things will be even better. > So how might one view The Soviet Story documentary? At this > time, I found one way: a bit torrent .avi file from here: > > http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4217790/The.Soviet.Story%5BDivX.20 > 08.Eng%5D ... > Amara Thanks for the link Amara! spike From seculartranshumanist at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 00:20:31 2008 From: seculartranshumanist at gmail.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 20:20:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] LA Times: The best of humans at their worst in movies In-Reply-To: <29666bf30807041447j49d39ccm7a9f674d1e3a1c69@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30807041447j49d39ccm7a9f674d1e3a1c69@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <918a899d0807041720w63719258u6fa9db67736663fc@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 5:47 PM, PJ Manney wrote: > It may not seem very H+ or extropic, but dystopic movies are among my > favorites: I agree with the writer that "Dr. Strangelove" is one of > the best ("Strangelove" is one of my favorite movies, period), but > disagree with his diss of "Children of Men". > > PJ > > > http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-bleakearth4-2008jul04,0,2725149.story > > On a related note, did you hear that they have apparently unearthed an unabridged print of Fritz Lang's "Metropolis"? Apparently it was discovered in a museum in South America: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwlj6ffCLxJD-PZL8yOBmOR36OPwD91NAR4GA Regarding the article you posted, I find the author's choice of dystopian movies to be somewhat skewed; 2001: A Space Odyssey is dystopian? No THX-1138? No Zardoz? No Blade Runner? Odd indeed. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sat Jul 5 06:44:41 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 00:44:41 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms: _The Soviet Story_ documentary Message-ID: Spike: >> ...On Behalf Of Amara Graps ... >> One might add a bit more irony and coincidence when I note >> that the day in which I am writing this summary, July 4, is a >> U.S. holiday to celebrate the U.S. Constitution... >Well, actually the Declaration of Independence. Constitution day is 17 >September. Thanks for the correction, Spike. >>... in a time >> when that particular document is in shambles from the actions >> of its own government... >Actually we may be on the road to recovery. My list of abuses: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2008-June/044135.html is devastating, at least to me. I think any recovery will take at least one generation. >Five of the nine supreme court >justices ruled recently that the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be >infringed" means exactly what it says. We have reason to be optimistic. I agree that this is a very important step forward. The 'founding fathers' wrote what they did to prevent a tyranny from occurring again. Since the tyranny is in motion, and has been for some time in the US Federal government, now there is a legal way again to check it. Let's see how that ruling is interpreted and implemented. Meanwhile, on July 8, the Senate will debate, and are scheduled to vote, on the FISA expansion and telecom immunity bill. I predict that there are still too many spineless people in Congress to follow the guidelines set in writing in the Constitution and will pass the bill. And for your entertainment pleasure: Snuggly, the Security Bear http://www.markfiore.com/snuggly_0 "We're watching you because we love you!" >> So how might one view The Soviet Story documentary? At this >> time, I found one way: a bit torrent .avi file from here: >> >> http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4217790/The.Soviet.Story%5BDivX.2008.Eng%5D >Thanks for the link Amara! You're welcome. Here is a good review in The Economist: Telling the Soviet story http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11401983 Ciao, Amara From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 5 06:45:10 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 01:45:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <200807050621.m656Kpj1015814@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200807050621.m656Kpj1015814@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705013808.023b04c0@satx.rr.com> At 10:53 PM 7/4/2008 -0700, Spike wrote: >Five of the nine supreme court >justices ruled recently that the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be >infringed" means exactly what it says. We have reason to be optimistic. >Now if we can boot the four who apparently do not understand the meaning of >shall not be infringed I wonder if you could clarify one small point, Spike, for the sake of a visiting outlander. What was meant by that strangely anomalous opening passage "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"? I just can't make out what it can possibly be doing there in a statement of *individual* freedom that otherwise, as you indicate, is so uncompromising and clearcut. Damien Broderick From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 07:51:37 2008 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 00:51:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meta on Upon pondering your freedoms: _The Soviet Story_ documentary Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > Spike: > >> ...On Behalf Of Amara Graps >> >> At the meta level, the question arises as to why humans act in the particularly disturbing ways they do. The story of the Nazis and the Communist and their leaders in WW II I have come to see as being situational. I.e., there are situations that induce groups of humans to act in ways that we have a hard time understanding. And while we personify leaders as evil, they were more caught in roles than they were independent agents. There is, I believe, a reason we look back on those events and cannot understand them. I think the reason we can't is that humans in such times were running an alternate operating system. In _Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War_ I discuss what induces switching between peace mode and war mode and what ultimately is the reason for the switch. It involves the bizarre concept that at times humans and their genes can have divergent goals. Keith Henson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sat Jul 5 15:09:20 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:09:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Is this Extropic? Message-ID: >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY Anna, If you give the subject of the link, it is easier to answer your question. [ Do schools today kill creativity? (Ken Robinson, TEDTalks) ] The answer is definitely yes. And after watching 10 seconds, I wanted to hear the rest of his 20 minute talk. Ken Robinson is a great speaker; very funny and with a big and important message for all of us. How can we possibly prepare for the future and how can we possibly prepare our kids for that future? Thanks for the pointer.. believe me that I'm doing everything I can to make sure that I provide the kind of environment to support and stimulate creativity in my own child (yet unborn!) ciao, Amara btw, has anyone noticed that Kevin Kelly is making extensive use of the word: "extropic" these days? "Where the linear crosses the exponential" http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/07/where_the_linea.php -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From spike66 at att.net Sat Jul 5 14:47:45 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 07:47:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] trimming replies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807051516.m65FGPpb013049@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > soenja lammers > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:12 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 57, Issue 25 > > > hello ? > > ---------------------------------------- > > From: extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org Oops my mistake. I was reviewing moderator requests last night as my baby let out a howl of distress, and I accidentally let this one thru. Soenja, please trim your replies such that your message is larger than the quoted materal, thanks. That isn't a hard and fast rule, but rather a guideline. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Jul 5 14:55:33 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 07:55:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705013808.023b04c0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807051524.m65FOF71013566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> >...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... > > I wonder if you could clarify one small point, Spike, for the > sake of a visiting outlander. What was meant by that > strangely anomalous opening passage "A well regulated > militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"? ... > > Damien Broderick That's the bad news Damien. That comment means we can be drafted. Anyone who owns weapons or has the right to own weapons is automatically part of the militia that is necessary to the security. Most everyone here would agree that Americans are already well regulated, extremely regulated. Regulated to the edge of insanity we are. Every freedom has its price. The possibility of receiving a draft notice is ours. spike From amara at amara.com Sat Jul 5 15:41:33 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:41:33 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Vienna (Wien) - CR9 Conference on "Being Syncretic" Message-ID: >Consciousness Reframed >Vienna, 3 July ? 5 July 2008 >Send me an email if you are here. -:) Natasha, One of my favorite places in Vienna is the Natural History Museum. They have a human-sized piece of lava from a 'smoker', carried up from the deep sea floor. This type of environment is likely where life on Earth began. And around the corner, in the meteorite collection in the glass cases, look for the chondrites. Then in those, do you see the embedded white spherical-shaped pieces? Those are chondrules, age 4.6 billion years old, formed at the beginning of the solar system. There is only one kind of object from our solar system that is older, 'calcium-aluminum-inclusions' (CAI), also embedded, but microscopically in chondrites. Older by a few hundred million years. If you could possibly get tired of Vienna, and you have time, then Bratislava, a short train ride away from Vienna, is another gorgeous city to visit. :-) Tsch?ss, Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 16:04:49 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 16:04:49 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <200807051524.m65FOF71013566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705013808.023b04c0@satx.rr.com> <200807051524.m65FOF71013566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 2:55 PM, spike wrote: >>...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick >> I wonder if you could clarify one small point, Spike, for the >> sake of a visiting outlander. What was meant by that >> strangely anomalous opening passage "A well regulated >> militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"? ... >> > > That's the bad news Damien. That comment means we can be drafted. Anyone > who owns weapons or has the right to own weapons is automatically part of > the militia that is necessary to the security. Most everyone here would > agree that Americans are already well regulated, extremely regulated. > Regulated to the edge of insanity we are. Every freedom has its price. The > possibility of receiving a draft notice is ours. > Spike, Damien is poking a stick in the anthill of the gun control argument. ;) He surely knows the interpretation of this phrase is argued both ways by pro and anti gun control factions. My reading of this is along similar lines to the interpretation of Bible phrases. You have to go back in time and understand the social and political circumstances applying at the time it was written. This often leads to the conclusion that the saying cannot apply nowadays because the context doesn't apply nowadays. Bible fundamentalists rarely do the required study, preferring to choose the interpretation that conveniently fits the point they wish to fight for. (They even forget that the English authorised version of the Bible has already been interpretated into the old English of 1611 by selecting translations of ancient Hebrew and Greek words and the old English words themselves no longer have the same meaning and connotations as when they were written). When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" - a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions. The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the 'amateur' state militias. The argument that continues today is whether a personal right to bear arms is necessary for the maintenance of state militias as a counterbalance to US federal militia. It certainly was at the time it was written, as the state soldiers used their own weapons in the state military service. But is it necessary nowadays???? The debate continues........ From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Sat Jul 5 16:06:34 2008 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 12:06:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Vienna (Wien) - CR9 Conference on Being Syncretic Message-ID: <380-2200876516634634@M2W042.mail2web.com> From: Amara Graps >>Consciousness Reframed >>Vienna, 3 July ? 5 July 2008 >>Send me an email if you are here. -:) >One of my favorite places in Vienna is the Natural History Museum. They >have a human-sized piece of lava from a 'smoker', carried up from the >deep sea floor. This type of environment is likely where life on Earth >began. Thank you for the suggestion. I'll be sure to visit it. >And around the corner, in the meteorite collection in the glass cases, >look for the chondrites. Then in those, do you see the embedded white >spherical-shaped pieces? Those are chondrules, age 4.6 billion years >old, formed at the beginning of the solar system. There is only one kind >of object from our solar system that is older, >'calcium-aluminum-inclusions' (CAI), also embedded, but microscopically >in chondrites. Older by a few hundred million years. >If you could possibly get tired of Vienna, and you have time, then >Bratislava, a short train ride away from Vienna, is another gorgeous >city to visit. :-) Maybe I can do this on my day off! Thanks Amara, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 16:36:14 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 11:36:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is this Extropic? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200807051136.14692.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 05 July 2008, Amara Graps wrote: > Thanks for the pointer.. believe me that I'm doing everything I can > to make sure that I provide the kind of environment to support and > stimulate creativity in my own child (yet unborn!) I'm still recovering from my experiences in public education. I haven't yet figured out how to exactly verbalize in entirety how ridiculous it was, and others do it much better than I have yet figured out how to: http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html > btw, has anyone noticed that Kevin Kelly is making extensive use of > the word: "extropic" these days? Kevin Kelly is a groupie anyway. :-) Whole Earth Magazine and such. > "Where the linear crosses the exponential" > http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/07/where_the_linea.php I was just thinking about a topic that he brings up: > All extropic systems -- economy, nature and technology -- are > governed by self-accelerating feedback cycles. Like compounding > interest, or virtuous circles, they are powered by increasing > returns. Success breeds success. There is a long tail of incremental > build up and then as they keep doubling every cycle, they explode out > of invisibility into significance. Extropic systems can also collapse > in the same self-accelerating way, one subtraction triggering many > other subtractions, so in a vicious cycle the whole system implodes. > Our view of the future is warped and blinded by these exponential > curves. I was toying around with some fundamental problems again when I came to the conclusion that separation processes suck. The fact that our machines and systems require a certain percent purity of material input means that there's this dependency on material resources which ends up causing difficulties, in terms of acquisition and in terms of processing, etc. etc. How does the biosphere do it? It has this very massive long tail of bacterial and minimal prokaryotic processes that carry out photosynthesis for the capture of photons into hydrocarbons, and then those other processes that bring new elements and materials into the biosphere from solid rock, such as the trillions of bacteria living under the crust of the planet's surface. In truth it's much more than a few trillion, I've seen estimates that the number of organisms living in solid rock is in fact greater than the number living on the other side of the surface (starward). I would doubt that it's greater than the number living in the oceans. Anyway, because of this very long tail, we're able to enjoy heavily selected material resources, it's how we have agriculture and it's how we can accumulate necessary dietary substenance, or in if you want to be more quantificious there's the nutritional requirements that are packaged for the IV patients that are on life support in hospitals, which is much more detailed and accurate than just blindly shoving food down your throat (also more chemically accurate). So, the fact that the we have to process specific material inputs, which can in fact vary over a wide range, basically renders us dependent on that long tail of biological processes. That's simply not a good system design because you don't have that guarantee of stability. I put some thought into this and realized that the function looks sigmoid. There's the nearly exponential concavity going up, but then a plateau as the long tail (more like a large surface batting at food) consumes the available resources; it's here why I went back to check my archives to go looking for Jef's email regarding the possibly staggard, fractal look of the universe. I was going to see if the concepts involved would match up and make sense for the functionality of being able to use those plateaus as springboards to the greater fractal element at the larger scale. The typical hierarchical spiell: planet, star system, star cluster, arm, galaxy, galaxy cluster, supercluster, filament, etc. This would, in effect, necessitate a cyclic competent approach to matter/energy/information processing that would seem like a nomadic "gearing up" for transitions to the larger fractal context (perhaps the perceived oil crisis, as many call it, is an example of a planetary plateau due to the weird choices we made regarding social structure and material distributivity etc.). In essence this is KK's self-accelerating feedback cycles (the plateauing cycles). His application is a little less specific (plateau-jumping for material resources), but probably valid. > But while progress runs on exponential curves, our individual lives > proceed in a linear fashion. We live day by day by day. While we This, of course, doesn't have to be the case. The main reason why our lives are so linear is because of the nature of our neurons with more dendrites than axons, only ten fingers while our eyes receive so much information. The way we can do this is getting information out of the brain that is "unused" or dissipative (like when writing, all of the grammatical percepts you generate but leave unmentioned or unimplemented), which is an application of brain implant technology, which, as you know, would generate overhead and heat, re: extropy, entropy, thermodynamics and processes and such. > might think time flies as we age, it really trickles out steadily. Meh, flow of time? > Ditto for civilizations. In linear time, the future is a loss. But > because human minds and societies can improve things over time, and > compound that improvement in virtuous circles, the future in this > dimension is a gain. Therefore long-term thinking entails the > confluence of the linear and the exponential. The linear march of our > time intersects the cascading rise and fall of numerous > self-amplifying exponential forces. Generations, too, proceed in a I don't understand how my augmentation to the linear process of human life would change KK's comments here. > linear sequence. They advance steadily one after another while pushed > by the compounding cycles of exponential change. Generations in a linear sequence? Generation 1: 2 people Generation 2: 4 people ... doesn't look linear. Of course, it didn't look like that in the beginning, since that's assuming the single unified ancestor hypothesis, which is unexamined in light of the parallel emergence hypotheses etc. So it's more like generation 1, N, generation 2, 2^n, with some dead and other variables floating around the place. > Balancing that point where the linear crosses the exponential is what > long-term thinking should be about. For each generation and for each The only linear rate that I see discussed is that of a person's autobiographical "central core" or 'self' etc., and I don't see how that has to remain linear. In terms of the plateauing resources and the hierarchical levels as being linear, there's certain applications of computer science and graph theory for the elucidation of Hamiltonian paths into linear sequences and some linear sequences back into graphs (this is why you are able to see visual graphs on a computer screen -- it's all a straight line of binary on the computer in the first place). Except now imagine a more functional interpretation rather than just fancy visuals. :-) > issue that equation of intersection will be different. Sometimes the > immediate needs of the now will dominate, and the discount rate will > favor the present. For example, the chronic use of childhood vaccines > and antibiotics may prove to have long-term downsides, but their > value to present generations is so great that we agree to send the > cost to the future. Descending generations will have to pay the price Ah, perhaps he means generation 1 -> generation 2 -> and thus it is linear. However, there's not one giant clock detailing one generation after another, and it's not ticking like that, and really there are multiple generations at once. It's kind of like the taxonomic problem in biology with species, but in terms of generations it's just a silly calendar-based separation methodology that only allows broad generalizations that may or may not be helpful overall. > -- or to solve the problem by inventing better medicines using > exponentially better knowledge and resources. Other times future > generations will be so enhanced by the later exponential growth begun > in a small immediate gain that we raise the discount rate. For Generations as the product at the plateau? Is that a useful formulation? > A timeline of where we expect these cost/benefit/risk-thresholds to > fall in each sector of our civilization, or a field map of places we > can see where our linear lives cross exponential change -- either > would be very handy to have. I'd avoid the cost/benefit/risk-thresholds in terms of segmentation and sectoring; but a map of technologies for the exponential evolutionary influence to seep into otherwise linear, stale processes, is an interesting plan, and I submit that the SKDB system (or whatever we call it) is the right tool for that job (societal engineering / mapping and for the proposals of evolutionary approaches to different problems), but as to the validity of a map or ontology for describing it all? I think that's still suspect. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jul 5 17:01:59 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:01:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Hplusroadmap] Is this Extropic? In-Reply-To: <200807051136.14692.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200807051136.14692.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Saturday 05 July 2008, Amara Graps wrote: >> Thanks for the pointer.. believe me that I'm doing everything I can >> to make sure that I provide the kind of environment to support and >> stimulate creativity in my own child (yet unborn!) > > I'm still recovering from my experiences in public education. I haven't > yet figured out how to exactly verbalize in entirety how ridiculous it > was, and others do it much better than I have yet figured out how to: > http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html > >> btw, has anyone noticed that Kevin Kelly is making extensive use of >> the word: "extropic" these days? Brian, I'm jumping in here for just a moment to say I think you (and Kevin Kelly) are poking at some very interesting questions of deep interest to this discussion list, at least as this list was originally conceived. I find much in your comments worthy of criticism (in contrast with so much else that is unworthy of criticism) and some that begs for elaboration. But realizing the inadequacy of this medium for multilevel, multifaceted collaboration for extended meaning-making, I'll simply reiterate my suggestion to you to acquire a deeper understanding of evolutionary processes, e.g. genetic algorithms, esp. hierarchical Bayesian and estimation of distribution, and also to gain the invaluable experience of getting your hands dirty working on a SINGLE problem which is fundamentally hard (as opposed to, for example, merely logistically difficult.) Onward! - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 5 17:45:34 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:45:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705013808.023b04c0@satx.rr.com> <200807051524.m65FOF71013566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705122635.025290b8@satx.rr.com> At 04:04 PM 7/5/2008 +0000, BillK wrote: >With the memory of King George >III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" >feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias >were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second >Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming >the 'amateur' state militias. This is certainly my understanding. The context of the Amendment is the wish to establish a countervailing force to central government, lest that government become as autocratic as the one the Americans had recently revolted against. The idea that carrying weapons was handy as a way of stopping muggers, burglars or terrorists, or in order to enhance politeness via a local balance of terror (Heinlein's recommendation), might be a part of that background context, but it can't be what the Amendment *means*. I don't know if "bear arms" includes carrying swords and knives for personal protection and status, or if that was perhaps so taken for granted that nobody thought to mention it. >The argument that continues today is whether a personal right to bear >arms is necessary for the maintenance of state militias as a >counterbalance to US federal militia. It certainly was at the time it >was written, as the state soldiers used their own weapons in the state >military service. But is it necessary nowadays???? Is it even meaningful today, with the weapons and communication systems available to a national army? The kinds of depredations Amara listed just don't seem susceptible to redress via a popular uprising of furious citizens armed with handguns and rifles. Does anyone here really propose that the way to prevent torture (or internet usage tracking or undue taxation or the teaching of creationism in schools) is to go in with pistols blazing? It might have been back in the day, but surely not now, either individually or as part of a state militia. Please note that this is distinct from the question whether it's a jolly nice thing to own guns. The question is how the Second Amendment can reasonably be understood *in the present context but as arising within the original context.* Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Sat Jul 5 17:31:05 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:31:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807051800.m65HxsRD014792@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ... On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: Re: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms > > On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 2:55 PM, spike wrote: > >>...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... > >>opening passage "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the > >>security of a free state"? ... ... > > Spike, > > Damien is poking a stick in the anthill of the gun control > argument. ;)... Ja, but I am cool with that. In the past when this discussion was attempted, it was hijacked by those who could not keep it civil. Those elements are no longer posting here. I trust Damien's civility, and I trust yours and I trust mine. >...The militia > was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were > subject to various requirements such as training, supplying > their own firearms... Agreed. The founding fathers' government had not the funds to buy firearms for every member of the army. With the well-regulated militia comment, they tacitly assumed it was the responsibility of the draftees to supply them. It worked. ... > The argument that continues today is whether a personal right > to bear arms is necessary for the maintenance of state > militias as a counterbalance to US federal militia. It > certainly was at the time it was written, as the state > soldiers used their own weapons in the state > military service. But is it necessary nowadays???? BillK, it is more necessary than ever before, for there is more than one kind of war. The old style foreign army invading across the border notion is gone now, but we are at war. Osama Bin Laden declared war on the US in 1994. It took us seven years to notice, but that war has never come to peace negotiations. Al Queda is in that hazy gray area between foreign army and criminal conspiracy, but that war continues still. In the war against crime, the knowledge that the intended victims might be armed causes criminals to have respect, and encourages them to go into some other line of business. The local mayor of San Francisco was weeping over the recent supreme court decision, saying that the housing projects would be harmed by having more guns. I disagree, for the laws only apply to those who follow laws. The criminals in those projects already have guns. Now those who pay attention to laws can have them too. So now we have a great test case: let us watch over the next few years to see if crime goes up or goes down in the housing projects. The well regulated militia argument works for me in the defense against domestic crime. Since one or two criminals represent a very small invading army, then I along with Mister Twelve Gage and Private Buckshot represents a very small militia. I regulate myself and Mr. 12 very well thanks. Check this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source= mostpop_story spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 5 18:35:57 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 11:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <200807051524.m65FOF71013566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <615636.82505.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > >...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > ... > > > > I wonder if you could clarify one small point, Spike, for the > > sake of a visiting outlander. What was meant by that > > strangely anomalous opening passage "A well regulated > > militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"? ... > > > > Damien Broderick > > That's the bad news Damien. That comment means we can be drafted. Anyone > who owns weapons or has the right to own weapons is automatically part of > the militia that is necessary to the security. Most everyone here would > agree that Americans are already well regulated, extremely regulated. > Regulated to the edge of insanity we are. Every freedom has its price. The > possibility of receiving a draft notice is ours. I would go so far as to issue every man and woman over 18 in the U.S. an assault rifle to be kept in their home and be trained in in how to use and maintain it similar to the Swiss model. Vegetius said "Si vis pacem, para bellum" or "if you want peace, prepare for war", and the Swiss have not had to wage war since Napoleon. In my America, the 9/11 hijackers would have tried to seize the plane and a dozen passengers would have drawn handguns on them and told them to sit down and shut up. The worst that would have happened is that we would have lost those planes. The price of freedom is that *YOU* have to watch the watchers. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "In ancient times they had no statistics so that they had to fall back on lies."- Stephen Leacock From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Jul 5 19:08:54 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 12:08:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms: _The Soviet Story_documentary References: <200807050621.m656Kpj1015814@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <00a101c8ded2$dc1d5f30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Spike writes concerning Amara's great post to all "freedom-loving folks" that she wrote on Friday, July 04, 2008 10:09 AM: >> http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4217790/The.Soviet.Story%5BDivX.20 >> 08.Eng%5D > ... >> Amara > > Thanks for the link Amara! Well, yes, that too. But Amara's original essay is the thing to take especial note of! Please pardon me for committing the solecism of quoting almost Amara's entire post: For some years I have used F.A. Hayek's 1930's _Road to Serfdom_ as a kind of map with guideposts to demonstrate how particular actions and propaganda by an unnamed large modern nation's federal government was building, piece-by-piece, the Total State. Just as those same actions and words 70 years ago at a faster pace, and more brutally, built Fascist States and Communist States. Hayek explained in exquisite philosophical detail that the two, Fascism and Communism, were, in fact, just two sides of the same coin. Such a correspondence was easy for me to see, when my family historically experienced both systems, over the same piece of land, with the same results. We were split, half was sent in a cattle car to Siberia and survived but barred behind the Iron Curtain, the other half escaped as a refuge and then started over with a new life in a new country. Still, for me, as a child of a Baltic refugee, the horror of the Communist and Nazi experiments was mostly abstract. Then, last night, upon my distant, abstract, philosophical landscape, the documentary called _The Soviet Story_ landed. This two hour documentary made by mostly Latvians is making some waves in the Baltic countries and in the EU Parliament now. It is not just a simple historical film of all of the nasty things that Stalin did. It makes glaringly convincing connections of the collusion of activities between Hitler and Stalin to build a 'new world' and a 'new man' before and during WWII and by Stalin after WWII It has been some decades since I've seen film footage resembling what I saw last night. When I was about eight, living in Honolulu, my parents brought my sisters and I to a small gathering of a few dozen people meeting in a small, dark, windowless room, to view a film of WWII, as it was experienced by the Baltic people. I remember seeing scenes of torture and seeing mass graves and I remember my father telling me that one could identify who was in that mass grave by just their clothes; the Latvian men owned one good suit. One might think that a 1.5 hour event seen almost forty years ago as an eight year old would be quickly forgotten, but those images have remained with me. I predict that the scenes from _The Soviet Story_ will stay with you. It's rare for the world to see actual film footage of the atrocities committed by Stalin, but the film-maker had access to archives, that were never viewed by a wide audience. And if you didn't get the message seeing that scene once, then the film-maker made sure that you would get the message when that scene was repeated in front of your screaming conscious mind a few more times. This is a hard-hitting film. And thought provoking. And a graphic application of the philosophical principles involved when building a Total State, such as the extermination of races and classes, which included principles to build a 'new man' and a 'new society'. Of the latter points, I think that the transhumanists would benefit from viewing the documentary, to understand the criticism one occasionally hears when they talk about becoming better humans. The difference is that transhumanists want to be 'better' humans by their personal free choices and their diversity. The Nazi and Communist experiments were as far from individual choices as life and death. The new aspect for me in this film was not only the remarkably identical propaganda tools and brutal actions of the two systems, but also of the many close agreements and meetings between Hitler and Stalin and their colleagues. The famous Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement that split Europe between the Soviets and the Nazis was not an isolated agreement, there were many others that planned strategies for who was to get what, where, how and when. Moreover, the Soviets were experts at mass extermination before Stalin and Hitler met, and they continued to be experts at mass extermination after Hitler was gone. They were performing experiments on humans before, during, and after WWII and used the same experiment and death chamber facilities as the Nazis used after Hitler was gone too. So why is it that out of World War II, the only war crimes that were put on trial were committed by the Germans? Why was/is it a European policy that a WWII crime _must_ have been committed by a German? There are two reasons, let's be blunt. The first one was as someone mentioned: the victors hold the trials and write the history. But truth be told, the second reason is that making hay about WWII crimes not committed by Germans would not advance the cause of Jewish solidarity, and tend (illogically, of course) to diminish by contrast their own enormous and catastrophic sufferings inflicted upon them by the Nazis. (There is one subsidiary reason: during the cold war, and even after when it would serve no realpolitik purpose to offend an existing powerful nation, criticism of Russian and Soviet and Japanese transgressions can only be undertaken by purists of the Ronald Reagan caliber, who often don't mind denouncing evil no matter how strong it is and who it offends (though many would retort "not often enough")). Many of those Soviets responsible for the mass exterminations are still alive, protected by Putin today. And so to the Japanese. (And what about North Vietnamese atrocities in the war, and the incredible Mao Zedong holocausts of 1959 and 1967? Who criticizes those still alive who participated?) Though I have to confess that I am of a forgiving disposition. Do we really need to *prosecute* anyone for crimes that took place over sixty years ago in a completely different world from ours today? But that ABSOLUTELY should not prevent us or anyone from loudly and frequently reminding the world of those crimes. So on this day of pondering your freedoms, I offer this perspective of where humans have been, where humans might be going, and what truths can humans accept today, in order to help you place the value of your freedoms. Amara Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 5 19:41:56 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:41:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <200807051524.m65FOF71013566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705013808.023b04c0@satx.rr.com> <200807051524.m65FOF71013566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705143033.024af928@satx.rr.com> At 07:55 AM 7/5/2008 -0700, Spike wrote: > > > What was meant by that > > strangely anomalous opening passage "A well regulated > > militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"? ... > >That comment means we can be drafted. So the Amendment refers to military service (of a sort). I had that impression too. >Anyone >who owns weapons or has the right to own weapons is automatically part of >the militia that is necessary to the security. The security of what, against whom? The black conservative writer Larry Elder compiles some interesting quotes at Here are some of them. Is he just cherrypicking? They look as if the mood of the day meant "the security of people against any new tyrants of government." Shooting terrorists trying to take over the stagecoach or robbers stealing the household's bag of gold doesn't seem to have come into it. =========== The Second Amendment reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." What did the Framers mean? [[he's left a comma out; does this matter?]] Is "Militia" ? as the Framers intended ? an arm of government? Or did the Framers define militia as something completely different ? a group of armed citizens with a right to "keep and bear Arms" to guard against unjust or tyrannical government power? The Founding Fathers assumed that any government, including the one they established, could grow into a monster. They argued that only "the people" with a right "to keep and bear arms" could prevent such a tyranny. James Madison, the "father of the Constitution," stated that tyrants were "afraid to trust the people with arms," and lauded "the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." Thomas Jefferson wrote: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." George Mason said, "To disarm the people ? that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." [[this seems entirely contrary to Spike's interpretation that the Amendment *authorized* a standing army and a draft!]] Noah Webster, the prominent political essayist who fought in the Revolutionary War, wrote: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.... The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." Samuel Adams likened the Second Amendment to the First: "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." ... [[but finally a more general aspect:]] Thomas Paine, in 1775, spoke about another kind of "tyranny." Bans and restrictions on firearms affect the law-abiding citizenry, shifting power to the non-law-abiding. Criminals ignore laws. That's why we call them criminals. Paine said: "The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defense. (Weakness) allures the ruffian (but) arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the good) deprived of the use of them. The weak will become a prey to the strong." From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jul 5 20:11:59 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 13:11:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Materials "Genomics" Message-ID: Continuing a personal theme of applying informatics to innovation, I thought this might be worth forwarding to the list: > Overview > > Seeking structure-property relationships is an accepted paradigm in materials science, yet these relationships are often not linear and the challenge is to seek patterns among multiple length and time scales. There is rarely a single multiscale theory or experiment which can meaningfully and accurately capture all the necessary information. The Materials Genome Projet is adding an "informatics" dimension to the analysis of materials science phenomena, by a process which can permit one to survey complex, multiscale information in a statistically robust and yet physically meaningful manner. The application of such "informatics" approaches could have a significant impact in materials design and discovery; in the same way genomics has had in the biological arena. - Jef From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 20:42:16 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 13:42:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705013808.023b04c0@satx.rr.com> References: <200807050621.m656Kpj1015814@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080705013808.023b04c0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Damien, you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of the passage you cite. No doubt a consequence of the "visiting outlander" effect. Allow me to help out. Once again: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"... The problem here lies in misconstruing the qualifier "free". Most folks think the "founding fathers" valued and desired a "free state". Not so. The whole "constitution" thing is slight of hand, a distraction. They actually wanted roving bands of lawless gun-whacko "patriots" stalking the face of the planet spreading the gospel of corn dogs and torture. They did not themselves have corn dogs or the means to electrify genitalia, but had the vision to know that the future held such wonders, and did not want freedom and rationality to stand in the way of the ultimate in cultural achievement. So, in order to prevent a secure free state, and seeing that "a well regulated militia" could be a central guarantor to such, they sought to prevent it by insuring that every testosterone-overdosed psychopath not already hired by the government could assemble, so far as their personal financial resources would allow(it's just silly to waste money nurturing children whose destiny is to feed the dogs of war) an inventory of death/torture machines which would have been the envy of Vlad the Impaler. If those founding fathers could see the wonders crafted from their legacy, how very proud they would be. Hope that clears things up. Don't mention it. On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 10:53 PM 7/4/2008 -0700, Spike wrote: > >> Five of the nine supreme court >> justices ruled recently that the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be >> infringed" means exactly what it says. We have reason to be optimistic. >> Now if we can boot the four who apparently do not understand the meaning >> of >> shall not be infringed > > I wonder if you could clarify one small point, Spike, for the sake of a > visiting outlander. What was meant by that strangely anomalous opening > passage "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free > state"? I just can't make out what it can possibly be doing there in a > statement of *individual* freedom that otherwise, as you indicate, is so > uncompromising and clearcut. > > Damien Broderick From aiguy at comcast.net Sat Jul 5 21:17:20 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 17:17:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <615636.82505.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <200807051524.m65FOF71013566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <615636.82505.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <945F5C67FD8B4418B1697B67AACAA046@ZANDRA2> Stuart LaForge said: >> I would go so far as to issue every man and woman over 18 in the U.S. an assault rifle to be kept in their home and be trained in in how to use and maintain it similar to the Swiss model. Vegetius said "Si vis pacem, para bellum" or "if you want peace, prepare for war", and the Swiss have not had to wage war since Napoleon. In my America, the 9/11 hijackers would have tried to seize the plane and a dozen passengers would have drawn handguns on them and told them to sit down and shut up. The worst that would have happened is that we would have lost those planes. The price of freedom is that *YOU* have to watch the watchers. >> My Response: I disagree if your suggestion was taken up the worst that could happen is that the number of accidental firearm deaths in the United States would rise sufficiently to outnumber the deaths ever incurred by terrorist. http://www.gunpolicy.org/Topics/Accidental_Shooting.html In addition many cases of existing road rage, simple assault and domestic violence would escalate to second degree murder. It is much easier to psychologically to kill a human being by pulling a trigger than by other means. Other forms of attack give the attacker more time to regain control, consider the consequnces, and be horrified by what they have started to do. It is also much easier for innocent bystanders to be killed in a gun attack, people in a homocidal rage are not known to take time to aim well. "During the period 1972 to 2006, the percentage of American households that reported having any guns in the home has dropped nearly 20 percentage points: from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006" http://www.vpc.org/studies/gunownership.pdf During this same period America has experienced a dramatic drop in violent crime. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E5DE1F3EF937A25755C0A9679 C8B63 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States "In 2000, 174 children (0-18) in the United States died from unintentional firearm-related injuries. Unintentional injuries are usually caused when children play with guns or are hunting. Unintentional injuries from firearms represent less than two percent of all firearm deaths in the U.S. But of this two percent, children and adolescents are involved in 55% of these deaths. The majority of the injuries occur to children playing with or showing the weapons to friends. The easy availability of firearms is believed to be the number one risk factor for unintentional firearm deaths." http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesAF.htm How many children in the United States were killed by terroists last year? Based upon these statistics I fail to see how having a gun in everyones house makes us any safer. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 5 21:24:43 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 16:24:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: References: <200807050621.m656Kpj1015814@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080705013808.023b04c0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705162016.022a3d58@satx.rr.com> At 01:42 PM 7/5/2008 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: >So, in order to prevent a secure free state, and seeing that "a well >regulated militia" could be a central guarantor to such, they sought >to prevent it by insuring that every testosterone-overdosed psychopath [etc] Scathingly witty, Jeff! This explains a great deal I'd never understood but always dimly suspected. Sadly, their plan has gone awry, since you now have both the hyperpowerful state (perhaps not a *free* state in their sense) *plus* the desirable bands of murderous psychopaths. Oh well, governance isn't yet an exact science. Damien Broderick From amara at amara.com Sat Jul 5 22:32:50 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 16:32:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms Message-ID: Damien B.: >Is it even meaningful today, with the weapons and communication >systems available to a national army? The kinds of depredations Amara >listed just don't seem susceptible to redress via a popular uprising >of furious citizens armed with handguns and rifles. After ten years living abroad, I am more struck than ever by the arrogant, power-trippy, gun-trigger-happy perspective that the local police carry in the the U.S. This is a massively over-policed country with police personnel that have an attitude. With ambiguous laws stemming from the equally ambiguous 'War on Drugs', 'War on Terrorism', 'War on Pornography', let's just call it the the 'War on Asparagus', the American police can enter one's home on any trumped-up charge and carry off your possessions, and your children and You. My list of 'depredations' show so many 'Acts', that it would be no problem for the police to find something in their legal arsenal if they don't like you, in order to make your life very miserable. Would the American police be so arrogant if more 'citizens' protected themselves with weapons at home? There's a time-delay and trickle-down effect that would need to happen first, but that is the reason that I said the Supreme Court ruling about the Second Amendment was an important step forward. I myself, would choose a different weapon than a gun, so I'm curious, does the ruling apply only to guns? Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 5 22:42:57 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:42:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <945F5C67FD8B4418B1697B67AACAA046@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <315041.71892.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Gary Miller wrote: > I disagree if your suggestion was taken up the worst that could happen is > that the number of accidental firearm deaths in the United States would rise > sufficiently to outnumber the deaths ever incurred by terrorist. > > http://www.gunpolicy.org/Topics/Accidental_Shooting.html In 2005, according to the CDC, there were 30,694 total gun-related deaths from all causes i.e. violent crime, accident, and suicide. http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html In that same year there were 45,520 automobile related deaths from all causes. Both are out of a population of 296,507,061. That would mean that guns are safer than automobiles. Would you take away my car next? Or is getting to work more improtant to you than keeping what you earn? > Based upon these statistics I fail to see how having a gun in everyones > house makes us any safer. Safety and freedom are sometimes mutually exclusive. And even in halls of the mighty, security is for the most part a comforting illusion. Freedom is nothing if not the freedom to takes risks because every free being is responsible for the consequences of its own choices. In a universally-armed society violence is self-limiting by natural selection. The violent will die out and only well-armed pacifists will remain to bear children to compete with one another at business, soccer, and math. It's just nature, dude. :-) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "In ancient times they had no statistics so that they had to fall back on lies."- Stephen Leacock From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 5 23:30:27 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 18:30:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <315041.71892.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <945F5C67FD8B4418B1697B67AACAA046@ZANDRA2> <315041.71892.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705182539.0231ecd8@satx.rr.com> At 03:42 PM 7/5/2008 -0700, Avant wrote: >In that same year there were 45,520 automobile related deaths from all causes. >Both are out of a population of 296,507,061. That would mean that guns are >safer than automobiles. Would you take away my car next? This is the rhetorical path this list has lurched down too often before. I thought it was safe to inquire in a contained manner into the likely meaning of the 2nd Amendment, once Spike had offered his opinion of the fool judges who thought it had something to do with militias. But it looks as if the Great Gun Attractor is doing its evil work anyway. Stop it now, before we all go blind! Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Sat Jul 5 23:48:05 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 16:48:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] second amendment rights In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705182539.0231ecd8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807052350.m65NoDfN011826@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 ... > that guns > >are safer than automobiles. Would you take away my car next? > > This is the rhetorical path this list has lurched down too > often before. I thought it was safe to inquire in a contained > manner into the likely meaning of the 2nd Amendment, once > Spike had offered his opinion of the fool judges who thought > it had something to do with militias. But it looks as if the > Great Gun Attractor is doing its evil work anyway. Stop it > now, before we all go blind! > > Damien Broderick Ja, the gun debate has burned over this ground several times before. Do consult the archives. There you will find some caustic and delightful "canardic screeds" as Lee Daniel called them. After I offered an admittedly scattershot reply, I realized Damien was interested in a specific second amendment discussion. I propose letting the Pondering Your Freedoms thread wind down or continue on the various topics this line seems to spawn with mind numbing regularity. Further I propose that Damien's original question take on the above subject line, and I urge strict subject discipline on this one. If one continues under that subject line, note that it isn't about crime, it isn't about safety, it is about the constitution and its intent. I am not pointing fingers, as I was the one who tossed out a bunch of obscuring verbiage. Note that second amendment rights need not be exclusively about guns. We often assume it so, but arms could be other stuff too. Play ball! spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 6 02:17:31 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 19:17:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705182539.0231ecd8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <814251.55557.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > But it looks as if the Great Gun Attractor is doing its > evil work anyway. Stop it now, before we all go blind! Would that be Christian evil or Islamic evil, Damien? I'm sorry but I no longer see the world in terms of good and evil. I only see conflicting interests and the options to cooperate, ignore, or defect. Hornets go where mice fear to tread because they keep their options open. True safety doesn't exist. Justice, on the other hand, we can have that. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "In ancient times they had no statistics so that they had to fall back on lies."- Stephen Leacock From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jul 6 03:12:11 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:12:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <814251.55557.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705182539.0231ecd8@satx.rr.com> <814251.55557.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705220927.02472b48@satx.rr.com> At 07:17 PM 7/5/2008 -0700, Avant wrote: > > But it looks as if the Great Gun Attractor is doing its > > evil work anyway. Stop it now, before we all go blind! > >Would that be Christian evil or Islamic evil, Damien? Civil discourse-blighting evil, Stuart. >I'm sorry but I no longer >see the world in terms of good and evil. Maybe you weren't here then. It got ugly, more than once. Damien Broderick From amara at amara.com Sun Jul 6 04:12:51 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:12:51 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Flight of the Lawn Chair Man, Part II Message-ID: US Man Makes Balloon Chair Trip http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7491841.stm Man flying lawn chair lifted by helium balloons http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j037p6KBSOGf46HoBgu15lsCUGUgD91O0IGO0 ------- If you're wondering if we have seen this audacious act performed before, then you wondered right. Yes, indeed we have. This man was inspired by that 1982 event. What is is about Americans who like to take flights in lawn chairs hovering ~15,000 feet altitude, lifted by helium balloons? ------- The Flight of the Lawnchair Man http://www.snopes.com/travel/airline/walters.asp The incredible flight of Larry Walters, a 33-year-old Vietnam veteran and North Hollywood truck driver with no pilot or balloon training, took place on 2 July 1982. Larry filled 45 weather balloons with helium and tethered them in four tiers to an aluminum lawn chair he purchased at Sears for $110, loading his makeshift aircraft (dubbed the "Inspiration I") with a large bottle of soda, milk jugs full of water for ballast, a pellet gun, a portable CB radio, an altimeter, and a camera. Donning a parachute, Larry climbed into his chair from the roof of his girlfriend's home in San Pedro while two friends stood at the ready to untether the craft. He took off a little earlier than expected, however, when his mooring line was cut by the roof's sharp edges. As friends, neighbors, reporters and cameramen looked on, Larry Walters rocketed into the sky above San Pedro. A few minutes later Larry radioed the ground that he was sailing across Los Angeles Harbor towards Long Beach. Walters had planned to fly 300 miles into the Mojave Desert, but the balloons took him up faster than expected and the wind didn't cooperate, and Walters quickly found himself drifting 16,000 feet above Long Beach. (He later reported that he was "so amazed by the view" that he "didn't even take one picture.") As Larry and his lawnchair drifted into the approach path to Long Beach Municipal Airport, perplexed pilots from two passing Delta and TWA airliners alerted air traffic controllers about what appeared to be an unprotected man floating through the sky in a chair. Meanwhile, Larry, feeling cold and dizzy in the thin air three miles above the ground, shot several of his balloons with the pellet gun to bring himself back down to earth. He attempted to aim his descent at a large expanse of grass of a north Long Beach country club, but Larry came up short and ended up entangling his tethers in a set of high-voltage power lines in Long Beach about ten miles from his liftoff site. The plastic tethers protected Walters from electrocution as he dangled above the ground until firemen and utility crews could cut the power to the lines (blacking out a portion of Long Beach for twenty minutes). Larry managed to maneuver his chair over a wall, step out, and cut the chair free. (He gave away the chair to some admiring neighborhood children, a decision he later regretted when his impromptu flight brought him far more fame than he had anticipated.) Larry, who had just set a new altitude record for a flight with gas-filled clustered balloons (although his record was not officially recognized because he had not carried a proper altitude-recording device with him) became an instant celebrity, but the Federal Aviation Administration was not amused. Unable to revoke Walters' pilot's license because he didn't have one, an FAA official announced that they would charge Walters "as soon as we figure out which part [of the FAA code] he violated." Larry hit the talk show circuit, appearing with Johnny Carson and David Letterman, hosting at a New York bar filled with lawn chairs for the occasion, and receiving an award from the Bonehead Club of Dallas while the FAA pondered his case. After Walters' hearing before an agency panel, the FAA announced on 17 December 1982 that they were fining him $4,000 for violating four regulations: operating "a civil aircraft for which there is not currently in effect an air-worthiness certificate," creating a collision danger to other aircraft, entering an airport traffic area "without establishing and maintaining two-way communications with the control tower," and failing to take care to prevent hazards to the life and property of others. Larry quickly indicated that he intended to challenge the fines, stating sardonically that if "the FAA was around when the Wright Brothers were testing their aircraft, they would never have been able to make their first flight at Kitty Hawk." He also informed the FAA (and reporters) that he couldn't possibly pay the fine, because he'd put all the money he could save or borrow into his flight. In April the FAA signalled their willingness to compromise by dropping one of the charges (they'd decided his lawnchair didn't need an air-worthiness certificate after all) and lowering the fine to $3,000. Walters countered by offering to admit to failing to maintain two-way radio contact with the airport and to pay a $1,000 penalty if the other two charges were dropped. The FAA eventually agreed to accept a $1,500 payment because "the flight was potentially unsafe, but Walters had not intended to endanger anyone." ---------- (and there's more.. with a sad ending) -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From spike66 at att.net Sun Jul 6 05:15:45 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:15:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Flight of the Lawn Chair Man, Part II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807060518.m665Hr6s018374@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Amara Graps ... > > What is is about Americans who like to take flights in lawn > chairs hovering ~15,000 feet altitude, lifted by helium balloons? If you want to make a joyride in the sky, this is probably still the most economical way to do it. Comparable in cost to a commercial plane ride perhaps, but with with the balloons one is so much more out there. > ... > In April the FAA signalled their willingness to compromise by > dropping one of the charges (they'd decided his lawnchair > didn't need an air-worthiness certificate after all) and > lowering the fine to $3,000. > Walters countered by offering to admit to failing to maintain > two-way radio contact with the airport and to pay a $1,000 > penalty if the other two charges were dropped. The FAA > eventually agreed to accept a $1,500 payment because "the > flight was potentially unsafe, but Walters had not intended > to endanger anyone... Amara Graps, PhD What bothers me about this is that the FAA is essentially claiming ownership of the skies. Well who decided they own the air? Why should not some crazy yahoo be free to fly, so long as the damages are paid should she fall upon some hapless prole? spike From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Jul 6 05:41:14 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 01:41:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Flight of the Lawn Chair Man, Part II In-Reply-To: <200807060518.m665Hr6s018374@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200807060518.m665Hr6s018374@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <23DE2F9ED3F144E599C61F51E1E50DDA@ZANDRA2> Spike said: >> What bothers me about this is that the FAA is essentially claiming ownership of the skies. Well who decided they own the air? Why should not some crazy yahoo be free to fly, so long as the damages are paid should she fall upon some hapless prole? >> My Response: And what about if he had happened to hit one of those planes that he passed close enough to see him and shattered the cockpit. What about the loss of income to the power company for that 20 minutes that Long Beach was blacked out? And the cost of the rescue effort? I'm tired of mountain climbers, cavers and other adventurous types sticking the taxpayers and local government with the cost of their rescues. Anyone attempting such stunts should at least have ought enough liability insurance to cover their own stupidity. He'll make enough as it is off of the talk show circuit to cover the costs I'm sure. The FAA's job is to regulate the airways for commercial aviation. They have special programs for experimental craft. Too bad he never bothered to check into them. From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jul 6 11:01:46 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 04:01:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705122635.025290b8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705013808.023b04c0@satx.rr.com> <200807051524.m65FOF71013566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080705122635.025290b8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Jul 5, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 04:04 PM 7/5/2008 +0000, BillK wrote: > >> With the memory of King George >> III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" >> feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias >> were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second >> Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from >> disarming >> the 'amateur' state militias. > It had nothing to do with "state militias" per se as these were only formed in an ad hoc manner by free armed citizens when they found it needful to do so. The "state" part of it is irrelevant or was in the time of the founders. > This is certainly my understanding. The context of the Amendment is > the wish to establish a countervailing force to central government, > lest that government become as autocratic as the one the Americans > had recently revolted against. > > The idea that carrying weapons was handy as a way of stopping > muggers, burglars or terrorists, or in order to enhance politeness > via a local balance of terror (Heinlein's recommendation), might be > a part of that background context, but it can't be what the > Amendment *means*. I don't know if "bear arms" includes carrying > swords and knives for personal protection and status, or if that was > perhaps so taken for granted that nobody thought to mention it. The country was founded on the fundamental principle of the right to life. It did not escape the founders, especially Jefferson, that the right to life leads directly to the right of self-defense. Jefferson would have found nit-picking over what kind of weapon can be carried to defend life, property and freedom quite incredible. In any case let us not quibble about what they did and did not mean. What do we say, today, from our love of freedom and understanding of what it requires? Freedom dies when it becomes mere historical debate. > > >> The argument that continues today is whether a personal right to bear >> arms is necessary for the maintenance of state militias as a >> counterbalance to US federal militia. It certainly was at the time it >> was written, as the state soldiers used their own weapons in the >> state >> military service. But is it necessary nowadays???? > There was no "state military service". There were volunteer armies of free citizens. > Is it even meaningful today, with the weapons and communication > systems available to a national army? It should be. All of that equipment should be available privately as well. Certainly the communication system available privately should be every bit as powerful for many reasons outside military parity. We must insure that not only the military and select parts of the government have really powerful means of communication. We need to insure that the government cannot shut down our communication lines. To me this is by far the biggest lack in any real healthy power balance. > The kinds of depredations Amara listed just don't seem susceptible > to redress via a popular uprising of furious citizens armed with > handguns and rifles. Does anyone here really propose that the way to > prevent torture (or internet usage tracking or undue taxation or the > teaching of creationism in schools) is to go in with pistols > blazing? It might have been back in the day, but surely not now, > either individually or as part of a state militia. I don't think it was not so simple as all that at any time. What needs to be opposed and if necessary by force of arms is encroachment on legitimate freedom. To say that the government is sooo powerful that we can be expected to do nothing to secure more freedom is just what the Tories said back then. After all it was very laughable that handfuls of amateur armed men could successfully resist the mightiest military machine of their day. Can it still be done and does it need to be done? I think the need for greater freedom is pretty obvious. Whether it can be secured by arms or secession or other means today is a deeper question. > > > Please note that this is distinct from the question whether it's a > jolly nice thing to own guns. The question is how the Second > Amendment can reasonably be understood *in the present context but > as arising within the original context.* I don't know if guns are "jolly nice" but history suggests that disarmed populations often lose far more freedom faster when the government does go south. Even a little resistance slows down the ambitions of would be tyrants. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jul 6 11:07:44 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 04:07:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <200807051800.m65HxsRD014792@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200807051800.m65HxsRD014792@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <93D4A791-4EE2-4461-99EA-3B3E0314572D@mac.com> On Jul 5, 2008, at 10:31 AM, spike wrote: > > >> ... On Behalf Of BillK >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms >> >> On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 2:55 PM, spike wrote: >>>> ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > ... >>>> opening passage "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the >>>> security of a free state"? ... > ... >> >> Spike, >> >> Damien is poking a stick in the anthill of the gun control >> argument. ;)... > > Ja, but I am cool with that. In the past when this discussion was > attempted, it was hijacked by those who could not keep it civil. > Those > elements are no longer posting here. I trust Damien's civility, and > I trust > yours and I trust mine. > >> ...The militia >> was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were >> subject to various requirements such as training, supplying >> their own firearms... > > Agreed. The founding fathers' government had not the funds to buy > firearms > for every member of the army. With the well-regulated militia > comment, they > tacitly assumed it was the responsibility of the draftees to supply > them. > It worked. > > ... >> The argument that continues today is whether a personal right >> to bear arms is necessary for the maintenance of state >> militias as a counterbalance to US federal militia. It >> certainly was at the time it was written, as the state >> soldiers used their own weapons in the state >> military service. But is it necessary nowadays???? > > BillK, it is more necessary than ever before, for there is more than > one > kind of war. The old style foreign army invading across the border > notion > is gone now, but we are at war. Osama Bin Laden declared war on the > US in > 1994. It took us seven years to notice, but that war has never come > to > peace negotiations. Al Queda is in that hazy gray area between > foreign army > and criminal conspiracy, but that war continues still. > So many wars, Cold War, Police Action, War On Poverty, War on [some] Drugs, War [never-ending?] on [some] Terror. Al Queda is a very small organization with quite limited support that we have blown totally out of proportion. It is a convenient excuse for very many things our government wants to do at home and abroad most of which rather obviously have nothing to do with making us safer from terrorism. It is the new Cold War. - samantha From spike66 at att.net Sun Jul 6 11:52:04 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 04:52:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Flight of the Lawn Chair Man, Part II In-Reply-To: <23DE2F9ED3F144E599C61F51E1E50DDA@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <200807061221.m66CKqsx006699@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Gary Miller ... > > My Response: > > And what about if he had happened to hit one of those planes > that he passed close enough to see him and shattered the cockpit. ... Balloons have the right of way over aircraft. The more maneuverable craft must yield, same rules as on the sea. spike From amara at amara.com Sun Jul 6 13:46:31 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 07:46:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Flight of the Lawn Chair Man, Part II Message-ID: Gary Miller: >He'll make enough as it is off of the talk show circuit to cover the costs >I'm sure. >The FAA's job is to regulate the airways for commercial aviation. They have >special programs for experimental craft. >Too bad he never bothered to check into them. Who's 'he' ? Larry Walters, the man in 1982 who performed the flight is dead now. Of Kent Couch, the man who performed the flight yesterday, since he was inspired by Larry Walters, I am assuming that he did look in that aspect too. I've not read any information about what specifically he had done regarding any real or imagined FAA rules, though, have you? You're writing as if you have some information. If you have, please post those links here. Of course he's very much alive, he has been on the talk shows for one year (that's what the information I read said, not that I would know myself), and he had a number of corporate sponsors, of whom I'm guessing were checking him to make sure that he wasn't doing anything that would reflect badly on them. Corporate sponsors tend to have that effect, you know. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Jul 6 14:17:35 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 09:17:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Flight of the Lawn Chair Man, Part II In-Reply-To: <23DE2F9ED3F144E599C61F51E1E50DDA@ZANDRA2> References: <200807060518.m665Hr6s018374@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <23DE2F9ED3F144E599C61F51E1E50DDA@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <200807060917.35524.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 06 July 2008, Gary Miller wrote: > The FAA's job is to regulate the airways for commercial aviation. > ?They have special programs for experimental craft. They should offer free navigational collission-detection systems, not rule with an iron fist. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Jul 6 14:26:58 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 09:26:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Social Credit versus Labor-based currency (was: Re: Using Time Based Currency?) In-Reply-To: <4870C350.8060500@kurtz-fernhout.com> References: <4870C350.8060500@kurtz-fernhout.com> Message-ID: <200807060926.58823.kanzure@gmail.com> While we're on about the redesign and modernization of governments and springboards: On Sunday 06 July 2008, Paul D. Fernhout wrote: > The original poster's idea (crazimyke) on Time Based Currency > reminds me a little of a "LETS" system: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Exchange_Trading_Systems > but with additional restrictions and a more sophisticated accounting > system. I agree one can improve on what we have in various ways in > those directions. But ultimately, in a society with advanced > automation there is a deep problem with any system based around > earning credits through "the amount and type of labor" a person does. > It is described here: > http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution >.htm "The fundamental problem posed by the cybernation revolution in > the U.S. is that it invalidates the general mechanism so far employed > to undergird people?s rights as consumers. Up to this time economic > resources have been distributed on the basis of contributions to > production, with machines and men competing for employment on > somewhat equal terms. In the developing cybernated system, > potentially unlimited output can be achieved by systems of machines > which will require little cooperation from human beings." > > So, there is no longer that much of a logical connection between > labor and output. The original poster did include "type of labor" in > the idea, but I'd expect that would still break down eventually as an > idea. A highly automated society like Virgle (or even just Google :-) > will need to wrestle with that idea pretty quickly. And a system with > more and more AI will need people less and less even for services and > design work. Unless we think about that idea, we may well see world > wide starvation and poverty in the face of huge warehouses stuffed > full of food and goods no one can afford -- same as during the Great > Depression of the 1930s. The Great Depression was in that sense a > failure of imagination, not a failure of productivity. > > Because of this cybernation idea that labor is no longer very related > to output, if we still need to *ration* (and that is what currency is > about -- rationing) then I like the idea of "free and equal credit" > idea in the Manna story by Marshall Brain if we need one (assuming a > simple gift economy won't work). An excerpt from his story: > http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm > """ > "It works like this. Let's say that you own a large piece of land. > Say something the size of your state of California. This land > contains natural resources. There is the sand on the beaches, from > which you can make glass and silicon chips. There are iron, gold and > aluminum ores in the soil, which you can mine, refine and form into > any shape. There are oil and coal deposits under the ground. There is > carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen in the air and in the water. If > you were to own California, all of these resources are 'free.' That > is, since you own them, you don't have to pay anyone for them and > they are there for the taking." > > "If you have a source of energy and if you also own smart robots, the > robots can turn these resources into anything you want for free. > Robots can grow free food for you in the soil. Robots can manufacture > things like steel, glass, fiberglass insulation and so on to create > free buildings. Robots can weave fabric from cotton or synthetics and > make free clothing. In the case of this catalog you are holding, > nanoscale robots chain together glucose molecules to form laminar > carbohydrates. As long as you have smart robots, along with energy > and free resources, everything is free." > > Linda chimed in, "This was Eric's core idea -- everything can be free > in a robotic world. Then he took it one step further. He said that > everything should be free. Furthermore, he believed that every human > being should get an equal share of all of these free products that > the robots are producing. He took the American phrase 'all men are > created equal' quite literally." > > ... > > "That's what I wanted to ask about. If everything is free, then > what's to stop me from demanding a 100,000 foot house on a thousand > acres of land and a driveway paved in gold bricks? It makes no sense, > because obviously everyone cannot demand that. And how can anything > be free? That is hard to believe in the first place." I said. > > "Everything is free AND everyone is equal." Linda said. "That's > exactly how you phrased it, and you were right. You, Jacob, get equal > access to the free resources, and so does everyone else. That's done > through a system of credits. You get a thousand credits every week > and you can spend them in any way you like. So does everyone else. > This catalog is designed to give you a taste of what you can buy with > your credits. This is a small subset of the full catalog you will use > once you arrive. You simply ask for something, the robots deliver it, > and your account gets debited." > > "Let me show you." said Cynthia. She opened her catalog to a page, > and pointed to one of the pictures. It was clothing. "This is what I > am wearing." she said. "See - it is 6 credits. In a typical week I > only spend about 70 or so credits on clothes. That's why I like to > wear something new every day." > > "The robots did manufacture Cynthia's outfit for free. They took > recycled resources, added energy and robotic labor and created what > she is wearing. It cost nothing to make it. She paid credits simply > to keep track of how many resources she is using." > > "Where did the energy come from?" I asked. > > "The sun. The Australia Project is powered mostly by the sun and the > wind, and the wind comes from the sun if you think about it." > > "Where did the robots come from?" > > "The same place Cynthia's outfit came from. It's the same thing. > Robots take recycled resources, add energy and robotic labor and make > new robots. The robots are free, the energy is free, the resources > are all completely recycled and we own them, so they are free. > Everything is free." > > "The credits simply make sure that everyone gets equal access to the > resources. There is a finite amount of power that can be generated on > any given day, for example. Things like that. The credits make sure > everyone gets an equal share of the total pool of resources." > > "Holy shit." I said. I was looking through the catalog again. Page > after page after page of products. There were thousands of different > types of housing, for example. And they all seemed to fall in the > range of 100 to 500 credits per week. Clothing cost nothing. Food > cost nothing. > > "I'm not getting this." I said. "I'm not sure I could spend a > thousand credits if this catalog is right." > > "Many people don't spend a thousand credits." she said. "If you are > working on a project you might, but that's about it." > > "So how do I earn the credits?" I asked. > > "Earn?" Linda asked back. > > "No no no..." said Cynthia. > > "Do you give me a job? The reason I am here is because I have no > job," I said. > > "No. You see, it's all free. By being a shareholder, you already own > your share of the resources. The robots make products from the free > resources you and everyone else already owns. There is no forced > labor like there is in America. You do what you want, and you get > 1,000 credits per week. We are all on an endless vacation." > """ > > Although on the value of labor in a good life, see: > http://www.schumachersociety.org/buddhist_economics/english.html > "The Buddhist point of view takes the function of work to be at least > threefold: to give man a chance to utilise and develop his faculties; > to enable him to overcome his ego-centredness by joining with other > people in a common task; and to bring forth the goods and services > needed for a becoming existence. Again, the consequences that flow > from this view are endless. To organise work in such a manner that it > becomes meaningless, boring, stultifying, or nerve-racking for the > worker would be little short of criminal; it would indicate a greater > concern with goods than with people, an evil lack of compassion and a > soul-destroying degree of attachment to the most primitive side of > this worldly existence. Equally, to strive for leisure as an > alternative to work would be considered a complete misunderstanding > of one of the basic truths of human existence, namely that work and > leisure are complementary parts of the same living process and cannot > be separated without destroying the joy of work and the bliss of > leisure." > > Frances Moore Lappe talks about how there is starvation because, > unlike in the past when everyone had access to the land to hunt and > gather, almost all food in our society is under lock and key and you > can only have access to it through the market economy, so if you can > not participate in the market economy (no job, no skills, poor > health, racial or other discrimination, politics, etc.) then you are > unable to buy food and so you starve. What Marshall Brain's idea > suggests is that everyone should have a basic amount of credit in our > society every month, and then starvation will go away. (There might > have to be laws against selling future credits to sell yourself into > slavery.) > > There have been political parties with ideas like this: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit > > And there are also variations on libertarianism vaguely related to > this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialist > > Again from the "Triple Revolution" (written almost 50 years ago!): > > http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution >.htm "... As machines take over production from men, they absorb an > increasing proportion of resources while the men who are displaced > become dependent on minimal and unrelated government > measures?unemployment insurance, social security, welfare payments. > These measures are less and less able to disguise a historic paradox: > That a substantial proportion of the population is subsisting on > minimal incomes, often below the poverty line, at a time when > sufficient productive potential is available to supply the needs of > everyone in the U.S. The existence of this paradox is denied or > ignored by conventional economic analysis. The general economic > approach argues that potential demand, which if filled would raise > the number of jobs and provide incomes to those holding them, is > underestimated. Most contemporary economic analysis states that all > of the available labor force and industrial capacity is required to > meet the needs of consumers and industry and to provide adequate > public services: Schools, parks, roads, homes, decent cities, and > clean water and air. It is further argued that demand could be > increased, by a variety of standard techniques, to any desired extent > by providing money and machines to improve the conditions of the > billions of impoverished people elsewhere in the world, who need food > and shelter, clothes and machinery and everything else the industrial > nations take for granted. There is no question that cybernation does > increase the potential for the provision of funds to neglected public > sectors. Nor is there any question that cybernation would make > possible the abolition of poverty at home and abroad. But the > industrial system does not possess any adequate mechanisms to permit > these potentials to become realities. The industrial system was > designed to produce an ever-increasing quantity of goods as > efficiently as possible, and it was assumed that the distribution of > the power to purchase these goods would occur almost automatically. > The continuance of the income-through jobs link as the only major > mechanism for distributing effective demand ? for granting the right > to consume ? now acts as the main brake on the almost unlimited > capacity of a cybernated productive system." > > Anyway, I'd suggest the issue in that last sentence is the key one to > think about: "The continuance of the income-through jobs link as the > only major mechanism for distributing effective demand ? for granting > the right to consume ? now acts as the main brake on the almost > unlimited capacity of a cybernated productive system." > > What I imagine is two mathematical curves on a graph (relative to a > fixed population), with time as the X axis, and two items on the Y > axis -- the effort required for universal abundance and the amount of > free time people are willing to give away. Ignore what is on the > axes here: :-) "Supply and demand curve" > http://economics.blog.co.in/files/2008/03/equilibirium.JPG > With a bottom X axis of time, think of "Supply" as "Supply of free > time that can be used to make gifts" and "Demand" as "Demand of free > time required to produce universal abundance for everyone with > improving automation". :-) > > I'd expect that with increasing technology, over time the curve for > time vs. effort required for universal abundance would be dropping > towards zero, and the curve for time vs. amount of free time people > are willing to give away would be rising. At some point those two > curves cross, and after that point in time, universal abundance > through a post-scarcity economy (however it is organized in detail) > is very possible. So, it is both the cultural evolution towards > increasing charity and compassion and freedom as well as the > improvements in automation that make an abundant future for all more > and more possible even with a large population (a population too > large to sustain by hunting and gathering). Example: > "How overfishing can alter an ocean?s entire ecosystem" > http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/06/19/how-overfishing- >can-alter-an-ocean%E2%80%99s-entire-ecosystem/ > > --Paul Fernhout > > mike1937 wrote: > >> But to Bryan: I don't think mankind is anywhere near ready for > >> such systems (and I'm not entirely confident it ever will be). > >> Without very rigid structure.. greedy, malevolent, and reckless > >> people will tear all of society apart. > > > > I wrote an essay on that :-) > > http://williamabaris.net78.net/motivationmoralityandcapitalsim.html > > ... > > > On Jul 2, 11:18 am, crazimyke wrote: > >> I have an idea very similar to the Man-Hour, except that it > >> differentiates between the values of engineering/medical/menial > >> labor and so forth. Basically, you get "credit" based on the > >> amount and type of labor that you perform. After that, you can > >> exchange this credit for goods or services. The important > >> difference between this and money is that you can't toss this > >> "credit" around. You couldn't pay people off for things that > >> aren't registered. This has many implications, such as it makes > >> bribery and black market business practically impossible. It also > >> prevents upstarting residents from having unfair financial > >> advantages over others (i.e. a kid from a rich family won't have > >> any major advantage over a kid from a poor family). This means > >> that there's no longer such a thing as inheritance, but personally > >> I don't feel inheritance should be necessary in the first place. > >> The idea is to make sure that the whole system is a meritocracy, > >> is free of corruption, and, most importantly, money does not rule > >> all of society and government. Of course, the real challenge is > >> designing and maintaining a safe and secure exchanging network... > >> preventing hackers from messing around with credit records. > >> > >> I should note that a person would be perfectly able to invest and > >> save credit in much the same way that money can be used on Earth. > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Project Virgle" group. To post to this group, send email to > virgle at googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > virgle-unsubscribe at googlegroups.com For more options, visit this > group at http://groups.google.com/group/virgle?hl=en > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Jul 6 17:18:23 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 12:18:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is this Extropic? In-Reply-To: <200807051136.14692.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200807051136.14692.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200807061218.23788.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 05 July 2008, Bryan Bishop wrote: > A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Kevin Kelly wrote: > > A timeline of where we expect these cost/benefit/risk-thresholds to > > fall in each sector of our civilization, or a field map of places > > we can see where our linear lives cross exponential change -- > > either would be very handy to have. > > I'd avoid the cost/benefit/risk-thresholds in terms of segmentation > and sectoring; but a map of technologies for the exponential > evolutionary influence to seep into otherwise linear, stale > processes, is an interesting plan, and I submit that the SKDB system > (or whatever we call it) is the right tool for that job (societal > engineering / mapping and for the proposals of evolutionary > approaches to different problems), but as to the validity of a map or > ontology for describing it all? I think that's still suspect. Grumble grumble. I dislike forgetting my own ideas. I was talking with another individual yesterday about this and mentioned an intriguing formulation of software development for biotech development. A group calling itself a biogang threw up a wiki and a few blogs somewhere out on web and implements a cyclical "burst work" model. They assemble, do some work, and then leave it in whatever state it is when they decide to leave, much like F/OSS projects that die off*. The work is made completely accessible for anyone else to continue it. Projects don't "die" because the group fails to follow through, it only "dies" if they fail to throw up relevant information, files, schematics, code. The bursty model is obviously implemented in email, instant messaging, and to some extent our behaviors -- ALT+TAB over to email, click click click, go back to the other screen to do something else, sit, think, sip of coke, tap tap tap, repeat. This 'random' convergence of interested individuals is what can keep a springboard from failing completely and how you can jump from one fractal stratification to the next or iterate through the entities (planets of the star system, or galaxies of the cluster, or using the FreeCar** system to leave cars for individuals to cycle through a city) of the current cycle/set. It solves the original problem of material input in that when you're doing that "jump" you're typically estimating the amount of material resources that you're going to have access to, and so you have overall limits to perceived possible growth (it'd be irresponsible to voluntarily become cancerous, for instance). So while you still have the purity requirements for materials, you also start off with the typical landscaping scenario of surveying, analysis, measurements, so you know (somewhat in advance) what you're getting yourself into. You could prepare different separation processes from the metallurgical sciences or materials engineering disciplines, etc. The individual tools allowing separate agents to explore and settle these regions are commonly already available in software, which allows for those units of bursty work to be constructed and piped together. The overall architecture of the preservation and integration of the separate projects / tools / systems that are 'left alone' is a fairly good description of what goes into SKDB. For instance, an electric vehicle. And so this is a basis to making the springboading and fractal stratification work, especially for specific projects. And it fixes the problem of purity of inputs as I explained. But this doesn't explain how to strategically enhance and implement those bursty work cycles into actually happening. We can do better than just sitting around waiting for something awesome to happen. Personal incentives or plain old configuration/style options and such are an interesting idea -- it's the reason why people paint their cars, or put stickers on their doors. Customization. I suppose simply by exerting social or selective pressures these extropic values can be promoted, but this strategy of just hoping for the right people to show up? Max, is that a good method of extropic strategizing? An 'extropic map' (really a roadmap), which is essentially what Kevin Kelly is looking for (hey, he's the first result on Google for 'extropic map' -- not a coincidence), would map out the extents of and functional basises and drives for improvements and growth. I think he wants a map so that he can watch out for the intersection of linears and exponentials, or if I am allowed some extra creative license, so that we can strategically promote/do the bursty work to functionally implement and scoptically increase the values that we (those in a particular bursty work group) share. It's not a matter of long term thinking, it's a matter of extropic thinking, or really just extropy. The problem with this is that we're right back where we started, this would be turning back into yet another discussion on the implementation of extropic strategies and guides of these strategies. Haven't we gone over this too many times by now? What did we get out of it previously? - Bryan * for instance, openmosix is a recently dead project that has been resurrected by some individuals that I've been hanging around, although I admit I haven't contributed code due to the daunting kernel review task that I'd have to chug through :-) ** this isn't the actual name of the group/project, but it's out there somewhere. ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Jul 6 17:35:25 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:35:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Flight of the Lawn Chair Man, Part II In-Reply-To: <200807060917.35524.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200807060518.m665Hr6s018374@andromeda.ziaspace.com><23DE2F9ED3F144E599C61F51E1E50DDA@ZANDRA2> <200807060917.35524.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: Bryan said: >> They should offer free navigational collission-detection systems, not rule with an iron fist. Come on, there's no such thing as free. And I suppose you think we should all equip our cars with skateboard and bicycle detectors so that children can play in the streets and now have to observe any of the same traffic laws that automobiles do? We live in a society where safety is based upon people following certain laws for the sake of safety. When you violate those rules you risk the life of not just yourself but others. In many states you are required to pass a safe vehicle inspection. You are required to have working brakes on your vehicle. The government does not buy you brakes. If you want to drive you must follow the commonsense laws that are created for the sake of safety. Safety laws for the most part are created to save lives. Which the last time I checked was an Extropian thing to do. From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Jul 6 18:09:51 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:09:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Flight of the Lawn Chair Man, Part II In-Reply-To: References: <200807060917.35524.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200807061309.52191.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 06 July 2008, Gary Miller wrote: > Come on, there's no such thing as free. And I suppose you think we http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity Free is baseline, it's physics; anything nonfree is usually socially constrained. There's a difference. > should all equip our cars with skateboard and bicycle detectors so > that children can play in the streets and now have to observe any of > the same traffic laws that automobiles do? You shouldn't be running into kids, yes. It's called right of way. > We live in a society where safety is based upon people following > certain laws for the sake of safety. Okay. > When you violate those rules you risk the life of not just yourself > but others. Nah, there are many bogus rules. Wasn't there a helmet discussion on this list a few weeks ago? > In many states you are required to pass a safe vehicle inspection. > ?You are required to have working brakes on your vehicle. ?The > government does not buy you brakes. ?If you want to drive you must > follow the commonsense laws that are created for the sake of safety. As opposed to, you know, not building a transportation system that kills tens of thousands of people every month. Yes, sure, blame the victims. Not the engineers and designers. No way, they didn't do a thing, right? > Safety laws for the most part are created to save lives. ?Which the > last time I checked was an Extropian thing to do. Laws are hardly extropic. http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm "Open Society ? Supporting social orders that foster freedom of speech, freedom of action, and experimentation. Opposing authoritarian social control and favoring the rule of law and decentralization of power. Preferring bargaining over battling, and exchange over compulsion. Openness to improvement rather than a static utopia." http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/extropians_pr.html "Further along there was a concerted attempt to flesh out the Extropian dream. Tom Morrow, the Extropian legal theorist, wrote articles about "privately produced law," showing how systems of rules can and do arise spontaneously from voluntary transactions among free agents, without the assistance of Mother Government. He also wrote about "Free Oceana," a proposed community of Extropians living on artificial islands floating around on the high seas." http://users.aol.com/gburch1/exlaw.html " Individual liberty and reciprocity are the highest values in an extropian approach to law and legal issues. These values follow naturally from a desire for self transformation and a stress on social systems that arise as a spontaneous ordering of free individuals. Accordingly, extropians look to legal systems as tools for freely ordering their own lives and their interactions with others and they resist the use of law as a tool of repression or coercion." "Extropians strongly question the presumption underlying the current almost universal paradigm of law that assumes that law is inextricably intertwined with the power of the state. They seek to free the law from this confining assumption as much as possible and see the law more as a fluid ground of action for ordering the affairs of individuals on a consensual basis. Thus, extropians are interested in current developments in various regimes of so-called "privately produced law", such as private mediation and arbitration, and look forward to the possibility of expanding the reach of such regimes of private law to new areas of human activity. Many extropians think that the coercive state as we know it today could be more or less completely replaced by "polycentric legal codes" of privately produced law, an example of spontaneous order on the largest social scale." - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From seculartranshumanist at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 00:41:22 2008 From: seculartranshumanist at gmail.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 20:41:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Social Credit versus Labor-based currency (was: Re: Using Time Based Currency?) In-Reply-To: <200807060926.58823.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <4870C350.8060500@kurtz-fernhout.com> <200807060926.58823.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <918a899d0807061741p2a04e4d7v9c8f03576dd4a319@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > While we're on about the redesign and modernization of governments and > springboards: > Would it not make much more sense to figure out how to achieve the goals of Transhumanism with the systems that we're got, rather than engaging in endless pie-in-the-sky debates about alternate politico-economic systems that will never come into being? Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 01:36:20 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 20:36:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Social Credit versus Labor-based currency (was: Re: Using Time Based Currency?) In-Reply-To: <918a899d0807061741p2a04e4d7v9c8f03576dd4a319@mail.gmail.com> References: <4870C350.8060500@kurtz-fernhout.com> <200807060926.58823.kanzure@gmail.com> <918a899d0807061741p2a04e4d7v9c8f03576dd4a319@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200807062036.20812.kanzure@gmail.com> On Sunday 06 July 2008, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Would it not make much more sense to figure out how to achieve the > goals of Transhumanism with the systems that we're got, rather than > engaging in endless pie-in-the-sky debates about alternate > politico-economic systems that will never come into being? The discussion was taking place on the virgle mailing list. http://google.com/virgle > For thousands of years, > the human race has spread out across the Earth, scaling mountains and > plying the oceans, planting crops and building highways, raising > skyscrapers and atmospheric CO2 levels, and observing, with > tremendous and unflagging enthusiasm, the Biblical injunction to be > fruitful and multiply across our world's every last nook, cranny and > subdivision. > > An invitation. > > Earth has issues, and it's time humanity got started on a Plan B. So, > starting in 2014, Virgin founder Richard Branson and Google > co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin will be leading hundreds of > users on one of the grandest adventures in human history: Project > Virgle, the first permanent human colony on Mars. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 03:41:25 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 23:41:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Social Credit versus Labor-based currency (was: Re: Using Time Based Currency?) In-Reply-To: <200807062036.20812.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <4870C350.8060500@kurtz-fernhout.com> <200807060926.58823.kanzure@gmail.com> <918a899d0807061741p2a04e4d7v9c8f03576dd4a319@mail.gmail.com> <200807062036.20812.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240807062041g2e3938c8k5aae2e4988d23065@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > The discussion was taking place on the virgle mailing list. > > http://google.com/virgle > This was one of google's famous april fool's jokes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgle note: this reply contains the original post with (most of) the irrelevant parts judiciously trimmed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 7 06:42:28 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 23:42:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080705182539.0231ecd8@satx.rr.com> References: <945F5C67FD8B4418B1697B67AACAA046@ZANDRA2> <315041.71892.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080705182539.0231ecd8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <66E6067E-A6AD-4A26-AF66-BB19C5E616DE@mac.com> On Jul 5, 2008, at 4:30 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 03:42 PM 7/5/2008 -0700, Avant wrote: > >> In that same year there were 45,520 automobile related deaths from >> all causes. >> Both are out of a population of 296,507,061. That would mean that >> guns are >> safer than automobiles. Would you take away my car next? > > This is the rhetorical path this list has lurched down too often > before. I thought it was safe to inquire in a contained manner into > the likely meaning of the 2nd Amendment, once Spike had offered his > opinion of the fool judges who thought it had something to do with > militias. But it looks as if the Great Gun Attractor is doing its > evil work anyway. Stop it now, before we all go blind! > Bugger that. You don't command the discussions here. You are welcome as always to delete or not participate in discussions that you do not find worthwhile of course. But don't go trying to shut others up. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 7 06:46:37 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 23:46:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] second amendment rights In-Reply-To: <200807052350.m65NoDfN011826@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200807052350.m65NoDfN011826@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Jul 5, 2008, at 4:48 PM, spike wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org >> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of >> Damien Broderick > ... >> that guns >>> are safer than automobiles. Would you take away my car next? >> >> This is the rhetorical path this list has lurched down too >> often before. I thought it was safe to inquire in a contained >> manner into the likely meaning of the 2nd Amendment, once >> Spike had offered his opinion of the fool judges who thought >> it had something to do with militias. But it looks as if the >> Great Gun Attractor is doing its evil work anyway. Stop it >> now, before we all go blind! >> >> Damien Broderick > > Ja, the gun debate has burned over this ground several times > before. Do > consult the archives. There you will find some caustic and delightful > "canardic screeds" as Lee Daniel called them. > > After I offered an admittedly scattershot reply, I realized Damien was > interested in a specific second amendment discussion. I propose > letting the > Pondering Your Freedoms thread wind down or continue on the various > topics > this line seems to spawn with mind numbing regularity. Further I > propose > that Damien's original question take on the above subject line, and > I urge > strict subject discipline on this one. If one continues under that > subject > line, note that it isn't about crime, it isn't about safety, it is > about the > constitution and its intent. > Freedom was the intent including freedom from government getting out of hand. That is rather clear in the major documents and in the writings of many of the founders. Analyzing particular phrasings of the 2nd amendment in the light of much later thoughts and opinions and quibbling over the same in my view totally misses the central point and is deadly (perhaps literally) dull to boot. - samantha From dagonweb at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 06:51:17 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:51:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Social Credit versus Labor-based currency (was: Re: Using Time Based Currency?) In-Reply-To: <918a899d0807061741p2a04e4d7v9c8f03576dd4a319@mail.gmail.com> References: <4870C350.8060500@kurtz-fernhout.com> <200807060926.58823.kanzure@gmail.com> <918a899d0807061741p2a04e4d7v9c8f03576dd4a319@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > Would it not make much more sense to figure out how to achieve the > goals of Transhumanism with the systems that we're got, rather than > engaging in endless pie-in-the-sky debates about alternate politico-economic > systems that will never come into being? I live in europe, and I keep getting validated that the european way of doing business is fairly functional and resistant to revolutionary upheaval. It used to be different fairly recent. For other parts of the world I am not so certain. We will see spectacular societal disruptors from almost all transhuman developments. Call me a glutton for revolution, but I can not see current economical constants survive very long into advancing nanotechnology, life extension, robotics, intelligence augmentation, nootropics and the bloody rest. And apart from those there is already a fairly cinematic list of disruptors without technological change. I see agitated voters slamming the protest buttons, politicians slamming the repression/populism buttons and corporations laying off and downsizing. Hence I say the current systems we got are certainly not going to last. What we'll get will probably be created in the middle of revolutionary technological progress. It can go any way and probably will. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 7 06:56:01 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 23:56:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Pride and/or thinking superior In-Reply-To: <200806271400.m5RE095i006250@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200806271400.m5RE095i006250@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <0FC7EDF2-FF1F-4273-A351-7C11B7FD08DB@mac.com> On Jun 27, 2008, at 7:00 AM, spike wrote: > >> Stathis Papaioannou >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Pride and/or thinking superior >> >> 2008/6/27 Anna Taylor : >> >>> How is this possible? If at any moment you think you are >> better than anyone else it could mean you have a superiority >> complex. Which is useless... >> >> Not to mention the logical impossibility of more than one >> person in the world being non-delusionally proud, if being >> proud means you're better than everyone else. >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou > > Someone, somewhere at some time, *is* better than everyone else. In what respect? Better at what? I very much doubt there is someone at any particular moment that is "better" at everything. Pride has nothing to do with being better than everyone else or anyone else. Pride has to do with doing one's own best to live congruently with one's own values. Everyone can aspire to and enjoy that kind of pride. > If we > allow a number of different criteria by which to judge ourselves, > then there > can be simultaneously several persons better than everyone. For > instance, > there is a best living chess player, and a best living boxer, etc. This temporary ranking is a pretty fragile thing compared to the above pride in one's character. > If we > allow arbitrary combinations of disparate criteria (think of that > Olympic > sport that combines skiing and shooting), nearly everyone can come > up with a > combination that would make them world champions. I don't think so and it isn't necessary. > In my case, I claim to be > the world champion at chess playing motorcycle racing aerospace > hardware > designer featherweight boxer in the over 45 division. If I can get > that > made into an Olympic sport I will soooo go for the gold. I didn't know you are a boxer. I will be careful to be less pugilistic. :-) - samantha From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jul 7 07:09:31 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:09:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <66E6067E-A6AD-4A26-AF66-BB19C5E616DE@mac.com> References: <945F5C67FD8B4418B1697B67AACAA046@ZANDRA2> <315041.71892.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080705182539.0231ecd8@satx.rr.com> <66E6067E-A6AD-4A26-AF66-BB19C5E616DE@mac.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080707020146.0259d278@satx.rr.com> At 11:42 PM 7/6/2008 -0700, samantha wrote: >>But it looks as if the Great Gun Attractor is doing its >>evil work anyway. Stop it now, before we all go blind! Oh my god, I left off the mandatory SMILEY, the nudge in the ribs, the wink wink, the footnote to masturbation panic. Sorry about that. >Bugger that. You don't command the discussions here. Indeed, but the moderators do (maybe you're one, I've forgotten), and last time round there was a clampdown on the *G*U*N* topic due to its monstrously disruptive impact and, if I remember correctly, the number of good posters who left in dismay and boredom. But if the rules have changed again, I'm all for it. Let the tedious games continue! What do you say, Spike? Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 07:20:16 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 07:20:16 +0000 Subject: [ExI] second amendment rights In-Reply-To: References: <200807052350.m65NoDfN011826@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Freedom was the intent including freedom from government getting out of > hand. That is rather clear in the major documents and in the writings of > many of the founders. Analyzing particular phrasings of the 2nd amendment > in the light of much later thoughts and opinions and quibbling over the same > in my view totally misses the central point and is deadly (perhaps > literally) dull to boot. > If you don't want to work out what the 2nd amendment means for the time and circumstances in which it was written, then you're pretty much making it up as you go along. All you've got to do is convince the other 300,000,000 Americans that your version is best. BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 10:12:47 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:12:47 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Pride and/or thinking superior In-Reply-To: <0FC7EDF2-FF1F-4273-A351-7C11B7FD08DB@mac.com> References: <200806271400.m5RE095i006250@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <0FC7EDF2-FF1F-4273-A351-7C11B7FD08DB@mac.com> Message-ID: <580930c20807070312k6a11a0b5nbf071c2bdbb5fa8f@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > In what respect? Better at what? I very much doubt there is someone at any > particular moment that is "better" at everything. Pride has nothing to > do with being better than everyone else or anyone else. Pride has to do > with doing one's own best to live congruently with one's own values. > Everyone can aspire to and enjoy that kind of pride. "Aspire", yes, but full consistency with one's own values is not an easy goal, and I am afraid that many people believing to have achieved, and "enjoying", it are simply self-indulgent. Concerning the fact of being than everyone else at *something*, why, there are in many scenarios rather objective criteria to determine that, it is still far from banal, and I am pretty much against the egualitarian stance that tends to de-emphasise the value of excellence over mediocrity. Moreover, excellence really achieved in any given field tends to reflect on one's identity in a broader sense. There is an old Zen story about a great calligraphy master asking for lessons of sword fencing as an absolute beginner, who at first glance was accused by the fencing master of lying, and then told "there is nothing that I can teach you"... Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 10:31:34 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:31:34 +0200 Subject: [ExI] second amendment rights In-Reply-To: References: <200807052350.m65NoDfN011826@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20807070331me7783e4ge10f1bba0ecc79c2@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:20 AM, BillK wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> Freedom was the intent including freedom from government getting out of >> hand. As a total outsider, being born in a legal system where the way to obtain the right to bear arms is to replace the previous government and govern in its stead, I would only remark that the Second Amendment reflects a fundamental difference in political mentality between Eurasia and the US. Here, the real point is whether the government (the King, the People speaking through an elected Parliament, the Great Leader brought to power by a revolution, whatever) legitimately and/or actually represents its constituency and its will. Arming oneself at a popular level is something one does to overthrow the existing constitutional system, not to protect it directly or indirectly, and it is a decision that strictly depends on one's views on the regime in place. Stefano Vaj From amara at amara.com Mon Jul 7 15:09:11 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:09:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] second amendment rights Message-ID: Stefano Vaj stefano.vaj at gmail.com : >As a total outsider, being born in a legal system where the way to >obtain the right to bear arms is to replace the previous government >and govern in its stead, That's true in the US too, the Second Amendment (and the other Amendments and the Constitution) were written and exist as guidelines to a particular form of government and to prevent a tyranny from occurring again. Stefano, practically the same people have been in the Italian government for decades, only reshuffled around. How changed would the Italian government be if there was another quasi-permanent document in place that mandated that Italy had a government where particular abuses (separation of government and media, for example) could not happen? Beppe Grillo has the right idea, but there doesn't seem to be much power behind the method that he is using; the Italian legal and justice system does not seem to be paying attention. (Yes, I wonder about the US Supreme Court too. It's stacked to lean a particular way.) Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder, Colorado From scerir at libero.it Mon Jul 7 15:55:00 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:55:00 +0200 Subject: [ExI] isn't this extropic? References: <200807051136.14692.kanzure@gmail.com> <200807061218.23788.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001c01c8e049$d0bfe310$9b0b4797@archimede> Since the good old "quantum measurement" is a ritual mystery, quantum theorists - among them Y.Aharonov - invented many other "measurements" (i.e. "weak", "non-demolition", "negative", "Zeno", "anti-Zeno", etc.). These "measurements" are simpler - but not less paradoxical - than the old one. In the last years few experiments have been performed. Now (see below) they are trying a "weak" measurement of a Schrodinger's "cat" (it is not a cat, of course). The interesting option is to "undo" such a "weak" measurement, by erasing the quantity of information they have got from the "weak" measurement. The interesting point would be: "weak" measurements of distant entangled states, or "weak" measurements vs. quantum cryptography. But the philosophical point might be: what's next, a "weak" MWI? :-) popular (2007) http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/096ns_002.htm popular (2008) http://tinyurl.com/69w8te hard (2008) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.3547v1.pdf From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 17:50:31 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:50:31 +0200 Subject: [ExI] second amendment rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <580930c20807071050l6f6fa858l37b6f6cd764e9fde@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Amara Graps wrote: > Stefano, practically the same people have been in the Italian government > for decades, only reshuffled around. Absolutely. Even the so-called Second Republic changed very little, and it was a development at least partly dictated from abroad (see the Sigonella episode). But I was referring to somewhat more dramatic changes of regime. The Italian patriotes during our wars of independence were armed, fascists in the 20s were armed, anti-fascists in the mid-forties were armed, communist revolutionaries in the 70s were armed. Only, hardly anybody of them ever thought of renouncing the opportunity of imposing a new monopoly on arms as soon as they could... :-) > How changed would the Italian > government be if there was another quasi-permanent document in place > that mandated that Italy had a government where particular abuses > (separation of government and media, for example) could not happen? Mmhhh, I suspect that whatever weak trends may exist in that direction are the fruit of an American cultural influence. The Left opposes Mr. Berlusconi's semi-monopoly on the information because it is Mr. Berlusconi's, but they would not see anything especially wrong in enjoying a similar position themselves, as they would be the "legitimate" owner of the same. Stefano Vaj From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 8 04:48:04 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:48:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] second amendment rights References: <200807052350.m65NoDfN011826@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <002b01c8e0b5$de3d2270$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes > Samantha wrote: > >> Freedom was the intent including freedom from government getting out of >> hand. That is rather clear in the major documents and in the writings of >> many of the founders. Analyzing particular phrasings of the 2nd amendment >> in the light of much later thoughts and opinions and quibbling over the same >> in my view totally misses the central point and is deadly (perhaps >> literally) dull to boot. > > If you don't want to work out what the 2nd amendment means for the > time and circumstances in which it was written, then you're pretty > much making it up as you go along. I agree. It is necessary to try to understand what a document meant when it was written, and to revise if meanings change. But the problem is that any function which smoothly creates a canonical mapping from then to the present... Oops. Let me rephrase. But the problem is that if we try to smoothly analogize what the intent behind an older law was to present circumstances, we encounter some severe problems: tanks and atomic bombs 1780s. Are they also to be included? (My own answer---though of course it is debatable---is that atomic weaponry would not be a factor in a citizen uprising. As for tanks and missiles, what cannot be obtained by the citizens taking over the local National Guard armories is not worth bothering about. Therefore, an amendment should be made to the 2nd Amendment: namely, that the rights of citizens to bear arms should be guaranteed up to but not including weapons of mass destruction. End of particular opinion.) Lee From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 06:06:06 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:36:06 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Bad Science: "All time classic creationist pwnage" Message-ID: <710b78fc0807072306y342c9fb1qbe5458b57b6aeb2a@mail.gmail.com> I hope some people here read Bad Science, it's great. This particular post caught my eye: "Richard Lenski is a biologist who recently found evidence for the emergence of new traits among E.coli bacteria, in a fascinating experiment which he has described in a paper in PNAS (best lay coverage here). His results look a bit like evolution. You will note that his paper includes the original data. Andrew Schlafly is a startlingly predictable right wing christian activist who runs Conservapedia. I highly recommend a look around there if you've not already had the pleasure, because even the people who run Conservapedia find it hard to tell whether the edits are being made by god-fearing americans or naughty satirists. Schlafly read Lenski. He got angry. He demanded the original data. It was pointed out to him that the original data was in the paper. He demanded the original data again. With menaces. The following exchange is mirrored humbly and verbatim in case of disappearance. It represents pwnage on a scale most of us can only dream of. " --- and you'll find the exchange itself here: http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/all-time-classic-creationist-pwnage/ -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 06:12:29 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:42:29 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Pride and/or thinking superior In-Reply-To: <151860.29618.qm@web30408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <151860.29618.qm@web30408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0807072312u4580f0d1r4c55d880d662fc68@mail.gmail.com> 2008/6/27 Anna Taylor : > You don't exist unless someone else acknowledges your presence. (Can you hear the tree drop when no one is listening?). No no, the universe fails to exist unless I acknowledge it, clearly. Just pray that I continue paying attention. -- Emlyn (sorry, what?) http://emlynoregan.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 07:44:07 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:14:07 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <93D4A791-4EE2-4461-99EA-3B3E0314572D@mac.com> References: <200807051800.m65HxsRD014792@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <93D4A791-4EE2-4461-99EA-3B3E0314572D@mac.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0807080044g54dc268bn921f799556e6c010@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/6 Samantha Atkins : > So many wars, Cold War, Police Action, War On Poverty, War on [some] Drugs, > War [never-ending?] on [some] Terror. Al Queda is a very small organization > with quite limited support that we have blown totally out of proportion. > It is a convenient excuse for very many things our government wants to do at > home and abroad most of which rather obviously have nothing to do with > making us safer from terrorism. It is the new Cold War. Surely Al Qaeda is The Brotherhood by now, no? -- Emlyn (but I like the 2-way TVs a lot) http://emlynoregan.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 09:47:16 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 19:17:16 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Social Credit versus Labor-based currency (was: Re: Using Time Based Currency?) In-Reply-To: <62c14240807062041g2e3938c8k5aae2e4988d23065@mail.gmail.com> References: <4870C350.8060500@kurtz-fernhout.com> <200807060926.58823.kanzure@gmail.com> <918a899d0807061741p2a04e4d7v9c8f03576dd4a319@mail.gmail.com> <200807062036.20812.kanzure@gmail.com> <62c14240807062041g2e3938c8k5aae2e4988d23065@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0807080247w2dc6f426p9008e8380a677771@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/7 Mike Dougherty : > On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: >> >> The discussion was taking place on the virgle mailing list. >> >> http://google.com/virgle > > This was one of google's famous april fool's jokes: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgle I think Bryan means this: "OpenVirgle What started as an April Fool joke by Google for 2008 called Project Virgle is now a real and genuine effort by an increasing number of people to create ideas and ways in which humankind can live sustainably in space using free and open source technology. This project is a place for all space enthusiasts to cooperate on simulations of space settlements. Rather than argue whether L5 or Mars or the asteroids or the Moon or the rings of Saturn should be humankind's first space settlement, we could be asking what is common between those efforts so that that groundwork can be shared. " http://www.openvirgle.net/ -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jul 8 13:37:26 2008 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:37:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] my first response to Ted Peter's piece In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <168903.36682.qm@web27003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Sorry it's taken me a week to reply to this, but this raises enough interesting points someone ought to talk about it. I may get round to breaking down the original piece and replying to each individual subsection, but for now here's my initial responses. Peters states "In the process I would like to correct one mistake made by transhumanist theorists. They presume that religion will attempt to place roadblocks in their way on the grounds that the religious mind is old fashioned, out of date, Luddite, and dedicated to resisting change. When this image is applied to Christian theology or even Jewish theology, it is mistaken." He goes on to make the point that there's no theological reason why Judaism or Christianity would oppose biological research. He also states "No Christian opposition to biology, either regular unleaded or the Super type, exists, especially when biology is pressed into medical service." Well, Peters is missing the point slightly. Christian leaders and churches have been opposing biological research. The finer points of theology seem to be lost on those who come forward to lead campaigns against stem cell research. The people who become the Catholic bishops who are fighting against the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill didn't get their position purely for their theological knowledge, but for their ability to work the politics of the Catholic church's hierarchy. Likewise, many of the Christian leaders in America fighting for their right to teach Intelligent Design/Creation Science as an equal to evolution in schools got their position from their ability to move a crowd, rather than for coming top of the class in biblical exegesis. The actual Christian leadership and churches we see around us are movements full of resistance to change, and not responsive to fine theological argument. After all, somehow the "Religious Right" of the American Republican party manage to be pro-rich and pro-war in Iraq while maintaining that they are in touch with the teachings of Jesus, that well-known preacher of "love your enemies" and "love your neighbour as yourself". When it comes to transhumanism and religion, one of the important points to remember is that transhumanism concerns itself with the material, and (mostly) makes no claim to the spiritual. I suppose there's a similarity to the ancient Hedonists: we only know what we can gain in this life, and have no way of knowing what comes beyond. Therefore, the Hedonists argued, we should take what pleasures we can in this life, as they are the only ones we can be sure of. For transhumanists, if there is a way of extending your life (whether bio-immortality or cybernetic immortality), should we not take it? Should we not want to extend our time alive, the one existence we can be sure of? Transhumanism is therefore associated with agnostics and atheists, who will feel increased hope from the promise of life-extension. There is no philosophical reason for any tension with religion, but the preponderance of atheists and agnostics in the transhumanist communities can make for a movement not inclined to discuss spirituality or faith in positive terms. Transhumanism is a wide movement, with several differing visions of the future outlined by different writers. Peters mostly quotes Kurzweil and Moravec, but also some De Grey. The difference between the visions of a future for biological humanity and for a future of life as machine intelligences, or some combination, does make discussing "transhumanism" as a solid entitity difficult. Likewise, the difference between the free market believers, the socialist transhumanists and all that lies between makes for a wide variety of visions of the future. Peters attacks the free market emphasis of some transhumanists, and treats it as the majority view of transhumanism. Peters gives no references in this piece as to why he thinks transhumanists don't oppose free market capitalism - thereby dismissing the entire work of the Institute of Emerging Ethics and Technology, the people on the Technoprogressive list, and the like. He has completely glossed over this divide in transhumanism. Peters does make a useful distinction between futuristic thinking - the difference between extrapolating from the past (what he calls "futurum") versus waiting for a massive change ("adventus"). He's correct in that some visions of the Singularity involve a sudden, massive change that can't be easily foreseen with today's technology - or to use a metaphor widely used on this list, waiting for a Black Swan event and relying on it happening. However, the reasoning behind transhumanism isn't dismissable out of hand - based on the acceleration of technological change we have seen in the past, and the expansion of human capabilities, we can say that IF this continues following the trend, THEN we can predict massive change in our lifetimes. Of course, those of us who have read books like "The Black Swan" know that many minds greater than ours have come unstuck making extrapolations from past history. We could be heading for a new dark age. We could be heading for an age in which all our progress is carefully guided by censorship, or limited by lack of resources and environmental damage. Then again, maybe in a few year's time when the new, sirtuin-derived anti-aging medications reach market, there could be a gigantic push for life extension and bio-immortality, changing our vision of the future. However, the predictions made so far by transhumanists are probably less silly than the economic predictions made for 2009 which government advisers and financial institutions have spent many millions devising. Damn, those last few paragraphs have been gigantic (and this is my restrained, carefully edited argument). I could talk about "anti-deathism" as mentioned on this list, versus Christianity as a religion focussed on death and the afterlife, but I think someone covered that a few months back. Two last points: Peters says "it would appear to me that any improvement in human health or even longevity would be greeted by Christian moralists as a blessing from science, a gift to be thankful for. No theological recalcitrance would block progress toward human betterment through medical technology." I've asked before, does anybody know if a term exists for taking such doctrines as co-creation (mankind creating things within God's creation is itself a holy act), and preventing human misery through medical technology, to an extreme? Has anyone named the concept that remaking humanity through biology, and creating artificial intelligences, could be seen as glorifying God? My other point - Peters says in endnote 1, "Transhumanism is an expansion on *extropianism*". I've always viewed extropianism as one particular thread of transhuman thought, but then again I'm sure people could argue many viewpoints on this one. I now see why Max More states that compiling a more accurate history of transhumanism and making it widely available is a good thing. Tom __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 14:42:39 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:42:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] my first response to Ted Peter's piece In-Reply-To: <168903.36682.qm@web27003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <168903.36682.qm@web27003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <580930c20807080742p78460363ne2447dcbc5e5f93e@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Tom Nowell wrote: > Peters states "In the process I would like to correct one mistake made by transhumanist theorists. They presume that religion will attempt to place roadblocks in their way on the grounds that the religious mind is old fashioned, out of date, Luddite, and dedicated to resisting change. When this image is applied to Christian theology or even Jewish theology, it is mistaken." He goes on to make the point that there's no theological reason why Judaism or Christianity would oppose biological research. Frankly, while I welcome the existence of Christians and Jews who happen not to oppose biological research, I must admit for intellectual honesty's sake that plenty of theological reasons would exist, and that such positive attitude comes at the price of fundamental philosophical inconsistencies from their side. In other words, while I can trump up a few ad personam arguments in debating transhumanism with monotheists for rhetorical purposes, e.g., of a "humanitarian" nature, ultimately I think that they are perfectly right to fight H+ from their point of view; and even that they sometimes understand or explain better than many transhumanists engaged in watering down their "revolutionary" ideas what really is at stake. SV From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 15:20:36 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 01:20:36 +1000 Subject: [ExI] my first response to Ted Peter's piece In-Reply-To: <580930c20807080742p78460363ne2447dcbc5e5f93e@mail.gmail.com> References: <168903.36682.qm@web27003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <580930c20807080742p78460363ne2447dcbc5e5f93e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2008/7/9 Stefano Vaj : > Frankly, while I welcome the existence of Christians and Jews who > happen not to oppose biological research, I must admit for > intellectual honesty's sake that plenty of theological reasons would > exist, and that such positive attitude comes at the price of > fundamental philosophical inconsistencies from their side. The thing about theology is that having no real substance, it can justify anything. God never meant what we thought he meant. -- Stathis Papaioannou From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Jul 8 22:14:59 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Pride and/or thinking superior In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0807072312u4580f0d1r4c55d880d662fc68@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <191190.32377.qm@web30405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Emlyn wrote: > 2008/6/27 Anna Taylor wrote: > > You don't exist unless someone else acknowledges > your presence. (Can you hear the tree drop when no one is > listening?). > No no, the universe fails to exist unless I acknowledge it, > clearly. It was a metaphor Emlyn. The universe exists whether you are sleeping or if you are in a coma. > Just pray that I continue paying attention. I was referring to the fact that you exist only because others do. You can be alone in the forest and hear a tree fall but it says nothing unless you have someone to share that information with, it's part of being conscious. If someone is proud it is always due to the credit of another. Thinking superior is believing yourself better than others. I had posted: >>Wiki says: >>Pride is an emotion which refers to a strong sense of self-respect, a >>refusal to be humiliated as well as joy in the accomplishments of >>oneself or a person, group, nation or object that one identifies with, >>or "to think of one's self as being better than anyone else" What I couldn't figure out is how does "to think of one's self as being better than anyone else" fall under the category of pride. That's what I was thinking when I posted. > Emlyn > (sorry, what?) Does this explain it better? Just curious Anna __________________________________________________________________ Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and more... Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger at http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/ From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Jul 9 01:34:52 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:04:52 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Pride and/or thinking superior In-Reply-To: <191190.32377.qm@web30405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <710b78fc0807072312u4580f0d1r4c55d880d662fc68@mail.gmail.com> <191190.32377.qm@web30405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0807081834ib13ebedi90784f05504ccfbc@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/9 Anna Taylor : > --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Emlyn wrote: > >> 2008/6/27 Anna Taylor wrote: > >> > You don't exist unless someone else acknowledges >> your presence. (Can you hear the tree drop when no one is >> listening?). > >> No no, the universe fails to exist unless I acknowledge it, >> clearly. > > It was a metaphor Emlyn. The universe exists whether you are sleeping or if you are in a coma. I was just joking around. But yes, that was my point, with an added counterpoint that solipsism is the equally valid opposite to what you have presented. > >> Just pray that I continue paying attention. > > I was referring to the fact that you exist only because others do. You can be alone in the forest and hear a tree fall but it says nothing unless you have someone to share that information with, it's part of being conscious. If someone is proud it is always due to the credit of another. Thinking superior is believing yourself better than others. Well no, I don't agree with that. I think you could be lost on a desert island (or be transformed into an M-Brain hanging darkly in space), and still exist. If you take a more solipsistic viewpoint, the rest of the universe fails to exist for you, rather than the other way around. Also, I think you could conceive of a totally internal definition of pride. You can be proud that you have bettered yourself. I would go so far as to suggest that it is a great virtue to compete against earlier versions of yourself in whatever you do (that is, to improve in an objective sense), and the emotion of pride can be part of the fuel for that fire. The need for acknowledgement from others is, to my mind, one of the great binding forces that holds humanity back from what it could be. The dreadful hierarchical monkey tribe social structures that persist from antiquity are firmly bedded on the need for approval from other people. If I had to pick a simple program for finding inner peace, it would be to free oneself from exactly that impulse. But I am not the first person to say that, real or mythical. That said, we are social creatures, and Humans v1.0 can be severely diminished creatures without social contact. But it depends on the individual. Some of the greatest minds are indeed islands. > > I had posted: >>>Wiki says: >>>Pride is an emotion which refers to a strong sense of self-respect, a >>refusal to be humiliated as well as joy in the accomplishments of >>oneself or a person, group, nation or object that one identifies with, >>or "to think of one's self as being better than anyone else" > > What I couldn't figure out is how does "to think of one's self as being better than anyone else" fall under the category of pride. That's what I was thinking when I posted. > Pride can have positive and negative connotations. It's good in measured doses. Without it, one can drift, unable to find enough meaning to focus. Too much, and you wander into the territory of arrogance, or jingoism, and your thoughts become resistant to change. In fact, I'd say pride is often part of the toolbox of our more prevalent memetic infections. It's humorous really that Christianity warns us against it :-) And, of course, why you are proud is as important as how proud you are; that can reveal it as sustenance or poison. imo. >> Emlyn >> (sorry, what?) > > Does this explain it better? Again, just joking around. > > Just curious > Anna -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 9 18:18:14 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:18:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> This line of argument might rise up to bite cryonics and perhaps other attempts at indefinite life extension: =============== Dog Eat Your Taxes? By RAY D. MADOFF Published: July 9, 2008 THE latest news from the Palace, that Leona Helmsley left instructions that her charitable bequest of as much as $8 billion be used for the care and welfare of dogs, rubs our noses in the tax deduction for charitable gifts and its common vehicle, the perpetual private foundation. Together these provide a mechanism by which American taxpayers subsidize the whims of the rich and fulfill their fantasies of immortality. The charitable deduction enables people to donate as much of their assets as they like for charitable purposes without paying a tax. While some choose to contribute to broad public goals, the law does not require it. In recent years, charitable status has been recognized for organizations with purposes as idiosyncratic as promoting excellence in quilting and educating the public about Huey military aircraft. Indeed, Mrs. Helmsley might have limited her beneficence to the Maltese breed of dogs she favored, and that, too, would have been allowed as a ?charitable? purpose. If this were only a matter of Leona Helmsley wasting her own money, no one would need to care. But she is wasting ours too. The charitable deduction constitutes a subsidy from the federal government. The government, in effect, makes itself a partner in every charitable bequest. In Mrs. Helmsley?s case, given that her fortune warranted an estate tax rate of 45 percent, her $8 billion donation for dogs is really a gift of $4.4 billion from her and $3.6 billion from you and me. To put it in perspective, our contribution to Mrs. Helmsley?s cause equals approximately half of what we spend on Head Start, a program that benefits 900,000 children. What will we get for our $3.6 billion? An eternal monument to Leona Helmsley?s generosity toward dogs. Even the dogs will not benefit as much as one might think, because Mrs. Helmsley elected to disburse her bequests through the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Most such foundations perform no charitable work but only give money to organizations that do. The law requires foundations to spend a minimum of just 5 percent of their assets a year, thus helping ensure their perpetual existence, and their donors? immortality. In meeting this requirement, foundations are allowed to count fees paid to their trustees and other administrative expenses. In 2003, legislation was introduced in Congress that would have required private foundations to devote the full 5 percent to charitable expenditures. But the foundations complained that this would threaten their perpetual existence, and the bill did not pass. Some people who establish perpetual charitable trusts may assume that their philanthropic dollars will go further if the trust distributes only its investment income and preserves its principal. Anyone familiar with the story of the goose that laid the golden eggs knows the importance of not spending principal. However, because a dollar spent today is worth more than a dollar spent several years from now, in many cases, the sum of payments made over time ? even in perpetuity ? never equals the value of the original principal. The true beneficiaries of perpetuity are the banks and trust companies that receive annual fees for managing foundations? assets. There are other reasons the law should not encourage people to tie up their resources ? and ours ? for all time. The perpetual foundation is based on the assumption that people can make intelligent decisions about the use of resources far into the future. But a look back shows how flawed this thinking is. Would it really make sense for current policy to be dictated by the vision of someone living in 1930? 1630? 1230? By setting aside assets for the uncertain needs of the future, we deprive ourselves of resources for addressing the obvious and compelling needs of today. We should not give a blank check to support the whims of the wealthy. There should be a limit ? a dollar amount or a percentage of the estate ? on the estate tax charitable deduction. People could still give to charity as they like, but after a point they would be giving after-tax dollars. The deduction should be lower for bequests to private foundations than for money given directly to good causes. We should also stop subsidizing immortality. Private foundations should be required to spend more of their assets on charitable work, even if it threatens their perpetual existence. Until Congress makes these changes to the tax code, it is not just Leona Helmsley?s fortune that is going to the dogs; it is our tax dollars as well. Ray D. Madoff, a professor at Boston College Law School, is writing a book on immortality and the law. From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Jul 9 19:00:50 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 14:00:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <62c14240807091200s544b52cfv9666704bbbd2f24a@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > If this were only a matter of Leona Helmsley wasting her own money, no one > would need to care. But she is wasting ours too. > > The charitable deduction constitutes a subsidy from the federal government. > The government, in effect, makes itself a partner in every charitable > bequest. In Mrs. Helmsley's case, given that her fortune warranted an estate > tax rate of 45 percent, her $8 billion donation for dogs is really a gift of > $4.4 billion from her and $3.6 billion from you and me. > Can someone explain to me how that costs me $3.6 billion? I understand that if the government took it's 45 percent from that 8 billion, that would be 3.6 billion. Is this author suggesting that because that tax money was not received that I am expected to make up the difference? Would I really be taxed any less if the government had reduced the 8 billion give to (effectively) 4.4 billion? I feel this kind of "math" is as disingenuous as saying that on an impulse purchase of a product that retails for 100 for the sale price of 80 is a savings of 20 - it's still an expense of 80, if we resist the impulse we would save the whole 80! Is this just one more example of how our economic sense has been warped in our constant-consumerism world? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Wed Jul 9 19:21:59 2008 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:21:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> <62c14240807091200s544b52cfv9666704bbbd2f24a@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> <62c14240807091200s544b52cfv9666704bbbd2f24a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Mike asked: Can someone explain to me how that costs me $3.6 billion? As a former practicing tax attorney (in a prior lifetime), I met with many officials at the higher levels of the Internal Revenue Service over the years. Their attitude is that 100% of all money "belongs" to the government and it's only through their generosity that you or I are allowed to "keep" any of it... I'm not exaggerating, I've had many, many conversations about this and have been shocked at their attitude. JWClement -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Jul 9 20:33:15 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 16:33:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality. References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <002101c8e203$21c22510$0301a8c0@MyComputer> > If this were only a matter of Leona Helmsley > wasting her own money, no one would need > to care. But she is wasting ours too. The > charitable deduction constitutes a subsidy > from the federal government. Mr. RAY D. MADOFF thinks that the government has a God given right to take every bit of the money that you have earned, every fucking dime; and if in their infinite equanimity the regime deems to let you keep a little tiny bit of it, well then they are doing you a great favor, they are being generous, they are giving you a subsidy. I think Mr. RAY D. MADOFF is full of shit. Don't misunderstand, if I had 8 billion dollars it's unlikely I'd want to spend all of it on dogs, but it's her money not mine. John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 9 20:54:00 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:54:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality. In-Reply-To: <002101c8e203$21c22510$0301a8c0@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> <002101c8e203$21c22510$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709154438.024c26d8@satx.rr.com> At 04:33 PM 7/9/2008 -0400, John K Clark wrote: >Mr. RAY D. MADOFF thinks that the government has a God given >right to take every bit of the money that you have earned, every >fucking dime; and if in their infinite equanimity the regime deems >to let you keep a little tiny bit of it Well, no; if you bother to read what he actually wrote, you'll find that he's okay with the animals retaining $4.4 billion. His suggestion, which might be grotesquely outrageous but isn't "every bit of the money", is: "There should be a limit ? a dollar amount or a percentage of the estate ? on the estate tax charitable deduction. People could still give to charity as they like, but after a point they would be giving after-tax dollars." He doesn't specify what the point is, although he says that in this particular case "her fortune warranted an estate tax rate of 45 percent." The little tiny bit the dogs would get to keep is thus 55 percent of the current $8 billion donation. In other words: railing against all and any tax as an outrage against man and reason is fine, but don't confuse what Prof. Maddog recommends with total confiscation. His approach, even so, sounds like bad news for cryonics people hoping to fund their storage, revival and stake in the future. Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 9 20:59:53 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <322522.92796.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- James Clement wrote: > Mike asked: Can someone explain to me how that costs me $3.6 billion? > > As a former practicing tax attorney (in a prior lifetime), I met with many > officials at the higher levels of the Internal Revenue Service over the > years. Their attitude is that 100% of all money "belongs" to the government > and it's only through their generosity that you or I are allowed to "keep" > any of it... I'm not exaggerating, I've had many, many conversations about > this and have been shocked at their attitude. Well that's a really crappy atitude to have in an age of fiat currency. Is there a law that prevents me and whosoever else desires from personally requiring all payment in euros, McDonald's gift certificates, sand dollars, or simple barter? Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "In ancient times they had no statistics so that they had to fall back on lies."- Stephen Leacock From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 9 21:46:02 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:46:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709163542.010f84c8@satx.rr.com> --- James Clement wrote: > As a former practicing tax attorney (in a prior lifetime), I met with many > officials at the higher levels of the Internal Revenue Service over the > years. Their attitude is that 100% of all money "belongs" to the government > and it's only through their generosity that you or I are allowed to "keep" > any of it... I'm not exaggerating, I've had many, many conversations about > this and have been shocked at their attitude. My wife, who is a currently practicing and ferocious tax attorney in this lifetime, offers a somewhat different perspective: that IRS functionaries act as if all taxpayers are likely to be cheating, hiding taxable income, claiming fraudulent deductions, etc. This attitude is very annoying, of course. After all, it's extremely hard to see how they could possibly think this--since, as we know, almost all taxpayers (those reading this post, for example) are renowned for never fudging even the tiniest bit. Right? But of course the IRS can go overboard, and recently (I understand) has been especially, uh, diligent. Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Jul 9 22:14:44 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 18:14:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality. References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com><002101c8e203$21c22510$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20080709154438.024c26d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <024801c8e211$98282bb0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > he's okay with the animals retaining $4.4 billion. His suggestion, > which > might be grotesquely outrageous but isn't "every bit > of the money" Ok Damien I admit it, I may have exceeded my artistic license, I'm sorry. Mr. RAY D. MADOFF was clearly saying that you should be allowed to keep 55% of whatever wealth you have created. Gee, what a swell guy! >The little tiny bit the dogs would get to keep is thus 55 > percent of the current $8 billion donation. No I take it back. I AM NOT SORRY! If you steal just 45% of my possessions I see no reason to feel any gratitude toward you. This example of the distribution of money is certainly idiotic, unusually so, so unusual it warrants a major news story. Yet I would maintain that despite this admitted anomaly individuals can spend their recourses far more wisely than government beaurocrates. I really hope you dispute me on this last point because I have an avalanche of idiotic government programs that I would love to talk about that would make 8 billion dollars spent on dogs look like the wisdom of the ages. And I'd probably start with the Iraq war, and after that the abstinence form of birth control, and after that.. John K Clark From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Jul 9 22:06:20 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:06:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709154438.024c26d8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> <002101c8e203$21c22510$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20080709154438.024c26d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1215641371_16644@s7.cableone.net> At 01:54 PM 7/9/2008, Damien wrote: >At 04:33 PM 7/9/2008 -0400, John K Clark wrote: > >>Mr. RAY D. MADOFF thinks that the government has a God given >>right to take every bit of the money that you have earned, every >>fucking dime; and if in their infinite equanimity the regime deems >>to let you keep a little tiny bit of it > >Well, no; if you bother to read what he actually wrote, She actually. She her web site at Boston College. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 9 22:35:33 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:35:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality. In-Reply-To: <024801c8e211$98282bb0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> <002101c8e203$21c22510$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20080709154438.024c26d8@satx.rr.com> <024801c8e211$98282bb0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709172703.024c2930@satx.rr.com> At 06:14 PM 7/9/2008 -0400, JKC wrote: >I >have an avalanche of idiotic government programs that I >would love to talk about that would make 8 billion dollars >spent on dogs look like the wisdom of the ages. And I'd >probably start with the Iraq war, Hey, you want the oil companies to have the oil or not? I agree with you on that one, of course, but the funny thing is that a determining number of## taxpayers *voted* for the govt who started and are running that disaster. And I wouldn't be utterly surprised if the stupid fucks vote them back in again next time. >and after that the abstinence form of birth control, and after that.. Is it birth control via Just Say No the Xian idiots are funding via tax bucks, or disease control? Again, it seems that the voters chose to go that root, sorry, that route. Damien Broderick ##(I keep wanting to say "the majority of" but have to keep catching myself, because it wasn't, was it, and dog bless democracy in the land o' the free.) From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 9 22:55:35 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:55:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality. In-Reply-To: <1215641371_16644@s7.cableone.net> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> <002101c8e203$21c22510$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20080709154438.024c26d8@satx.rr.com> <1215641371_16644@s7.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709175351.02363d88@satx.rr.com> At 03:06 PM 7/9/2008 -0700, Keith wrote: >>>Mr. RAY D. MADOFF > >She actually. Ah! Inneresting. Raylene, perhaps? Or maybe it's a hippie name, poor soul. From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 01:29:55 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:59:55 +0930 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <322522.92796.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <322522.92796.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0807091829i4a6e9f08t53f2470bc41c8f24@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/10 The Avantguardian : > > --- James Clement wrote: > >> Mike asked: Can someone explain to me how that costs me $3.6 billion? >> >> As a former practicing tax attorney (in a prior lifetime), I met with many >> officials at the higher levels of the Internal Revenue Service over the >> years. Their attitude is that 100% of all money "belongs" to the government >> and it's only through their generosity that you or I are allowed to "keep" >> any of it... I'm not exaggerating, I've had many, many conversations about >> this and have been shocked at their attitude. > > Well that's a really crappy atitude to have in an age of fiat currency. Is > there a law that prevents me and whosoever else desires from personally > requiring all payment in euros, McDonald's gift certificates, sand dollars, or > simple barter? > > > > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "In ancient times they had no statistics so that they had to fall back on lies."- Stephen Leacock I don't know about the US, but here in Oz I'm pretty sure you'd be expected to pay tax on those euros, gift certificates, barter, whatever. Income is income. But of course IANAL. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Jul 10 01:50:17 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:50:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0807091829i4a6e9f08t53f2470bc41c8f24@mail.gmail.co m> References: <322522.92796.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0807091829i4a6e9f08t53f2470bc41c8f24@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709204723.0243cb78@satx.rr.com> At 10:59 AM 7/10/2008 +0930, Emlyn wrote: >But of course IANAL. I suppose I can't be the first to snort and snigger over that acronym for I Am Not A Lawyer, aye. Damien Broderick From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 01:54:28 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:24:28 +0930 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709204723.0243cb78@satx.rr.com> References: <322522.92796.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0807091829i4a6e9f08t53f2470bc41c8f24@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080709204723.0243cb78@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0807091854q20cdc1a0re6d6698bdf2b682e@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/10 Damien Broderick : > At 10:59 AM 7/10/2008 +0930, Emlyn wrote: > >> But of course IANAL. > > I suppose I can't be the first to snort and snigger over that acronym for I > Am Not A Lawyer, aye. > > Damien Broderick Go ahead, I did :-) . It should stand for I Am Not Anal, Lol! -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 10 04:52:10 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0807091829i4a6e9f08t53f2470bc41c8f24@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <88696.25496.qm@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Emlyn wrote: > I don't know about the US, but here in Oz I'm pretty sure you'd be > expected to pay tax on those euros, gift certificates, barter, > whatever. Income is income. But of course IANAL. I suppose so but if you decide to fix someone's computer for a chicken then how would the government *know* you got a chicken? And if they did find out, how would they collect 30% of your chicken? Would they have to accept a wing and a drumstick as taxes? Or let's say someone works for simple room and board. How is the government supposed to tax that? And if you don't pay would they throw you in prison and give you room and board on tax payer's money? Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "In ancient times they had no statistics so that they had to fall back on lies."- Stephen Leacock From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 10 04:59:28 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:59:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709163542.010f84c8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <292059.33038.qm@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > But of course the IRS can go overboard, and recently (I understand) > has been especially, uh, diligent. I'll say. One rich black celebrity kills two people leaving DNA evidence everywhere and is aquitted. Another rich black celebrity cheats on his taxes and gets the maximum sentence. It seems pretty clear what the government's priorities are. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "In ancient times they had no statistics so that they had to fall back on lies."- Stephen Leacock From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 05:32:35 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:02:35 +0930 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <88696.25496.qm@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <710b78fc0807091829i4a6e9f08t53f2470bc41c8f24@mail.gmail.com> <88696.25496.qm@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0807092232j5ed0311dpb1a1b5de7f4164fc@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/10 The Avantguardian : > > --- Emlyn wrote: >> I don't know about the US, but here in Oz I'm pretty sure you'd be >> expected to pay tax on those euros, gift certificates, barter, >> whatever. Income is income. But of course IANAL. > > I suppose so but if you decide to fix someone's computer for a chicken then how > would the government *know* you got a chicken? Well you hope they don't... > And if they did find out, how > would they collect 30% of your chicken? No, they'd bill you for the dollar value of 30% of the chicken plus penalties, plus the possibility of prosecution. > Would they have to accept a wing and a > drumstick as taxes? Or let's say someone works for simple room and board. How > is the government supposed to tax that? No, they'd bill you for the dollar value of simple room and board plus penalties, plus the possibility of prosecution. > And if you don't pay would they throw > you in prison and give you room and board on tax payer's money? > Yeah, of course. You didn't think this was about maximising revenue, did you? You know, it could even be about that... throw a few of us proles in the slammer at prohibitive expensive, the others tow the line. Heads on pointy sticks, it never gets old! > > > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "In ancient times they had no statistics so that they had to fall back on lies."- Stephen Leacock > -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From fauxever at sprynet.com Thu Jul 10 05:58:24 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:58:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality References: <292059.33038.qm@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000b01c8e251$f77b4b20$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "The Avantguardian" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 9:59 PM > --- Damien Broderick wrote: >> But of course the IRS can go overboard, and recently (I understand) >> has been especially, uh, diligent. > I'll say. One rich black celebrity kills two people leaving DNA evidence everywhere and is aquitted. Well, now that you mention it, for the record ... the OJ Simpson verdict was decided correctly. This is not a reflection of Simpson's guilt of innocence, but of the botching by the prosecuting attorneys. I believe 100% that Simpson was guilty, but I also think the verdict was decided correctly. There was not much question that O.J. was guilty (and he was found culpable in the second trial). But the way things were bungled legally made the verdict necessary. The verdict was a slap on the wrist to Marcia & Co. - because they brought in a major witness ... who lied. Letting this kind of serious stuff off would be setting bad precedent. Here's what Stanley Crouch wrote in a Salon interview a while back: Q: You've been criticized for defending the verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial. What's your defense? SC: Everybody thinks it was some kind of expression of racial solidarity. 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. The case would have been lost. The fact that jurors almost always acquit when the prosecution's star witness is found to be lying on the witness stand was not made clear to Americans by the media. From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 06:59:48 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:29:48 +0930 Subject: [ExI] The Flight of the Lawn Chair Man, Part II In-Reply-To: <200807061309.52191.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200807060917.35524.kanzure@gmail.com> <200807061309.52191.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0807092359t16bc194jf0a83675473575ab@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/7 Bryan Bishop : > On Sunday 06 July 2008, Gary Miller wrote: >> Come on, there's no such thing as free. And I suppose you think we > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity > > Free is baseline, it's physics; anything nonfree is usually socially > constrained. There's a difference. That's a beautiful statement, Bryan. A keeper. In the context of what Gary was saying, of course, things do actually cost money (because you're talking about equipment produced inside a capitalist, scarcity driven society). Having the government mandate collision detection equipment, rather than provide it, makes more sense *under that system*. Now I'm with you, actually, that the whole monkeys-trading-peanuts-for-bananas thing is daft. Particularly, our instinct for private property conflicts dreadfully with the benefit to the whole of knowledge/information being free. I think there's something extremely interesting going on at the moment in this regard, globably. Actually, I should probably say in the wealthy western world. We've got this default culture that's all about money and ownership, increasing our wealth, status, more peanuts! Then, there's this interesting counterculture bursting out of the tech/science communities, saying that you can't subject information to the same rules as physical property, that our common intellectual wealth is based on the ability to share and build on information discovered by others, that the concept of IP just breaks things and makes us all poorer. And you have these really quite astounding realizations of these values, most prominent being the FOSS movement, which seems like the most positive product of collective frustration one could imagine. The two cultures really are quite incompatible, when you think about it, because they differ utterly in basic values. The mainstream culture bases in a capitalist, ownership oriented value set, while Free culture could easily have the slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I think the capitalist culture tolerates the free culture so far mostly because it provides free stuff, therefore in the short term people in the capitalist culture can feel like they're benefiting, under their value system, from free riding on the output of the Free culture. But there are rumblings, of course, as others in the capitalist world begin to feel threatened. eg: Steve Balmer: "There's no company called Linux, there's barely a Linux road map. Yet Linux sort of springs organically from the earth. And it had, you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it." (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/07/31/ms_ballmer_linux_is_communism/) The free culture movement is growing, imo, into a serious contender. It's been doing it slowly, but inexorably, and I think we will see a quite magnificent cultural clash play out over the next decade or two. It a slow grind, like tectonic plates grinding together, or maybe more like a tree growing through a slab of concrete. As extropians, we potentially are in a bind. There's a libertarian aspect to extropianism which tends to be very supportive of capitalism, of private ownership. But on the other hand, we can see the benefits of post-scarcity economy, which is exactly what the Free culture movement in its various form is all about. It's about information now, but we want the material world to take on the same characteristics, to behave as information (mnt!) eventually. So our realistic vision for what is property must shrink over time. You just can't get there from capitalism imo, not without the discontinuity we see in the free movement. Also, I said I was talking about the West, above. I've been noticing that the developing world (particularly India and China) don't seem quite as tied to the concept of IP as we are. So there's a double whammy for the IP culture; rebellion from within and without. So who do we root for? What do we support? I know I personally want to see it all go free. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Thu Jul 10 06:38:25 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 23:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Pride and/or thinking superior Message-ID: <16122.82758.qm@web30403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Emlyn wrote: >Well no, I don't agree with that. I think you could be >lost on a desert island (or be transformed into an M-Brain hanging >darkly in space), and still exist. If you take a more solipsistic >viewpoint, the rest of the universe fails to exist for you, rather than >the other way around. Well then we will agree to disagree. I think I am but a mere reflection of everything I have seen, heard, tasted but I know I only know how to interpret based on others reflections. Although you may exist on an island, if nobody ever knew you did, you wouldn't exist. >The need for acknowledgement from others is, to my mind, one of the great >binding forces that holds humanity back from what it could be. Please explain why. IMO, pride has nothing to do with the acknowledgement of others, it has to do with the respect for others that in turn has led to pride. >The dreadful hierarchical monkey tribe social structures that persist >from antiquity are firmly bedded on the need for approval from other >people. Funny that the same hierarchical monkey tribe social structures have worked for lifetimes. Maybe the need to change these "hierarchical monkey tribes" would be more efficient than removing them. Groups don't exist without hierarchical positions, otherwise everyone thinks they are a boss. >If I had to pick a simple program for finding inner peace, it would be to >free oneself from exactly that impulse. But I am not the first person to >say that, real or mythical. I agree that not everyone will like you, this has nothing to do with pride. The need for approval falls under the category of self-confidence. Pride is the respect given to those that teach something to others. >That said, we are social creatures, and Humans v1.0 can be >severely diminished creatures without social contact. But it depends >on the individual. Some of the greatest minds are indeed islands. Although an interesting metaphor, there is really no such thing as uniqueness. >Pride can have positive and negative connotations. Maybe but pride is supposed to be an essence of respect. So I would start to ponder what do I respect if I where looking at finding the negative and positive. >It's good in measured doses. Without it, one can drift, unable to find >enough meaning to focus. Too much, and you wander into the territory of >arrogance, or jingoism, and your thoughts become resistant to change. Imho, what that means is that you are longer feeling pride. In my experience, once you wonder into the territory of arrogance the only pride you could have is the fact that you have learned to get yourself out of that position. Which in turn is usually due to the credit of others. >In fact, I'd say pride is often part of the toolbox of >our more prevalent memetic infections. It's humorous really that >Christianity warns us against it :-) Fine. What are these prevalent memetic infections you talk about? Christianity warns about everything, from the most absurb to the most crucial, I believe that they had to jam so much information into one book that they forgot to let people know exactly what they where warning against:) > And, of course, why you are proud is as important as how > proud you are; that can reveal it as sustenance or poison. imo. No I disagree. Having pride is something that is passed on, learned. Proud of yourself is self-accomplishments. A rapist may may feel pride by raping someone but is it really the right word? > Again, just joking around. Ok, my apology, sometimes it's hard on Extropy to figure out when people are joking as opposed to being serious:) Have a great evening, Anna __________________________________________________________________ Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and more... Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger at http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Jul 10 07:26:31 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:26:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Flight of the Lawn Chair Man, Part II In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0807092359t16bc194jf0a83675473575ab@mail.gmail.com > References: <200807060917.35524.kanzure@gmail.com> <200807061309.52191.kanzure@gmail.com> <710b78fc0807092359t16bc194jf0a83675473575ab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080710021605.025f5630@satx.rr.com> At 04:29 PM 7/10/2008 +0930, Emlyn wrote: >We've got this default culture that's all about >money and ownership, increasing our wealth, status, more peanuts! >Then, there's this interesting counterculture bursting out of the >tech/science communities, saying that you can't subject information to >the same rules as physical property, that our common intellectual >wealth is based on the ability to share and build on information >discovered by others, that the concept of IP just breaks things and >makes us all poorer. And you have these really quite astounding >realizations of these values, most prominent being the FOSS movement, >which seems like the most positive product of collective frustration >one could imagine. This is argued out in fictional terms in Kim Stanley Robinson's magisterial RED MARS, GREEN MARS, BLUE MARS trilogy. A sample: `When we first arrived, and for twenty years after that, Mars was like Antarctica but even purer. We were outside the world, we didn't even own things - some clothes, a lectern [that is, hand-held computer], and that was it! ...This arrangement resembles the prehistoric way to live, and it therefore feels right to us, because our brains recognize it from three million years of practicing it. In essence our brains grew to their current configuration in response to the realities of that life. So as a result people grow *powerfully attached* to that kind of life, when they get the chance to live it. It allows you to concentrate your attention on the real work, which means everything that is done to stay alive, or make things, or satisfy one's curiosity, or play. That is utopia, John, especially for primitives and scientists, which is to say everybody. So a scientific research station is actually a little model of prehistoric utopia, carved out of the transnational money economy by clever primates who want to live well.' As I commented in READING BY STARLIGHT: "...he shows us in detail the building of a utopia in the wastes of a dead world, and its corrupting by the old order. In the early years of colonisation by the `first hundred' scientists and technologists, a programme of careful exploitation is begun by a largely capitalist Earth of the 2020s. Ironically, these representatives of the home planet live in a kind of monastic, socialist order, outside the realm of economics. It is a human ecology based on the design of scientific research settlements. When it breaks down in a polyphony of special interests and imported xenophobias, the Russian anarchist Arkady offers a rich explanation that recalls something of [critic Fredric] Jameson's redemptive [marxist] impulse [namely, the citation above]... This intriguing analysis explains why scientists work cheerfully on devastating weapons systems, why many men and women find their happiest billet in the peace-time armed services, indeed why war-time is remembered so fondly by those who have not actually been maimed (and some who have). It also captures one of the lures of sf's typical sociological foregrounds: a happy band of brothers (and, latterly, sisters) outside the circuit of realpolitik and economics, paid by the Culture or the Galactic Survey `to boldly go where nobody has been before', and have intellectual fun there." Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 10 07:50:18 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:50:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0807092232j5ed0311dpb1a1b5de7f4164fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <132867.53315.qm@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Emlyn wrote: > Heads on pointy sticks, it never gets old! Indeed, our shepherds have mutton chops tonight just like every other night. At least the wolves let you run. T'is the same as it ever was. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "In ancient times they had no statistics so that they had to fall back on lies."- Stephen Leacock From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 08:37:13 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:07:13 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Pride and/or thinking superior In-Reply-To: <16122.82758.qm@web30403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <16122.82758.qm@web30403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0807100137vdc3abfcj3ded5873e1b35193@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/10 Anna Taylor : > --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Emlyn wrote: > >>Well no, I don't agree with that. I think you could be >>lost on a desert island (or be transformed into an M-Brain hanging >>darkly in space), and still exist. If you take a more solipsistic >>viewpoint, the rest of the universe fails to exist for you, rather than >>the other way around. > > Well then we will agree to disagree. I think I am but a mere reflection of everything I have seen, heard, tasted but I know I only know how to interpret based on others reflections. Although you may exist on an island, if nobody ever knew you did, you wouldn't exist. Well, I would to me, I think. > >>The need for acknowledgement from others is, to my mind, one of the great >binding forces that holds humanity back from what it could be. > > Please explain why. IMO, pride has nothing to do with the acknowledgement of others, it has to do with the respect for others that in turn has led to pride. Why? Ok, because that need for acknowledgement leads us to base our estimates of self worth on perceived reactions of other people. I think that's the primary reason that we allow ourselves to be organised into hierarchies; because we are vulnerable to the requirement for stroking from others (especially those we perceive as higher in status than ourselves), and we seem to have a bug that the less good feedback we get from others, the more we require it. So the more we will do for less. I think there's probably an evolutionary psychology explanation for this willingness to submit/follow, and probably helps explain the existence of psychopaths/narcissists more fully than just calling them defectors or hawks - they are there because, for stability, we need them at the top of hierarchies. The things we evolved to do are often harmful to us poor phenotypes, no matter how well they benefit the genome. > >>The dreadful hierarchical monkey tribe social structures that persist >from antiquity are firmly bedded on the need for approval from other >people. > > Funny that the same hierarchical monkey tribe social structures have worked for lifetimes. Define "worked"? Do you mean they have been stable and persistent? That's not the same thing, except for pernicious values of "worked". > Maybe the need to change these "hierarchical monkey tribes" would be more efficient than removing them. Groups don't exist without hierarchical positions, otherwise everyone thinks they are a boss. Sometimes, we just think we are equal. I think many people would disagree with you strongly that group must necessarily equal hierarchy! > >>If I had to pick a simple program for finding inner peace, it would be to >free oneself from exactly that impulse. But I am not the first person to >say that, real or mythical. > > I agree that not everyone will like you, this has nothing to do with pride. The need for approval falls under the category of self-confidence. Well no, the need for approval affects self-confidence, has undue influence I would say. They are not the same thing, though. > Pride is the respect given to those that teach something to others. No that is respect. Pride is internal, an emotion. >>That said, we are social creatures, and Humans v1.0 can be >>severely diminished creatures without social contact. But it depends >>on the individual. Some of the greatest minds are indeed islands. > > Although an interesting metaphor, there is really no such thing as uniqueness. Sure, absolutely. Saying one is self sufficient, and one is unique, are different things. > >>Pride can have positive and negative connotations. > > Maybe but pride is supposed to be an essence of respect. So I would start to ponder what do I respect if I where looking at finding the negative and positive. Respect is what, and intention or feeling from one for another? Self-respect being the reflexive form? I still maintain that pride is internal, although you could have pride in something external I guess... in the group. > >>It's good in measured doses. Without it, one can drift, unable to find >>enough meaning to focus. Too much, and you wander into the territory of >arrogance, or jingoism, and your thoughts become resistant to change. > > Imho, what that means is that you are longer feeling pride. In my experience, once you wonder into the territory of arrogance the only pride you could have is the fact that you have learned to get yourself out of that position. Which in turn is usually due to the credit of others. Yeah, it's getting way definitional now. > >>In fact, I'd say pride is often part of the toolbox of >>our more prevalent memetic infections. It's humorous really that >>Christianity warns us against it :-) > > Fine. What are these prevalent memetic infections you talk about? Nationalism of all kinds. Religions of most varieties. Pretty much any memeplex oriented toward group membership. > Christianity warns about everything, from the most absurb to the most crucial, I believe that they had to jam so much information into one book that they forgot to let people know exactly what they where warning against:) It's one of the seven deadly sins. From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins Pride (Latin, superbia) Vanitas with her mirror. Painting by Titian, c. 1515 Vanitas with her mirror. Painting by Titian, c. 1515 Main article: Pride In almost every list pride (or hubris or vanity) is considered the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and indeed the ultimate source from which the others arise. It is identified as a desire to be more important or attractive than others, failing to give compliments to others though they may be deserving of them,[citation needed] and excessive love of self (especially holding self out of proper position toward God). Dante's definition was "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbor." In Jacob Bidermann's medieval miracle play, Cenodoxus, pride is the deadliest of all the sins and leads directly to the damnation of the titulary famed Parisian doctor. In perhaps the best-known example, the story of Lucifer, pride (his desire to compete with God) was what caused his fall from Heaven, and his resultant transformation into Satan. Vanity and narcissism are prime examples of this sin. In Dante's Divine Comedy, the penitent were forced to walk with stone slabs bearing down on their backs in order to induce feelings of humility. > >> And, of course, why you are proud is as important as how >> proud you are; that can reveal it as sustenance or poison. imo. > > No I disagree. Having pride is something that is passed on, learned. how so? > Proud of yourself is self-accomplishments. A rapist may may feel pride by raping someone but is it really the right word? Self accomplishments are their own thing. You could be proud of your accomplishments. You could feel proud of your new car. You could feel proud of belonging to a group. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 10:11:23 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:11:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Flight of the Lawn Chair Man, Part II In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0807092359t16bc194jf0a83675473575ab@mail.gmail.com> References: <200807061309.52191.kanzure@gmail.com> <710b78fc0807092359t16bc194jf0a83675473575ab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200807100511.25059.kanzure@gmail.com> On Thursday 10 July 2008, Emlyn wrote: > So who do we root for? What do we support? I know I personally want > to see it all go free. An interesting idea to explore some of those developments that you mention might be to go lurk on some of the mailing lists out there: http://kernel.org/ http://debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe http://gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml http://linux.org/docs/lists.html And then get to steal/copy/mimic to make it work for transhuman tech. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ From amara at amara.com Thu Jul 10 12:08:54 2008 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:08:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms: _The Soviet Story_, Expanded FISA passed Message-ID: Last Saturday on extropy-chat, I wrote: >Meanwhile, on July 8, the Senate will debate, and are scheduled to >vote, on the FISA expansion and telecom immunity bill. I predict >that there are still too many spineless people in Congress to >follow the guidelines set in writing in the Constitution and will >pass the bill. >And for your entertainment pleasure: >Snuggly, the Security Bear >http://www.markfiore.com/snuggly_0 >"We're watching you because we love you!" There was a part of me that hoped that Feingold and Dodd and the other dissenters could prevail, but that was the naive part of me. The Senate passed the FISA-expanded with telecom immunity bill, so Congress has approved a wire-tapping law, not long after they were 'outraged' over the discovery that Bush's Federal Government have been spying on you. Senate approves warrantless wiretapping and telco immunity, throws out the Fourth Amendment http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/09/senate-approves-warr.html In the comments, the Boing Boing readers have provided the breakdown of Senate votes. Amara From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Jul 11 02:32:53 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:32:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality References: <292059.33038.qm@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <000b01c8e251$f77b4b20$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <011f01c8e2fe$9e1cb070$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> 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. > The case would have been lost. The fact that jurors almost always > acquit when the prosecution's star witness is found to be lying on the > witness stand was not made clear to Americans by the media. No crime, even some terrible, terrible crime against all humanity could be prosecuted if some witness did the unspeakably wrong of *lying*. Far better that thousands or millions go free than that this *lying* be overlooked. 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 again for, oh, violating someone's civil rights, or engaging in a conspiracy, or, (when the government gets desperate) "attempting to evade a guilty verdict", or whatever it takes to convict? Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 11 02:09:59 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Aries Invictus Message-ID: <753347.7978.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Crazy? I think not. I think this sheep just figured out where the lambs went. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnfRt2zf14&feature=related Bless all unconquerable spirits. :-) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "In ancient times they had no statistics so that they had to fall back on lies."- Stephen Leacock From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri Jul 11 03:01:09 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:01:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality References: <292059.33038.qm@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><000b01c8e251$f77b4b20$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> <011f01c8e2fe$9e1cb070$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <009001c8e302$5f4905c0$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "Lee Corbin" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality > Olga writes > >> But consider this: Let's just imagine that Woody Allen had been accused >> of murdering Mia Farrow ... Just for the record, I didn't write that. I was quoting Stanley Crouch (from a Salon interview) ...: http://www.salon.com/books/int/1998/02/cov_si_25int2.html Olga From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Jul 11 05:49:51 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:49:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A nanotube Radio References: <753347.7978.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001401c8e31a$0ea924c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> If we intend to inject nanomachines into the human body to make repairs we are going to need a way to communicate with them from the outside. In what may be the first man made nanomachine that really deserves the name machine researchers at Berkeley have made a fully functional FM radio so small that you need an electron microscope to see it. http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/zettl/projects/nanoradio/radio.html I liked the movie made with a electron microscope as the radio received the musical theme of the movie Star Wars, it's a little scratchy but not bad at all! They use a single carbon nanofiber, when the radio is miss-tuned you can see the fiber but when they get the tuning right and John Williams theme comes on strong the fiber is vibrating so fast the microscope can't see it. I thought it was cool as hell! John K Clark From mail at harveynewstrom.com Fri Jul 11 17:32:02 2008 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:32:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [Act] Upon pondering your freedoms: _The Soviet Story_, Expanded FISA passed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200807111332.03653.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Thursday 10 July 2008 08:08:54 Amara Graps wrote: > >And for your entertainment pleasure: > > > >Snuggly, the Security Bear > >http://www.markfiore.com/snuggly_0 > > > >"We're watching you because we love you!" I was saddened by the immunity given to Telcos for warrantless wiretapping. But then Snuggly, the Security Bear explained it all to me, and that makes it all right. (I work with people like Snuggly all the time. It seems to be a common concept among some so-called security professionals.) -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From spike66 at att.net Fri Jul 11 20:33:32 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:33:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Social Credit versus Labor-based currency (was: Re: UsingTime Based Currency?) In-Reply-To: <918a899d0807061741p2a04e4d7v9c8f03576dd4a319@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200807112102.m6BL2GHD009642@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ________________________________ [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch ... Would it not make much more sense to figure out how to achieve the goals of Transhumanism with the systems that we're got, rather than engaging in endless pie-in-the-sky debates about alternate politico-economic systems that will never come into being? Joseph Joseph the real problem is with us. When any company or group of people come up with a great idea, people think about it, do preliminary stuff, study this, measure that, and so on. But when the time comes, a meeting is called where everyone presents their ideas, what they have done, what they plan to do, tell everything, hold back nothing. This is commonly called a Come To Jesus Meeting. With transhumanists, since nearly all of us are atheists, that critical point becomes a Come To Nothing Meeting. With that name, we are busted before we start. We need to make that critical point a Come To Arthur C Clarke meeting, or Come To Someone Else meeting. spike From spike66 at att.net Fri Jul 11 23:44:07 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:44:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Pride and/or thinking superior In-Reply-To: <0FC7EDF2-FF1F-4273-A351-7C11B7FD08DB@mac.com> Message-ID: <200807120013.m6C0CoOg003612@andromeda.ziaspace.com> >...On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > ... > I didn't know you are a boxer. I will be careful to be less > pugilistic. :-) - samantha Don't worry Samantha, I am not much of a boxer. The Rocky movie came out when I was in high school, and everyone wanted to play that game. I won because I was the only six foot featherweight, so I could reach out and touch someone before he could get inside. Touch is the appropriate word because my bony little arm wouldn't do much, but in Golden Gloves you get the points regardless of how hard you hit the sumbitch. I am intriqued by the runaway popularity of chess-boxing in Europe. People who have not played both may not realize how similar are the two sports. But Samantha, if you were to be less pugilistic, we would scarcely recognize ya. We would hafta assume you were kidnapped and they were using your email account to throw us off the trail. {8^D spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 12 00:21:23 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:21:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080711192051.02392858@satx.rr.com> At 04:55 PM 7/11/2008 -0700, Spike wrote: >In my mind it is clear enough that the founders wanted the citizenry to be >armed to resist any government that wished to take away the rights listed in >the first ten amendments. Yes, that seems clear. Back then, it might have been possible. Today it would be suicide (vide the Branch Davidians, who didn't even *use* their stocks of weapons as I recall; if they had, *none* of them would have survived). > They wanted the citizenry to be able to fight invaders until a > regular army arrived. Indeed, and hence the call for air passengers to be armed if they choose, let's say. But there are costs with all such choices. Tom Disch, the very great sf writer who recently shot himself to death (his choice; I'm sad, but understand his motives) wrote a barbed poem about being the invaders as part of the regular army and then coming home: "A First Lesson in Geography There is a land so far away You cannot get there in a day. But if at last you happen to, Don't flinch if someone shoots at you. He is your friend, and that's his way Of asking if you want to stay. When you've been there for one whole year, You can come home and shoot somebody here." Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Fri Jul 11 23:55:18 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:55:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080707020146.0259d278@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807120024.m6C0O2Qb005460@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Damien Broderick [mailto:thespike at satx.rr.com] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 12:10 AM > To: ExI chat list > Cc: spike66 at att.net > Subject: Re: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms > > At 11:42 PM 7/6/2008 -0700, samantha wrote: > > >>But it looks as if the Great Gun Attractor is doing its evil work > >>anyway. Stop it now, before we all go blind! ...But if the rules have changed again, > I'm all for it. Let the tedious games continue! What do you > say, Spike? > > Damien Broderick I have been away on a motorcycle trip, so I have some up-catching to do. If we can handle it without excessive fighting, I don't see why not. Our biggest gun screamers are gone now methinks. Your original question is valid as all hell. We must understand that the job of the court is not to talk about gun safety, crime rates, any of that stuff. Those things are the legislature's problem. Rather the court's job is only to study the constitution and decide what they think the founders had in mind, and why they wrote what they did. In my mind it is clear enough that the founders wanted the citizenry to be armed to resist any government that wished to take away the rights listed in the first ten amendments. Those cannot be legally abrogated. They also recognized that the original states had dangerous neighbors to the north, south and west, and yet another one to the east across the sea. They wanted the citizenry to be able to fight invaders until a regular army arrived. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Jul 12 00:59:10 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:59:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807120101.m6C11E9x014398@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality > > This line of argument might rise up to bite cryonics and > perhaps other attempts at indefinite life extension: > > =============== > > > > > Dog Eat Your Taxes? > > By RAY D. MADOFF > Published: July 9, 2008 > > THE latest news from the Palace, that Leona Helmsley left > instructions that her charitable bequest of as much as $8 > billion be used for the care and welfare of dogs... When I read this I wondered about the reaction of the more than a billion followers of that old time religion guy (whose name I cannot recall at the moment.) They consider dogs to be unclean, and hate America. Now we have an American billionaire who perished and left the money to the unclean beasts. spike From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Sat Jul 12 03:28:42 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:28:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: > > The charitable deduction constitutes a subsidy > from the federal government. The government, in > effect, makes itself a partner in every > charitable bequest. In Mrs. Helmsley?s case, > given that her fortune warranted an estate tax > rate of 45 percent, her $8 billion donation for > dogs is really a gift of $4.4 billion from her > and $3.6 billion from you and me. > I guess they are using that "Million Man Math Made Easy" By Louis Farrakhan. This estate tax is a shame. These "estates" are just the money left over AFTER all the income taxes were paid. It's absurd. A person who earns $1 mil pays $350k in Federal income taxes, another $100k in state and local, SSI and others add to this. Then after they live off of it, anything else they manage to save for their family gets hit for another 45% when they die. Estate taxes need to be repealed entirely. From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Jul 12 03:39:37 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:39:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Social Credit versus Labor-based currency (was: Re: UsingTime Based Currency?) In-Reply-To: <200807112102.m6BL2GHD009642@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200807112102.m6BL2GHD009642@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200807112239.37305.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 11 July 2008, spike wrote: > With transhumanists, since nearly all of us are atheists, that > critical point becomes a Come To Nothing Meeting. Now I'm somewhat regretting the message I sent to only Joseph in response to his request. The issue at hand is more that people continously pound us with questions regarding "how is that possible, that's completely unlikely, nobody would pay for that" and then showing them that "it's already happening out there" and rehashing these basics. It just continues on and on endlessly, and the "Come to Jesus Meeting" inadvertently turns into a Come to Nothing Meeting. And maybe a 'come to become much harder than it actually is' meeting. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap "Genius is the ability to escape the human condition; Humanity is the need to escape." -- Q. Uim From spike66 at att.net Sat Jul 12 04:10:11 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:10:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080711192051.02392858@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807120437.m6C4avgK020805@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Damien Broderick [mailto:thespike at satx.rr.com] > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:18 PM > To: spike > Subject: RE: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms > > At 04:55 PM 7/11/2008 -0700, Spike wrote: > > >... > > Yes, that seems clear. Back then, it might have been possible. Today > it would be suicide (vide the Branch Davidians... > > Indeed, and hence the call for air passengers to be armed if they > choose, let's say... > > "A First Lesson in Geography > > There is a land so far away... Damien Broderick > Ja, astute observations all. I was hoping to channel the ExI-chat discussion, (the thread that you started, not the more general discussion of gun laws and gun safety) into helping people understand what the legislature and the judicial branches actually do, or are supposed to do. The judicial branch doesn't need to consider which good person shot herself or how many cooling corpses the constabulary haul out of the local housing projects. That data is completely irrelevant for the judges, or rather should be. The judge's own attitudes towards shootin arns are completely irrelevant, or should be. Their job is strictly defined: to decide what the founders meant and why, then guide the legislative branch in what laws they can legally pass full stop. The US constitution is an inherited contract, like it or not. I like it. I feel the US constitution is a priceless gift from the forefathers. I like strict interpretations of its freedoms and responsibilities. That's why I went so ape-overboard on the recent Texas yearners case. I will not feign sympathy for them or for what I think they were doing in there, nor will I feign sympathy for the followers of that old time religion guy from Saudi Arabia, old whats-his-name, something Akbar I think. I don't like what these memes do to people. But the constitution must be followed carefully in any case, otherwise the alternative is far worse. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Jul 12 04:17:46 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:17:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Social Credit versus Labor-based currency (was: Re:UsingTime Based Currency?) In-Reply-To: <200807112239.37305.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200807120444.m6C4iWg5020421@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > On Friday 11 July 2008, spike wrote: > > With transhumanists, since nearly all of us are atheists, that > > critical point becomes a Come To Nothing Meeting. > > Now I'm somewhat regretting the message I sent to only Joseph > in response to his request... Bryan Bryan, if you sent a personal note to Joseph that is relevant, just ask him to forward it on, or if he minds if you do. Good memes should never be wasted, ja? spike From aiguy at comcast.net Sat Jul 12 04:41:59 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:41:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00345408DCAB412397381D53252BD158@ZANDRA2> Kevin Freels said: >> This estate tax is a shame. These "estates" are just the money left over AFTER all the income taxes were paid. It's absurd. A person who earns $1 mil pays $350k in Federal income taxes, another $100k in state and local, SSI and others add to this. Then after they live off of it, anything else they manage to save for their family gets hit for another 45% when they die. Estate taxes need to be repealed entirely. >> Starting in 2007 in America only estates worth over $2,000,000 in value pay this estate tax. In 2009 the amount goes up to $3,500,000! As it is today with proper estate planning only 2% of the population have to worry about estate taxes coming out of their heirs inheritance. With proper estate planning a millionaire can gift much of their estate ($12,000 per year) to their heirs prior to death and not incur as much estate taxes. Qualified personal residence trusts can be set up to leave their mansions to their children without paying taxes. And all that's without even getting creative! Someone really worried about seeing the government getting their 45% could even leave the money to their dogs and specify that the money could be spent by the dogs caregivers specified in the will, anyway that the caregivers thinks would make the dogs happy. So if the dog wants a new 2 million dollar yacht the caregiver can legally buy it for them in good conscience. From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Jul 12 05:49:16 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:49:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Social Credit versus Labor-based currency (was: Re:UsingTime Based Currency?) In-Reply-To: <200807120444.m6C4iWg5020421@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200807120444.m6C4iWg5020421@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200807120049.16625.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 11 July 2008, spike wrote: > Bryan, if you sent a personal note to Joseph that is relevant, just > ask him to forward it on, or if he minds if you do. ?Good memes > should never be wasted, ja? Nah, I summarized it in the last email. It's fine. For the record, I do in fact keep all of my out going email, so I still have it sitting here. Somewhere. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap "Genius is the ability to escape the human condition; Humanity is the need to escape." -- Q. Uim From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sat Jul 12 08:09:44 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:09:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Pride and/or thinking superior Message-ID: <730612.22641.qm@web30402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Sat, 7/12/08, Anna Taylor wrote: > From: Anna Taylor > Subject: Re: [ExI] Pride and/or thinking superior > To: "Emlyn" > Received: Saturday, July 12, 2008, 3:59 AM > --- On Thu, 7/10/08, Emlyn > wrote: > > >Why? Ok, because that need for acknowledgement leads us > to > >base our estimates of self worth on perceived reactions > of other > >people. > > Yes. You are nothing without other people. That's > what respect is all about. > > >I think that's the primary reason that we allow > ourselves > >to be organized into hierarchies; because we are > vulnerable to > >the requirement for stroking from others (especially > those we > >perceive as higher in status than ourselves), and we > seem to have a bug > >that the less good feedback we get from others, the > more we require > >it. So the more we will do for less. > > Hierarchy is about believing in others. What you believe in > is a matter of choice. > > >I think there's probably an evolutionary psychology > explanation for this >willingness to submit/follow, and > probably helps explain the existence of > >psychopaths/narcissists more fully than just calling > them defectors or >hawks - they are there because, for > stability, we need them at the top of >hierarchies. > > I don't see why we would need psychopaths/narcissists > at the top of hierarchies...we tried that a few times...it > didn't work out well:) > > >The things we evolved to do are often harmful to us > poor phenotypes, no >matter how well they benefit the > genome. > > Phenotypes is a big word for people that don't > understand it:) > > > Define "worked"? Do you mean they have been > stable and persistent? > > No.. I mean they where needed at that time period. > > > That's not the same thing, except for pernicious > values > > of "worked". > > You mean? > > > Sometimes, we just think we are equal. I think many > people > > would disagree with you strongly that group must > necessarily > > equal hierarchy! > > Possibly but group effort is a lot more effective than > singular behaviour. > > > No that is respect. Pride is internal, an emotion. > > So is respect. > > > Self accomplishments are their own thing. You could be > > proud of your accomplishments. You could feel proud of > your new car. You > > could feel proud of belonging to a group. > > Yes you can feel pride at any moment. Why do you feel > pride is the question. If you are proud of your new > car..who is behind it? Did you work hard to get that car? > Who taught you to work hard? > > > Anna:) > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and > bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at > http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. __________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sat Jul 12 14:56:45 2008 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:56:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080711192051.02392858@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080711192051.02392858@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807121056.45562.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Friday 11 July 2008 20:21:23 Damien Broderick wrote: > (vide the Branch Davidians, who didn't even *use* > their stocks of weapons as I recall; if they had, *none* of them > would have survived). Actually, the siege on the Branch Davidian compound was triggered by a firefight between ATF agents and Branch Davidians which left six Davidians dead and four ATF agents dead. -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From spike66 at att.net Sat Jul 12 16:52:51 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:52:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080711192051.02392858@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807121719.m6CHJaXw008692@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Our own Dr. Broderick is far too modest. On a flight from Eugene Oregon to San Francisco, I went into the SFO bookstore on the B concourse. The most promenent books are displayed on a separate stand right in front as one enters the store, where all the hottest titles are displayed flat, cover facing out, as opposed to stacked in the back as in a library. This is prime real estate in a bookstore which itself in the center of prime real estate for bookstores, at the crossroads of the main concourse for outgoing domestic Untied Airlines flights, displaying the most notable new books. On that lofty honored shelf I saw a white covered book with the intriguing title Million Years, edited by our own Dr. Damien Broderick. Million Years is a collection of essays by several ExI-chat posters including such ExI-chat notables as Amara Angelica (what are the odds against of our small group having *two* brilliant women with the unusual name Amara?), Robert Bradbury, Rudy Rucker, Anne Corwin, Robin Hanson, Greg Benford, and Damien himself penned an excellent essay. If I have missed any Million Years essayist who have ever posted to ExI-chat, my humblest apologies for this reprehensible oversight. Flimsy excuse: I have been a reader of this list only about the last twelve years. Damien, your essay in Million soars with eagles. More on that later in a separate post. Robert Bradbury's essay was extremely thought provoking. Our list may see curious new members intrigued by his work. I fear some techno-innocents might find puzzling some of the concepts that we here find familiar territory. An example is that the Matrioshka Brain is mentioned without actually being defined, at least not at the first citing. Normal people will be without a clue. Perhaps they will scramble for their Google page, but some will be on an aircraft at the time, as I was. Altho we do not encourage advertising, a glowing exception is made for anyone here who actually pens a book that is published by any commercial publisher. That kind of advertising is fair game, welcome in fact, strongly encouraged. Damien do swallow your modesty and at least casually mention when such accomplishments are yours, early and often. Your honors are our honors. We glow with pride at being your friend. My sincerest congratulations to all who contributed to Million Years, for landing a book on perhaps the most honored shelf in publishing. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Jul 12 17:53:23 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:53:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <200807121719.m6CHJaXw008692@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200807121753.m6CHrT87018219@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 ... > > On that lofty honored shelf I saw a white covered book with > the intriguing title Million Years, edited by our own Dr. > Damien Broderick. Oops, apologies, the title is Year Million, subtitled Science at the Far Edge of Knowledge. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 12 18:07:33 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:07:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <6a7d2o$evf0k7@cdptpa-mxlb.mail.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080711192051.02392858@satx.rr.com> <6a7d2o$evf0k7@cdptpa-mxlb.mail.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712125758.022d8ca0@satx.rr.com> At 09:52 AM 7/12/2008 -0700, Spike wrote: >My sincerest congratulations to all who contributed to Million Years, for >landing a book on perhaps the most honored shelf in publishing. Thanks, Spike. One correction, though. The title is: YEAR MILLION: Science at the Far Edge of Knowledge It was reviewed a couple of weeks back by John Horgan in the Wall Street Journal, and I understand there's a review forthcoming in the LA Times. I was pleased by the essays, which were all written specially for the book. Only one writer jumped the gun (Greg Benford's piece on the very far future appeared some months earlier in the online magazine BAEN'S UNIVERSE, which was rather naughty or careless). Robert Bradbury's, Robin Hanson's, and cryonicist medico Steve Harris's essays are especially remarkable, I think. Damien Broderick From mail at harveynewstrom.com Sat Jul 12 14:49:58 2008 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:49:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807121049.59062.mail@harveynewstrom.com> On Friday 11 July 2008 23:28:42 Kevin Freels wrote: > This estate tax is a shame. These "estates" are just the money left over > AFTER all the income taxes were paid. It's absurd. Couldn't the same be said for income tax? I already paid income taxes on my money when I earned it. Why should a person working for me have to pay taxes again when that money passes to them? As far as I can tell, taxes are applied every time money changes hands, either as income tax or sales tax. Why should estate taxes be any different? Is there a fundamental reason why income should be taxed and sales should be taxed but inheritance should not be taxed when it is passed between individuals? Do you feel the same about gift taxes? Should someone receiving a large gift pay taxes on it? If so, how is this different than inheritance? If not, why should people be taxed on earned money but not unearned money? I.E., what is the underlying mechanism used to determine what should be taxed and what should not? -- Harvey Newstrom CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 12 18:56:25 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:56:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712135346.022a4800@satx.rr.com> Speaking of: YEAR MILLION: Science at the Far Edge of Knowledge I see on Amazon, to my surprise, the notification: "No customer reviews yet. Be the first." So... Spike, please be my guest and leap into the breach. And if any other extropes have read and enjoyed the book, please speak up on amazon... Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Jul 12 19:10:11 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:10:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms References: <200807120024.m6C0O2Qb005460@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <018301c8e453$3eb29a90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Spike writes > we can handle it without excessive fighting, I don't see why not. Our > biggest gun screamers are gone now methinks. Your original question is > valid as all hell. We must understand that the job of the court is not to > talk about gun safety, crime rates, any of that stuff. Those things are the > legislature's problem. Rather the court's job is only to study the > constitution and decide what they think the founders had in mind, and why > they wrote what they did. > > In my mind it is clear enough that the founders wanted the citizenry to be > armed to resist any government that wished to take away the rights listed in > the first ten amendments. Those cannot be legally abrogated. They also > recognized that the original states had dangerous neighbors to the north, > south and west, and yet another one to the east across the sea. They wanted > the citizenry to be able to fight invaders until a regular army arrived. Well, okay, but I had asked in another thread: But the problem is that if we try to smoothly analogize what was the intent behind an older law to cover present circumstances, we encounter some severe problems: Consider tanks and atomic bombs. Are they also to be included in your desire that "the citizenry to be armed to resist any government that wished to take away the rights listed in the first ten amendments"? Thanks, Lee (My own answer---though of course it is debatable---is that atomic weaponry would not be a factor in a citizen uprising. As for tanks and missiles, what cannot be obtained by the citizens taking over the local National Guard armories is not worth bothering about. Therefore, an amendment should be made to the 2nd Amendment: namely, that the rights of citizens to bear arms should be guaranteed up to but not including weapons of mass destruction. End of particular opinion.) From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 12 19:28:49 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:28:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <018301c8e453$3eb29a90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200807120024.m6C0O2Qb005460@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <018301c8e453$3eb29a90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712142429.0246fbd0@satx.rr.com> At 12:10 PM 7/12/2008 -0700, Lee wrote: >Consider tanks and atomic bombs. Can a citizen *bear* tanks and nukes? Maybe the fabled suitcase nuke? One could easily "bear" a vial of lethal or incapacitating bacteria/viri, but perhaps that isn't really an acceptable weapon to be used in fighting against a tyrannical govt? ("Acceptable"? There's no getting away from context and likely consequences in this sort of debate.) Damien Broderick From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Jul 12 19:53:37 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:53:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712142429.0246fbd0@satx.rr.com> References: <200807120024.m6C0O2Qb005460@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <018301c8e453$3eb29a90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080712142429.0246fbd0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807121453.37820.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 12 July 2008, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:10 PM 7/12/2008 -0700, Lee wrote: > >Consider tanks and atomic bombs. > > Can a citizen *bear* tanks and nukes? Maybe the fabled suitcase nuke? There was a recent article about some engineering undergrad who built a tank. So there's one. Another fellow off on the nets is famous for releasing schematics on how to build guided missiles with $5k worth of parts. Not quite the suitcase nuke, but a suitcase rocket maybe? > One could easily "bear" a vial of lethal or incapacitating > bacteria/viri, but perhaps that isn't really an acceptable weapon to Many already do ... we call them "sick". I know you're talking about deliberate bacterial weapons, but the results are the same. > be used in fighting against a tyrannical govt? ("Acceptable"? There's > no getting away from context and likely consequences in this sort of > debate.) Ugh. Big contextual headache surrounding all of this. I hardly think that claiming that people shouldn't carry handnukes is a good way to make sure we don't die from hand nukes ... let's focus on not dying instead (more like Aubrey's/other's biogerontology work- this is just aging, but it's the same general approach of focusing on the root of the problem (sort of)). - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap "Genius is the ability to escape the human condition; Humanity is the need to escape." -- Q. Uim From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 12 20:17:04 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:17:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <200807121453.37820.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200807120024.m6C0O2Qb005460@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <018301c8e453$3eb29a90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080712142429.0246fbd0@satx.rr.com> <200807121453.37820.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712151308.02592d68@satx.rr.com> At 02:53 PM 7/12/2008 -0500, Bryan wrote: > > Can a citizen *bear* tanks and nukes? Maybe the fabled suitcase nuke? > >There was a recent article about some engineering undergrad who built a >tank. So there's one. "Bear" means "carry." He can lug this tank around on his back? If we're not going to bother retaining/honoring the simplest and plainest elements of our text (the Amendment), we might as well give the game away right now, it becomes an open-ended free-for-all. (But many claim it already has, and that this was unavoidable.) Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 12 20:35:29 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:35:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] what does "bear arms" mean now and then? Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712153446.022d8ca0@satx.rr.com> Here's some interesting discussion, with useful links: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=255 From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 12 20:58:02 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:58:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] what does "bear arms" mean now and then? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712153446.022d8ca0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712153446.022d8ca0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712154619.02592b50@satx.rr.com> At 03:35 PM 7/12/2008 -0500, I wrote: >Here's some interesting discussion, with useful links: > >http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=255 One of the comments notes: I get this strong impression as well. One of the benefits of being a visitor who shared only somewhat overlapping ideological loading in childhood is that such a visitor might sometimes see elements of, uh, habituated superstition in the reasoning of nationals. I admire what I know of the Constitution, as a good try by a group of smart, practical Enlightenment thinkers hundreds of years ago--but I never ever have to fight off early conditioning informing me that the document is "sacred," a sort of Testament from God via His representatives on earth. I had enough of that when I was a Catholic kid. If the Founders (with or without cap) had included, say, a "right" for male citizens to own slaves or women--which was only the case by practise and implication--we would not now, I hope, be under the thrall of supposing that this was anything other than a contingent, contextually-framed statement of the way they did things then. But *understanding* such framing is probably fairly important in practical terms, since the US state keeps referring to this document as its legal basis (or so I gather). Damien Broderick From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat Jul 12 21:21:10 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:21:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <200807121049.59062.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> <200807121049.59062.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: Bit of a rant follows. Caveat emptor. On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Harvey Newstrom asked: >... what is the underlying mechanism used to determine what should be taxed and what should not? The human instinct for despotism energized by the toxic ruthlessness of political power. I often hear these complaints about taxation. One tax or another spawns an objection, accompanied by one rationale or another. But it all boils down to resentment. Resentment of the humiliation suffered when a guy with a gun and badge and an air of menace takes "your" money. If not for the badge -- the insignia of "legality" -- which is to say power -- it would be extortion. Badge or no badge the sting of humiliation is the same. The world is ruled by violence. Bend over, get a gun, or get creative and find another way. But by all means get over it. The powerful can do whatever they want, take your money whenever they want, with or without explanation, as pleases them. That's what power means, that's what power is. Water runs downhill. It just does. Much of the discussion takes the form: "But what is the law in the matter?" Sad, very sad. Law is for the little people. Law is a tissue to cover the gaping maw of Morlock. Law is a fairy tale for little lambies. Law is a fiction. Law is a cobweb. Democracy? Puleeeeze! Another fiction for the fiction-based. Ever seen videos of vast herds of wildebeest or gazelles or other African hoof-borne fare-for-carnivores? Know what keeps them "safe"? Alertness, fleetness of hoof, the anonymity afforded by the vast numbers of their fellows, and a healthy dose of paranoia. A modus vivendi for sheeple, too. That, or join the carnivores. But never complain when the carnivores come for you. Bad enough to get gnawed on, without the added humiliation of manifest cluelessness. ************************************************** Sorry, guess I'm in a pissy mood. Best, Jeff Davis "We call someone insane who does not believe as we do to an outrageous extent." Charles McCabe From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Jul 12 21:31:33 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:31:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712151308.02592d68@satx.rr.com> References: <200807120024.m6C0O2Qb005460@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200807121453.37820.kanzure@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080712151308.02592d68@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807121631.33798.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 12 July 2008, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 02:53 PM 7/12/2008 -0500, Bryan wrote: > > > Can a citizen *bear* tanks and nukes? Maybe the fabled suitcase > > > nuke? > > > >There was a recent article about some engineering undergrad who > > built a tank. So there's one. > > "Bear" means "carry." He can lug this tank around on his back? If And what if he could? Reminds me of: http://heybryan.org/projects/openpay/widget.php?projectID=1 http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-07.htm JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base. REG: Agreed. Francis? FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man-- STAN: Or woman. FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself-- STAN: Or herself. FRANCIS: Or herself. REG: Agreed. FRANCIS: Thank you, brother. STAN: Or sister. FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I? REG: I think you'd finished. FRANCIS: Oh. Right. REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man-- STAN: Or woman. REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off. STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg. FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan? STAN: I want to be one. REG: What? STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'. REG: What?! LORETTA: It's my right as a man. JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan? LORETTA: I want to have babies. REG: You want to have babies?! LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them. REG: But... you can't have babies. LORETTA: (the particularly relevant line) Don't you oppress me. REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?! LORETTA: [crying] JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies. FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry. REG: What's the point? FRANCIS: What? REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?! FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression. REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap "Genius is the ability to escape the human condition; Humanity is the need to escape." -- Q. Uim From spike66 at att.net Sat Jul 12 21:29:43 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:29:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] what does "bear arms" mean now and then? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712154619.02592b50@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807122130.m6CLTm5x004397@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... > ...I admire what I know of the > Constitution, as a good try by a group of smart, practical > Enlightenment thinkers hundreds of years ago--but I never > ever have to fight off early conditioning informing me that > the document is "sacred," a sort of Testament from God via > His representatives on earth... Damien Broderick Right on! I do not consider the framers of the constitution as holding any particularly noble station, as being more enlightened than present day thinkers, nor do I consider the product of their notions as sacred. The reason I revere the constitution is that the framers did have the legal right to design a framework inside which government must operate. I depend on that framework to protect my legal rights. Without that strict framework, it looks to me that governments are free to run over whomever is in the way. Rather to run over us hapless proles even more than it already does. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Jul 12 21:41:17 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:41:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712135346.022a4800@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807122141.m6CLfNVH013732@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ... On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... > > "No customer reviews yet. Be the first." > > So... Spike, please be my guest and leap into the breach. And > if any other extropes have read and enjoyed the book, please > speak up on amazon... > > Damien Broderick Damien or other Amazon hipsters, if one writes a product review does it take a while to show up? I wrote one, but it still shows nada. I demand instant gratification. No wait, that is still too slow. I demand proactive gratification. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Jul 12 21:19:22 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:19:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712135346.022a4800@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807122146.m6CLk7h7026569@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Damien, I wrote a customer review but it appears to have tossed it. Let me try again. spike > -----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, July 12, 2008 11:56 AM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: Re: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years > > Speaking of: > > YEAR MILLION: Science at the Far Edge of Knowledge > > 0977743349> > > I see on Amazon, to my surprise, the notification: > > "No customer reviews yet. Be the first." > > So... Spike, please be my guest and leap into the breach. And > if any other extropes have read and enjoyed the book, please > speak up on amazon... > > 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 Sat Jul 12 22:18:38 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:18:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <200807122146.m6CLk7h7026569@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712135346.022a4800@satx.rr.com> <200807122146.m6CLk7h7026569@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712171713.05ce5e80@satx.rr.com> At 02:19 PM 7/12/2008 -0700, spike wrote: >I wrote a customer review but it appears to have tossed it. I believe it takes amazon quite a while (days) to put reader ratings and comments up. Frustrating. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 13 02:18:00 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:18:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] what does "bear arms" mean now and then? References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712153446.022d8ca0@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080712154619.02592b50@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <01e801c8e48e$b220eb90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien (a foreigner) writes > One of the comments notes: > > that this is rooted in the myth we pass along to our children from elementary school onward ? that the Constitution is a perfect > (and perfectly clear) document that lays out our God-given rights. Instead of a framework designed by some guys who were > ultimately only statesmen doing the best that they could according to their ideals. > > > I get this strong impression as well. One of the It's perfectly obvious to people that the founders of the American nation living in the late 1700s were much more intelligent than Americans are today. It should be apparent even to a foreigner > benefits of being a visitor who shared only somewhat overlapping ideological loading in childhood is that such a visitor might > sometimes see elements of, uh, habituated superstition in the reasoning of nationals. Consider who wrote As far as depends upon the executive, measures preparatory for the worst, while it hopes for the best, will be pursued; and I shall endeavor to keep things in status quo until your negotiation assumes a more decisive form; which I hope will soon be the case, as there are many hot heads and impetuous spirits among us who with difficulty can be kept within bounds. This, however, ought not to precipitate your conduct; for, as it has been observed, there is a "tide in human affairs" that ought always to be watched; and because I believe all who are acquainted with you, will readily concede, that considerations both public and private combine to urge you to bring your mission to a close with as much celerity as the nature of it will admit. As you have been, and will continue to be, fully informed by the Secretary of State of all transactions of a public nature, which relate to, or may have an influence on the points of your mission, it would be unnecessary for me to touch upon any of them in this letter; was it not for the presumption, that, the insurrection in the western counties of this State has excited much speculation, and a variety of opinions abroad; and will be represented differently according to the wishes of some, and the prejudices of others, who may exhibit it as an evidence of what has been predicted "that we are unable to govern ourselves." Under this view of the subject, I am happy in giving it to you as the general opinion that this event having happened at the time it did, was fortunate, although' it will be attended with considerable expense. Although this was *not* written by any literary heavyweight such as John Adams or Thomas Jefferson, it did come from the pen of one of the first presidents of the U.S.[1] Which of the last five or six presidents could have communicated with this much subtlety or dextrous use of language? As for Bill Clinton, perhaps the brightest of the last half dozen, has anything he's ever written been above the level of a bright upper class twelve year old of the 1790s? > I admire what I know of the Constitution, as a good try by a group of smart, practical Enlightenment thinkers hundreds of years > ago--but I never ever have to fight off early conditioning informing me that the document is "sacred," a sort of Testament from > God via His representatives on earth. I had enough of that > when I was a Catholic kid. I understand, and I totally share your sentiments. Not only do people hold the founders in awe, as they should, but they somehow believe that amending the sacred document according to the levels of our admittedly currently mild intellects would still be the wisest course of action. Little good does talk of "free speech" and "bear arms" for a people who require everything to be spelled out so that folks of a fifth grade education can understand it. However, there is an even more sinister reason that we don't try to make the so-called ruling documents understandable by people today. By putting all questions to the Supreme Court, any written intention of any document can be circumvented, no matter how clearly put down. "Free speech" by these fine minds has been taken to include burning documents or pendants in public. (It not true that people in power today are too stupid to understand that it was "political speech" that was obviously meant; no, by including any idiotic thing whatsoever (e.g. going naked) under the umbrella of "free speech", it's possible to fulfill Earl Warren's great dream: that America cease to be a country ruled by laws, but rather ruled by men, men who know what is right (not what is "lawful"). > But *understanding* such framing is probably fairly important in practical terms, since the US state keeps referring to this > document as its legal basis (or so I gather). Don't be taken in, foreigner. As I explained, that's just the public position for all the rubes to believe. Power is concentrated in the Regulatory Agencies and, to a lesser extent, the Judges. Ever wonder why so many decisions are 5-4? Lee [1] Letter to John Jay from George Washington, November 1794 From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 13 02:35:30 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:35:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] what does "bear arms" mean now and then? References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712153446.022d8ca0@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080712154619.02592b50@satx.rr.com> <01e801c8e48e$b220eb90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <01fa01c8e491$1fe39ae0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Er, I left an important word out of an otherwise mangled paragraph. It should read *this* way: > I understand, and I totally share your sentiments. Not > only do people hold the founders in awe, as they should, > but they somehow believe that amending the sacred > document according to the levels of our admittedly > currently mild intellects would *not* be the wisest course. > Little good does talk of "free speech" and "bear arms" > do for a people who require everything to be spelled out > so that folks of a fifth grade education can understand it. Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jul 13 02:50:09 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:50:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] what does "bear arms" mean now and then? In-Reply-To: <200807122130.m6CLTm5x004397@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712154619.02592b50@satx.rr.com> <200807122130.m6CLTm5x004397@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712214924.05cfceb8@satx.rr.com> This truly Talmudic investigation will provide hours of debating fun: Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jul 13 03:20:14 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:20:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] what does "bear arms" mean now and then? In-Reply-To: <01e801c8e48e$b220eb90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712153446.022d8ca0@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080712154619.02592b50@satx.rr.com> <01e801c8e48e$b220eb90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712221349.0258f178@satx.rr.com> At 07:18 PM 7/12/2008 -0700, Lee quoth: > As you have been, and will continue to be, fully informed by > the Secretary of State of all transactions of a public nature, > which relate to, or may have an influence on the points of > your mission, it would be unnecessary for me to touch upon > any of them in this letter; was it not for the presumption, that, > the insurrection in the western counties of this State has > excited much speculation, and a variety of opinions abroad; > and will be represented differently according to the wishes of > some, and the prejudices of others, who may exhibit it as an > evidence of what has been predicted "that we are unable to > govern ourselves." Under this view of the subject, I am happy > in giving it to you as the general opinion that this event > having happened at the time it did, was fortunate, although' > it will be attended with considerable expense. > >Although this was *not* written by any literary heavyweight such >as John Adams or Thomas Jefferson, it did come from the pen of >one of the first presidents of the U.S. Right, none of them had yet learned how to punctuate deftly, to create crisp sentences and paragraphs. (I blame the absence of word processors.) Even the journalism of the day was this clotted and concatenated. We've gone to the opposite extreme, it's true. Damien Broderick From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Jul 13 04:14:09 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:14:09 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <200807121049.59062.mail@harveynewstrom.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> <200807121049.59062.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: 2008/7/13 Harvey Newstrom : > Is there a fundamental reason why income should be taxed and sales should be > taxed but inheritance should not be taxed when it is passed between > individuals? Do you feel the same about gift taxes? Should someone receiving > a large gift pay taxes on it? If so, how is this different than inheritance? > If not, why should people be taxed on earned money but not unearned money? > > I.E., what is the underlying mechanism used to determine what should be taxed > and what should not? Taxes are a fee charged for a common service and differ from most fees charged by private organisations in that the underlying principle is not profit but fairness and utility. Many on this list would argue that no tax is fair, but that is hardly a universally accepted view. -- Stathis Papaioannou From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jul 13 04:49:47 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:49:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> <200807121049.59062.mail@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712234526.022ce538@satx.rr.com> At 02:14 PM 7/13/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote: >Many on this list would argue >that no tax is fair, but that is hardly a universally accepted view. I submit that were it universally or even extensively accepted in the USA, a No Tax Party would be swept into office. Oddly, this does not seem imminent. (Some will explain this by pointing to the benefits 90% of voters, or 51%, or whatever, obtain by fleecing the wealthy. But Soak the Filthy Rich For Everything The Market Will Bear parties don't seem to do astoundingly well at the polls either.) Damien Broderick From riel at surriel.com Sun Jul 13 14:54:40 2008 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:54:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] what does "bear arms" mean now and then? In-Reply-To: <200807122130.m6CLTm5x004397@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080712154619.02592b50@satx.rr.com> <200807122130.m6CLTm5x004397@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20080713105440.1fec0a65@bree.surriel.com> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:29:43 -0700 "spike" wrote: > Right on! I do not consider the framers of the constitution as holding any > particularly noble station, as being more enlightened than present day > thinkers, nor do I consider the product of their notions as sacred. They were just more honest. They knew many politicians often cannot be trusted, potentially not even themselves, so they built safeguards into the country's constitution against power grabs by untrustworthy politicians. Of course, that doesn't help if people let politicians grab all the power they want, without using their constitutional rights to stop them. To illustrate: "State troopers rebuke students for singing national anthem" http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69366 Yes, I know this is the worldnutdaily ... but still :) -- All rights reversed. From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Jul 13 16:44:24 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:44:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com><200807121049.59062.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080712234526.022ce538@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001001c8e507$d134f660$0301a8c0@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > I submit that were it universally or even extensively accepted > in the USA, > a No Tax Party would be swept into office. Oddly, > this does not seem imminent. I don't find that odd at all, there is little incentive to lower the tax rate. My time, enthusiasm, contributions and lobbying efforts could be better spent trying to get a candidate in office that will give me a subsidy or protect me from competition. It will only help me and a small group of people just like me so it won't cost all that much, so the general tax rate won't go up all that much, so it will generate little opposition. I mean it's just one program, we can afford that! And if you help me get the bill passed that destroys my competition then I'll help pass the bill that subsidizes you. And so it goes. Before you know it you've got ethanol subsidies. John K Clark From spike66 at att.net Sun Jul 13 20:05:57 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:05:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] chess boxing again Message-ID: <200807132006.m6DK61Cp027973@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Check this from the Time magazine that just came out. http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1821639,00.html?cnn=yes I have been watching this new biathlon sport emerge in Europe, and had an idea to make it appeal more to those less experienced in recreational pugilism: make the gloves heavier. Contrary to intuition, heavier gloves make it less likely that your opponent will ring your bell. Since force is mass times acceleration, then more mass is less acceleration and hence less velocity, so the momentum transfer from her glove to your head may be about the same with the heavier gloves but the kinetic energy of the mind numbing impact is lowered. This is why retired heavyweights do things like name all five of their children George, whereas we lightweights never get drain brammage, from playing that sport which is called, emmm, you know that game where you put those thingies on your hands and you, errr, what was I talking about? skipe {X^P -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jul 13 20:37:26 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:37:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <6a7d2o$evf0k7@cdptpa-mxlb.mail.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080711192051.02392858@satx.rr.com> <6a7d2o$evf0k7@cdptpa-mxlb.mail.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080713152558.0250b4f0@satx.rr.com> At 09:52 AM 7/12/2008 -0700, Spike wrote: > >Robert Bradbury's essay was extremely thought provoking. Our list may see >curious new members intrigued by his work. I fear some techno-innocents >might find puzzling some of the concepts that we here find familiar >territory. An example is that the Matrioshka Brain is mentioned without >actually being defined, at least not at the first citing. Normal people >will be without a clue. Perhaps they will scramble for their Google page, >but some will be on an aircraft at the time, as I was. The book was meant to have an index, which I'd do. Somehow it never happened, although there's a bunch of white paper at the end presumably meant for one. However-- I sort of assumed (never wise) that people might read from front to back. In my intro, I say: Steve Harris, in chapter 3, states: Chapter 6, by Wil McCarthy, states: So by the time we got to Robert's chapter 7, I assumed that readers would be generally prepped for further discussion. Nothing is more tedious than a book where each chapter painfully repeats what's already been explained. But I agree that this can create problems for people hopping about in the book. My fault for not pressing harder for an Index. But there were a lot of last minute problems; astonishing typesetting errors whenever superscripts or subscripts appeared, etc. The best-laid plans of mice and Matrioshkas... Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Sun Jul 13 21:15:30 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:15:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080713152558.0250b4f0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807132142.m6DLgEJU011169@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ... On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years > > At 09:52 AM 7/12/2008 -0700, Spike wrote: > > > ...An example is that the Matrioshka Brain is > >mentioned without actually being defined... > > I sort of assumed (never wise) that people might read from > front to back... Oh well, of course only normal people do that. I read first the essays of those people I know personally. Damien I started on yours with great fascination as I left the airport bookstore and walked with the book in front of my face. So engrossed was I in your essay that my life was in actual danger from walking out a jetway into the abyss where an aircraft once stood. My last thoughts: ...called "Matrioshka brains." Within these immense Sun-orbiting swaaaaaaaa... > ...The best-laid plans of mice and Matrioshkas... At a party at my house a few years ago, Robert attempted to explain or define a Matriosha Brain. This was to Melanie Swan, who is known to some of you, not an ExI regular but a very well rounded transhumanist grokmeister just the same. Robert will likely not argue when I say the effort at explanation failed. My challenge to you ExI-chatsters: define in your own words a Matrioshka Brain. Do not quote Robert, but feel free to refer to his work. Extra points for using fewer words, but describe as completely as you are able. > > Damien Broderick Damien, many thanks for doing what you do and being what you are. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 02:46:19 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:46:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <200807132142.m6DLgEJU011169@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080713152558.0250b4f0@satx.rr.com> <200807132142.m6DLgEJU011169@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240807131946l69f34875p89cbdb73d23ad17f@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:15 PM, spike wrote: > My challenge to you ExI-chatsters: define in your own words a Matrioshka > Brain. Do not quote Robert, but feel free to refer to his work. Extra > points for using fewer words, but describe as completely as you are able. > Matrioshka Brains are like onions.... Onions have layers. (I'd wager that those who can follow past this point are already familiar with the key concepts and require little more explanation, and the rest won't understand it no matter how succinct or clever the description) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jul 14 04:46:25 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:46:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <62c14240807131946l69f34875p89cbdb73d23ad17f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200807140446.m6E4kTKR017608@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ________________________________ [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty Subject: Re: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:15 PM, spike wrote: My challenge to you ExI-chatsters: define in your own words a Matrioshka Brain... Matrioshka Brains are like onions.... Onions have layers. (I'd wager that those who can follow past this point are already familiar with the key concepts and require little more explanation, and the rest won't understand it no matter how succinct or clever the description) I disagree Mike. Imagine a smart transhumanist-oriented person who has heard the term but never knew what it meant, such as Melanie Swan. I would try thus: A Matrioshka Brain is an enormous parallel computer made up of a very large number of nodes that orbit individually around a star. Each node collects solar energy, performs calculations and communicates with adjacent nodes. The Matrioshka terminology suggests solid shells within shells, but rather the M-Brain consists of individual unconnected nodes, orbiting at different distances from the star in what are actually an enormous number of concentric rings of nodes rather than shells. Something like that. If offering this at a transhumanist party, I would try to recite the definition with an airy Sagan-esque accent for effect. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jul 14 05:06:07 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:06:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <200807140446.m6E4kTKR017608@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <62c14240807131946l69f34875p89cbdb73d23ad17f@mail.gmail.com> <200807140446.m6E4kTKR017608@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080713235828.023992c8@satx.rr.com> At 09:46 PM 7/13/2008 -0700, Spike wrote: >The Matrioshka terminology suggests solid shells within shells, but rather >the M-Brain consists of individual unconnected nodes, orbiting at different >distances from the star in what are actually an enormous number of >concentric rings of nodes rather than shells. But you've left out the notion of consecutive optimized swarms *sucking up what's being radiated outward, the left-over solar goodness emitted in degraded form from the next shell/swarm inward, and so on until beyond, say, Neptunian orbital radius they're down to shooing away dregs hardly above 3deg K. Like a three dimensional rainbow ball, sort of. Awwwwww. Damien Broderick From sentience at pobox.com Mon Jul 14 05:11:43 2008 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:11:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Again: psi or bad statistics? Message-ID: <402e01e70807132211k57c1d5a5n9ee08af5993ba057@mail.gmail.com> I don't trust this document http://www.as.utexas.edu/jefferys/slides/berger.pdf because its author says some silly things about Bayesian philosophy, notably, the idea that "objective Bayes" provides "objective" posterior probabilities in experiments. However, it says that a Dean Radin psi experiment which was "statistically significant" at p ~ .0003, subjected to a Bayesian re-analysis, ends up with the null hypothesis going to a posterior probability of 0.92 if it started with prior probability 0.5. I was wondering if Radin had a standard response to this. It seems like a generally useful example of Why To Never Use P-Values, *if* true. Damien? -- Eliezer Yudkowsky Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From spike66 at att.net Mon Jul 14 06:00:35 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:00:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080713235828.023992c8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200807140600.m6E60dDM004533@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Cc: Robert Bradbury > Subject: Re: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years > > At 09:46 PM 7/13/2008 -0700, Spike wrote: > > >The Matrioshka terminology suggests solid shells within shells... > > But you've left out the notion of consecutive optimized > swarms *sucking up what's being radiated outward, the > left-over solar goodness emitted in degraded form from the > next shell/swarm inward, and so on until beyond, say, > Neptunian orbital radius they're down to shooing away dregs > hardly above 3deg K... Damien Broderick Ja, but I disagree with that aspect of the design, so the omission was intentional. Perhaps I should not presume to use the name M-Brain, since Robert's concept is optimized to use nearly all the energy emitted by the star. I have a notion that the lower energy photons are not worth capturing, since it would require more photon collection surface for less energy collection, and thus would not be worth doing. So my concept is less optimized. It bites off only the lower entropy photons, and lets the higher entropy photons go free. Only the stars with lots of metals would attempt to capture all the photons above 3K, and there may be no such stars. In my version of an M-Brain the star would still emit a faint glow in the higher frequencies normally associated with stars, along with a more diffuse emission in the longer wavelengths. It would be recongizable as an artifact, altho it might not be obvious what it is to a pre-M-Brain lifeform observing from another star. spike From spike66 at att.net Mon Jul 14 06:02:24 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:02:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Again: psi or bad statistics? In-Reply-To: <402e01e70807132211k57c1d5a5n9ee08af5993ba057@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200807140602.m6E62SvX027123@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ...On Behalf Of Eliezer Yudkowsky > Subject: [ExI] Again: psi or bad statistics? > > I don't trust this document > http://www.as.utexas.edu/jefferys/slides/berger.pdf > because its author says some silly things about Bayesian > philosophy... Eliezer Yudkowsky Eliezer! We haven't seen you hanging out here in a long time. Welcome back bud. spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 14 08:12:10 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Again: psi or bad statistics? In-Reply-To: <402e01e70807132211k57c1d5a5n9ee08af5993ba057@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <770315.29595.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote: > I don't trust this document > http://www.as.utexas.edu/jefferys/slides/berger.pdf > because its author says some silly things about Bayesian philosophy, > notably, the idea that "objective Bayes" provides "objective" > posterior probabilities in experiments. I agree, Eli. I am not a hair-splitter so to me, it seems kind of pointless to distinguish between objective and subjective Bayes based on how one chooses ones priors. Informative priors are better if they are available. If you can't estimate anything informative, then as a last resort go with the flat prior. If you have enough data, you'll get the same posteriors no matter what your priors are. Objectively, what's going to happen is going to happen. Probability is simply a quantification of ones ignorance regarding that result. And ignorance is a subjective phenomenon. Yeah I know the objections: QM, MWI, radioactive decay, etc. But at the end of the day, and that is what *posteriors* are concerned with, one future and one future alone will have happened and if you record it and play it back, that same one future happens again and that is the objective reality. > However, it says that a Dean Radin psi experiment which was > "statistically significant" at p ~ .0003, subjected to a Bayesian > re-analysis, ends up with the null hypothesis going to a posterior > probability of 0.92 if it started with prior probability 0.5. Well that's just a silly choice of priors. If 50% of everybody was psychokinetic, nobody would doubt its existence to begin with. Or do they mean that as the prior distribution of red and green lights? > I was wondering if Radin had a standard response to this. It seems > like a generally useful example of Why To Never Use P-Values, *if* > true. It has to do with how the null hypothesis if defined, i.e. perfect randomness. So his P-value of .0003 is just the probability that the data were completely random. There are a lot of possible reasons why the data might not be completely random and psi is just one possible explanation. Not being able to account for those other possibilities is the real weakness of frequentist hypothesis testing relative to Bayes. For example let's say I think the phases of the moon are caused by a giant invisible mouse that eats and then regurgitates the green cheese of the moon. By standard frequentist testing I would get a vanishingly small probability for the null hypothesis that the moon's phases occur randomly. That small P-value however is not in any way evidence that my pet hypothesis is correct. With, Bayes on the other hand, you can simultaneously test the null hypothesis and as many other hypotheses as you so desire. So yeah P-values work, just not the way people try to use them. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "In ancient times they had no statistics so that they had to fall back on lies."- Stephen Leacock From scerir at libero.it Mon Jul 14 09:53:43 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:53:43 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Again: psi or bad statistics? References: <402e01e70807132211k57c1d5a5n9ee08af5993ba057@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000401c8e597$81246e90$a30b4797@archimede> I think Bill Jefferys http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/ wrote something about this stuff. Maybe you can find the specific papers on this page http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/Papers.html (papers on Bayesian statistics, PEAR, random generators, etc.). From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 12:40:57 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:40:57 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <001001c8e507$d134f660$0301a8c0@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> <200807121049.59062.mail@harveynewstrom.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080712234526.022ce538@satx.rr.com> <001001c8e507$d134f660$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: 2008/7/14 John K Clark : > I don't find that odd at all, there is little incentive to lower the tax > rate. My time, enthusiasm, contributions and lobbying efforts could be > better spent trying to get a candidate in office that will give me a subsidy > or protect me from competition. It will only help > me and a small group of people just like me so it won't cost all that much, > so the general tax rate won't go up all that much, so it will generate > little opposition. I mean it's just one program, we can afford that! And if > you help me get the bill passed that destroys my competition then I'll help > pass the bill that subsidizes you. > > And so it goes. Before you know it you've got ethanol subsidies. Even better than tax cuts with decreased spending is tax cuts with the same or increased spending, through the magic of budget deficits. It's just one program, it's not as if it's going to make the dollar crash or anything! -- Stathis Papaioannou From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jul 14 15:50:55 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:50:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Again: psi or bad statistics? In-Reply-To: <000401c8e597$81246e90$a30b4797@archimede> References: <402e01e70807132211k57c1d5a5n9ee08af5993ba057@mail.gmail.com> <000401c8e597$81246e90$a30b4797@archimede> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080714104740.0239f808@satx.rr.com> Dr. Radin comments in part: "Well, for one thing the cited reference includes Jahn, Schmidt and Radin (1987), but because I've never co-authored a publication with those fellows, I have no idea what experiment that refers to." From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jul 14 15:16:07 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:16:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry, a critical correction follows: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > ... I would > strive to convey that while the above certainly represents a prevalent > view of the subjective/objective distinction, it's not so much an > /aspect/ of probability but a /view/ of probability, unnecessarily /aspect/ of subjectivity but a /view/ of subjectivity, unnecessarily > complicated and therefore misleading with its implicit epicycles > assuming an ontological "you" being able to "change" that which is not > you. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jul 14 15:06:57 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:06:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective" Message-ID: A post by Eliezer today on Overcoming Bias goes to the heart of a topic that triggers strong reactions from some on this list. (Lee, Gordon, are you listening?) But it also makes a deep philosophical point as well, which I never saw Jaynes spell out explicitly, but I think he would have approved: there is no such thing as a probability that isn't in any mind. Any mind that takes in evidence and outputs probability estimates of the next event, remember, can be viewed as a prior - so there is no probability without priors/minds." A personal aside: The last several months, I have repeatedly enjoyed a strange sense of being "virtually productive", in the sense that issues of significant importance to me personally are getting done -- by others. In particular, Eliezer, in his Overcoming Bias blog posts, hits most of what I consider to be key, if not archetypal, points of conceptual confusion common to thinking about evolution of intentional systems, putting in hours of effort nearly every day. Hours that I couldn't afford. And as he clears a widening swath of /how/ to reason effectively about such matters, he is gradually exposing the central question of coherently accounting for the intentional /who/ at the apparent singularity of self. I trust with increasing certainty that Eli is moving ever closer to his "enlightenment." I'll highlight here a segment which highlights [for me] a remaining ongoing incoherency: I am not saying that this is everything people mean by "subjective" and "objective", just pointing to one aspect of the concept. One might summarize this aspect thus: "If you can change something by thinking differently, it's subjective; if you can't change it by anything you do strictly inside your head, it's objective." If I had the time to write a proper (series of) essay(s), I would strive to convey that while the above certainly represents a prevalent view of the subjective/objective distinction, it's not so much an /aspect/ of probability but a /view/ of probability, unnecessarily complicated and therefore misleading with its implicit epicycles assuming an ontological "you" being able to "change" that which is not you. Enough said for now. Back to the topic of being "virtually productive", I'll close by also expressing my appreciation for Iain Banks and his stories on the Culture, which are nearly the kind of fiction I would hope to write (given much more talent and time) to convey a less rigorous but more seductive view of possibilities for more evolved morality and social choice. Onward! - Jef From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 18:14:29 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:14:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200807141314.29931.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 14 July 2008, Jef Allbright wrote: > ? ? But it also makes a deep philosophical point as well, > ? ? which I never saw Jaynes spell out explicitly, but I think > ? ? he would have approved: there is no such thing as a > ? ? probability that isn't in any mind. ?Any mind that takes > ? ? in evidence and outputs probability estimates of the next > ? ? event, remember, can be viewed as a prior - so there is > ? ? no probability without priors/minds." > > > > A personal aside: > > The last several months, I have repeatedly enjoyed a strange sense of > being "virtually productive", in the sense that issues of significant > importance to me personally are getting done -- by others. > I'll highlight here a segment which highlights [for me] a remaining > ongoing incoherency: > > ? ? I am not saying that this is everything people mean by > ? ? "subjective" and "objective", just pointing to one aspect > ? ? of the concept. ?One might summarize this aspect > ? ? thus: ?"If you can change something by thinking > ? ? differently, it's subjective; if you can't change it by > ? ? anything you do strictly inside your head, it's objective." Jef, it doesn't seem like an incoherency. Here you are saying that you have been 'virtually productive' -- in that you haven't really been there doing stuff -- and yet you pair this with an 'incoherency' of changing something outside of your head but you have "done virtually nothing" with all of the puns and struggles of parsing that comes with my sentence. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap "Genius is the ability to escape the human condition; Humanity is the need to escape." -- Q. Uim From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jul 14 18:31:59 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:31:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective" In-Reply-To: <200807141314.29931.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <200807141314.29931.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Monday 14 July 2008, Jef Allbright wrote: > >> But it also makes a deep philosophical point as well, >> which I never saw Jaynes spell out explicitly, but I think >> he would have approved: there is no such thing as a >> probability that isn't in any mind. Any mind that takes >> in evidence and outputs probability estimates of the next >> event, remember, can be viewed as a prior - so there is >> no probability without priors/minds." >> >> >> >> A personal aside: >> >> The last several months, I have repeatedly enjoyed a strange sense of >> being "virtually productive", in the sense that issues of significant >> importance to me personally are getting done -- by others. > >> I'll highlight here a segment which highlights [for me] a remaining >> ongoing incoherency: >> >> I am not saying that this is everything people mean by >> "subjective" and "objective", just pointing to one aspect >> of the concept. One might summarize this aspect >> thus: "If you can change something by thinking >> differently, it's subjective; if you can't change it by >> anything you do strictly inside your head, it's objective." > > Jef, it doesn't seem like an incoherency. Here you are saying that you > have been 'virtually productive' -- in that you haven't really been > there doing stuff -- and yet you pair this with an 'incoherency' of > changing something outside of your head but you have "done virtually > nothing" with all of the puns and struggles of parsing that comes with > my sentence. Huh? Bryan, (1) It appears that you have mixed my own comments with the twp segments I quoted from Eliezer's blog post. (2) "puns and struggles of parsing that comes with my sentence" ? Is that intended to be a self-referential joke? If so, consider yourself reprieved. - Jef From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 18:53:14 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:53:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective" In-Reply-To: References: <200807141314.29931.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200807141353.14152.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 14 July 2008, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > I'll highlight here a segment which highlights [for me] a > > > remaining ongoing incoherency: > > > > > > ? ? I am not saying that this is everything people mean by > > > ? ? "subjective" and "objective", just pointing to one aspect > > > ? ? of the concept. ?One might summarize this aspect > > > ? ? thus: ?"If you can change something by thinking > > > ? ? differently, it's subjective; if you can't change it by > > > ? ? anything you do strictly inside your head, it's objective." > > > > Jef, it doesn't seem like an incoherency. Here you are saying that > > you have been 'virtually productive' -- in that you haven't really > > been there doing stuff -- and yet you pair this with an > > 'incoherency' of changing something outside of your head but you > > have "done virtually nothing" with all of the puns and struggles of > > parsing that comes with my sentence. > (1) ?It appears that you have mixed my own comments with the twp > segments I quoted from Eliezer's blog post. No, you clearly separated who said what. But you also said "central incoherency (for me)" so I was taking that to mean that there was no coherent resolution ("(for me)")/(for Jef). > (2) ?"puns and struggles of parsing that comes with my sentence" ? > ?Is that intended to be a self-referential joke? ?If so, consider > yourself reprieved. No, I was admitting to how terrible the sentence I wrote was. I was attempting to point out that you were being 'virtually productive' but within a supposedly incoherent perspective that didn't allow this 'virtually productive'. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap "Genius is the ability to escape the human condition; Humanity is the need to escape." -- Q. Uim From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Jul 14 19:27:43 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:27:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective". References: Message-ID: <021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> "Jef Allbright" > If you can change something by thinking differently, it's > subjective; if you can't change it by anything you do > strictly inside your head, it's objective Yes, but is determining if something is happening inside or outside your head a strictly objective or subjective process? You say that mind creates probability, and I think you could very well be right; or it could very well be that probability creates mind. I suspect Darwin would have been more comfortable with the second possibility, but nobody really knows. All I know is that if Copenhagen is right then a event is frequent because it is probable and if Many Worlds is right then a event is probable because it is frequent. John K Clark From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 20:34:37 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:34:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective". In-Reply-To: <021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> References: <021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200807141534.37812.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 14 July 2008, John K Clark wrote: > knows. All I know is that if Copenhagen is right then a event > is frequent because it is probable and if Many Worlds is right > then a event is probable because it is frequent. Pairing Copenhagen and MWI as the only two options is false. Recall: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2008-January/039920.html - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap "Genius is the ability to escape the human condition; Humanity is the need to escape." -- Q. Uim From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jul 14 21:03:00 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:03:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective". In-Reply-To: <021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> References: <021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:27 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Jef Allbright" > >> If you can change something by thinking differently, it's >> subjective; if you can't change it by anything you do strictly inside your >> head, it's objective Actually, Eliezer wrote that. I quoted it as usefully highlighting the direction of an opportunity for improved coherence. Did you read my subsequent comments? > Yes, but is determining if something is happening inside or outside your > head a strictly objective or subjective process? The point is that it's subjective turtles **all** the way down with regard to any observation, experience, description, theory, probabilities -- any statement about reality. > You say that mind creates probability, Actually, I wouldn't agree with that. But I do say that any meaningful statement of probability necessarily necessarily entails a subjective mind. [Did you read Eliezer's post to which my email referred] > and I think you could > very well be right; or it could very well be that probability creates mind. Hey! You mixed your ontology with my epistemology! > I suspect Darwin would have been more comfortable with the second > possibility, but nobody really knows. All I know is that if Copenhagen is > right then a event > is frequent because it is probable and if Many Worlds is right > then a event is probable because it is frequent. And maybe if you look underneath the teeniest turtle of all, there you (a subjective agent) might see and know ontologically pure probability? - Jef From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Mon Jul 14 21:41:49 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:41:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <00345408DCAB412397381D53252BD158@ZANDRA2> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> <00345408DCAB412397381D53252BD158@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: > > Starting in 2007 in America only estates worth over $2,000,000 > in value pay > this estate tax. > > In 2009 the amount goes up to $3,500,000! So? Do you have a point? If I started saving $400 per month at 20 years old (with what is left AFTER I already paid my taxes!), by the time I am 65 that is worth over $2 million. That's well within the reach of nearly anyone who is disciplined. Why would you then want to punish this discipline by taking 45% of what's left of it when they die? It's absurd. Of course, the government wishes to encourage spending rather than saving which is why we're in the mess we're in now...... > > As it is today with proper estate planning only 2% of the > population have to > worry about estate taxes coming out of their heirs inheritance. Why does this matter? Just because someone is in a minority doesn't mean it's OK to steal from them. This is especially true when you consider their income has already been taxed once, twice, I mean three or more times. (Income, sales tax, corporate taxes, SSI, medicare, state, fuel, usage taxes and so on). > > With proper estate planning a millionaire can gift much of their > estate($12,000 per year) to their heirs prior to death and not > incur as much > estate taxes. > No. But the heir now has to pay income taxes on it even though it has aleady been taxed as income. Besides, why should one have to go through such BS to give away the money they saved to their family? > Qualified personal residence trusts can be set up to leave their > mansions to > their children without paying taxes. Again, why so much BS to give away something that has already been paid for with post-tax money? This entire racket is there to support the estate industry, ie attorneys and financial planners. > > And all that's without even getting creative! > > Someone really worried about seeing the government getting their > 45% could > even leave the money to their dogs and specify that the money > could be spent > by the dogs caregivers specified in the will, anyway that the > caregiversthinks would make the dogs happy. > > So if the dog wants a new 2 million dollar yacht the caregiver > can legally > buy it for them in good conscience. > (Insert my previous statement here) What concerns me here is that you say "about seeing the government getting THEIR 45%" as if that money belongs to the government. That person paid their taxes already. They saved. I don't care how they initially made the money because that was taxed as income. The point is that they chose NOT TO SPEND IT. Had they spent it they would not be stuck with these extra taxes. That's the only thing different they did to cause that 45% tax to kick in and that's just nuts. From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Tue Jul 15 00:16:34 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:16:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] wicked cool astronomy video + 150th birthday for evolution Message-ID: >Check out this my friends: > >http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/21/the-hubble-deep-field-the-most-important->image-ever-taken.aspx?source=nl > >Is this cool or what? And the trib to Sagan was just the thing. > >Happy 150th birthday, theory of evolution! > >http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/06/dayintech_0701?currentPage=all# > >spike Never willing to pass up a good conspiracy theory, check this out: I was watching this video and I noticed at 5:27 on the clock there was this mysteriously bare spot on the image. http://www.kevinfreels.com/images/image4a.jpg Curiously it was shaped just like a spacecraft. I'm thinking it could be a cloaked space shuttle 20 billion light years or so away. How it got there I have no idea. Nor do I know why it would be cloaked. But the image sure fits... http://www.kevinfreels.com/images/image4b.jpg Note the rocket engine exhaust..... (Disclaimer: For those who don't know me please don't waste your time trying to point out all the obvious flaws in this conjecture. It's all just in good fun and I do not actually believe this. Still................ :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aiguy at comcast.net Tue Jul 15 00:59:01 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:59:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com><00345408DCAB412397381D53252BD158@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <8D1D906F80D24411B52D7E7A01CAF70C@ZANDRA2> Kevin Freels said: >> What concerns me here is that you say "about seeing the government getting THEIR 45%" as if that money belongs to the government. That person paid their taxes already. They saved. I don't care how they initially made the money because that was taxed as income. The point is that they chose NOT TO SPEND IT. Had they spent it they would not be stuck with these extra taxes. That's the only thing different they did to cause that 45% tax to kick in and that's just nuts. >> My Response: The person who dies is not stuck with the taxes. They are dead. Their heirs are the ones who are taxed on their windfall. If they won $3.5 million in the lottery they would be taxed just the same. What does it matter that the money used to create that wealth was already taxed? Your employer is taxed on the profits he makes that pays your salary. You are taxed again, and the people you spend it with are taxed again. It is that chain of taxation that pays for our civilization. If you object to it there are other countries such as the United Arab Emirates which claims a true 0% tax rate, where you can choose to die in which do not have inheritance taxes. Of course they might not provide the same opportunities to create wealth or the standard of living which you enjoy in such a heavily taxed country. Also if I understand it correctly, if the inheritance is in the form of investments then they are inherited at face value thus avoiding the capital gains taxes which the government would have realized if the self-disciplined investor (miser) had spent most of that money and created good paying jobs and wealth for others who he lives in the same economy with. Or you could take the Extropian alternative choosing not to die and donating most of your money to antiaging research throughout your life in the hopes of surviving until the singularity and thus achieving a vastly extended life span. And if you do manage to find a way to leave all that money to your children and trophy wife, they will just end up with their own reality TV show like "Keeping up with the Kardashians" and marry an over the hill Olympic Star, star in internet porn with rap musicians, and teach the next generation of American girls the merits of pole dancing or maybe do like Lisa Marie Presley marry Michael Jackson and give most of it to Scientology. And let us not forget Anna Nicole who never really got to cash in on her beloved's inheritance thanks to the Texas judicial system and a jealous step son. From kevinfreels at insightbb.com Tue Jul 15 02:13:34 2008 From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:13:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <8D1D906F80D24411B52D7E7A01CAF70C@ZANDRA2> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> <00345408DCAB412397381D53252BD158@ZANDRA2> <8D1D906F80D24411B52D7E7A01CAF70C@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: > > My Response: > > The person who dies is not stuck with the taxes.? They are dead. Sorry. The family of the deceased. > > Their heirs are the ones who are taxed on their windfall.? > If they won $3.5 > million in the lottery they would be taxed just the same. You and are are simply not going to agree. To me, what I own, my kids also own. What I save is as much for my children as for myself. Just because you take the money after I die rather than before doesn't change the fact that you are taking money that I saved for my children on the justification that you are entitled to it. > > What does it matter that the money used to create that wealth > was already > taxed? > No response here will be satisfactory to you. To you it appears that no tax is enough as long as the person being taxed has more than you. > Your employer is taxed on the profits he makes that pays your > salary.? You > are taxed again, and the people you spend it with are taxed again. Correct. And I have problems with this as well. > > It is that chain of taxation that pays for our civilization. I disagree. That chain of taxation is a barrier. I'm not one who believes that we could do away with taxes, but at some point you have to draw the line and this is where I draw mine. > > If you object to it there are other countries such as the United Arab > Emirates which claims a true 0% tax rate, where you can choose > to die in > which do not have inheritance taxes. Of course they might not > provide the > same opportunities to create wealth or the standard of living > which you > enjoy in such a heavily taxed country. Do you honestly believe that my standard of living is based on the taxes I pay? Are you kidding? It's just money. It moves around. People create things of value. This is what creates wealth. Taxation just moves it around differently. There is no net benefit. > > Also if I understand it correctly, if the inheritance is in the > form of > investments then they are inherited at face value thus avoiding > the capital > gains taxes which the government would have realized if the self- > disciplinedinvestor (miser) had spent most of that money and > created good paying jobs > and wealth for others who he lives in the same economy with. > I am sorry you feel that somehow you are entitled to the wealth that others create. A person who saves is a "miser" and it's their responsibility to spend their money to keep the economy moving to create jobs? That's insane. Savings is not a bad thing and this feeling that everyone should spend what they have - and keep spending when they don't even have money is what has this economy messed up as it is. If what you say is true then we should promptly create a bunch of BS jobs with no value to prop up the failing auto industry. > Or you could take the Extropian alternative choosing not to die > and donating > most of your money to antiaging research throughout your life in > the hopes > of surviving until the singularity and thus achieving a vastly > extended life > span. > Which I plan to do. > And if you do manage to find a way to leave all that money to > your children > and trophy wife, they will just end up with their own reality TV > show like > "Keeping up with the Kardashians" and marry an over the hill > Olympic Star, > star in internet porn with rap musicians, and teach the next > generation of > American girls the merits of pole dancing or maybe do like Lisa Marie > Presley marry Michael Jackson and give most of it to > Scientology.? And let > us not forget Anna Nicole who never really got to cash in on her > beloved'sinheritance thanks to the Texas judicial system and a > jealous step son. > Where did this come from and what exactly do trophy wives have to do with savings and taxation? From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 15 03:13:08 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:13:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective". References: <021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <200807141534.37812.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <035701c8e629$1220b480$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Bryan, on January 9, evidently posted the following (although it never showed up in *my* inbox, and obody replied to Bryan's email either, if you sort by thread): > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2008-January/039920.html Anyway, Bryan there quotes some guy who says The particles might then separate to even cosmological distances, but as soon as the spin of one particle is observed, the other particle must have the opposite spin, which means that the wave function has collapsed across those cosmological distances and caused the other particle to assume a predictable spin. If this occurs instantaneously, it would violate the limitation of the velocity of light in Special Relativity. This has now been shown to actually occur on the basis of Bell's Theorem (from John Bell, 1928-1990), meaning that Quantum Mechanics does violate Special Relativity by allowing instantaneous interactions across even cosmological distances. Evidently the author is not at all worried about the way the concept of "instantaneously" clashes with special relativity. So far as I can see, you have to choose between the mysterious and weird "collapse" theory (which does affect things "instantaneously" as described) or many-worlds. MWI has *no* problem reconciling these things. (One copy of you ends up in a universe with a distant friend who reports the same result you got, and the other copy of you ends up in the same universe with a copy of your friend, and once again *they* agree upon the result. The basic mathematical operation of QM exhibits just these two universes, not four.) > John K Clark wrote: >> knows. All I know is that if Copenhagen is right then a event >> is frequent because it is probable and if Many Worlds is right >> then a event is probable because it is frequent. Not a bad way to put it. What it sacrifices in accuracy is more than made up for its brevity. Jaynes did manage to make a Bayesian out of me (albeit an "objective Bayesian" as its called), and we have only the result that probability is indeed subjective, which is the point of Eliezer's post (also being discussed in this thread). However, Quantum Theory is still for me the one and only Great Sticking Point to the whole thing. For in any version of QM that I know of, probability is quite objective. In MWI, there exists a definite fraction of universes in which one carefully defined result obtains, and that fraction is identical to the probability we calculate. Thus that fraction is as objective as, say, the proportion of human beings alive at this instant who have blood type O. Even in the Copenhagen interpretation, the probability is taken as objective as I understand it, though since the Copenhagen interpretation is not coherent (given its clash with special relativity), I can't really defend that claim. Jaynes does have quite a bit to say about QM, but I've never discovered exactly what he'd say about probability in QM, and whether the fraction of worlds in which a certain outcome obtains is somehow subjective. Lee From spike66 at att.net Tue Jul 15 03:21:50 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:21:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <8D1D906F80D24411B52D7E7A01CAF70C@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <200807150322.m6F3Lrbp025104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Subject: Re: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality > > Kevin Freels said: > > >> What concerns me here is that you say "about seeing the government > getting THEIR 45%" as if that money belongs to the > government. That person paid their taxes already. They saved... Ja and there is another twist. If the heirs are required to pay 45% of the assessed value of something like a farm, there is a good chance the entire farm isn't worth 55% of its assessed value. Even if it is worth its entire assessed value, there is very little chance there is enough profit in the farm itself to pay 45% of its assessed value. If the will specifies the farm may not be subdivided and sold in part, or local ordnances prevent subdividing a farm (as is the case in much of Oregon) then it becomes nearly impossible for an heir to earn enough money to pay the taxes, or even pay the interest on a loan taken out to pay the taxes. So under many circumstances it becomes nearly impossible to leave a family farm to one's heirs. Still we hear people wondering at the disappearance of the family farm. These farms are lost by families in a defacto seizure by the government at the end of life of every generation, by the inheritance tax structure. spike From aiguy at comcast.net Tue Jul 15 03:19:53 2008 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:19:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] FW: The Dogs of Immortality Message-ID: <7BF9A2D2F5974700A9FBF57C614A1CBB@ZANDRA2> Gary Miller was quoted by Kevin Freels as saying: > And if you do manage to find a way to leave all that money to your > children and trophy wife, they will just end up with their own reality > TV show like "Keeping up with the Kardashians" and marry an over the > hill Olympic Star, star in internet porn with rap musicians, and teach > the next generation of American girls the merits of pole dancing or > maybe do like Lisa Marie Presley marry Michael Jackson and give most > of it to Scientology.? And let us not forget Anna Nicole who never > really got to cash in on her beloved'sinheritance thanks to the Texas > judicial system and a jealous step son. > And Kevin Freels then asked: Where did this come from and what exactly do trophy wives have to do with savings and taxation? My Response: Sorry, but I couldn't resist making the observation that the 2% of families' who do inherit over the $3.5 million tax-free maximum often become train wrecks. And I realize that it is not necessarily always the money that causes the train to leave the track. Both rich and poor families can be train wrecks. But the media sure loves to be there when it happens to rich people. Jealousy perhaps, but it's also a moral lesson that money does not always buy happiness. Nor does an endless supply of it build character in children and widows. Sometimes it just causes pain, embarrassment and spectacle. Love your family while you are alive. If you insist on dumping an obscene amount of money on them when you die, make sure they are emotionally stable enough that it will not destroy them or tempt them to scandalize your legacy for generations to come. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jul 15 03:33:22 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:33:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective". In-Reply-To: <035701c8e629$1220b480$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <200807141534.37812.kanzure@gmail.com> <035701c8e629$1220b480$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080714222847.082d2d90@satx.rr.com> At 08:13 PM 7/14/2008 -0700, Lee wrote: >MWI has *no* problem reconciling these things. >(One copy of you ends up in a universe with a distant friend who reports >the same result you got, and the other copy of you ends up in the >same universe with a copy of your friend, and once again *they* >agree upon the result. And why this curious and convenient restriction? Well, see, because >The basic mathematical operation of QM exhibits just these two universes, >not four.) As a physicist pal once put it to me: "ALL the action in QM systems comes in the cross terms. From algebra you know (x + y)^2 = x^2 + y^2 + 2*x*y. The squared terms are called intensities and the cross terms are the amplitudes times each other. When you have a term for each atom in a bowling ball or brain, it turns out that the coefficient for each of the cross terms are random relative to each other due to environmental decoherence and they cancel out leaving the sum of intensities, which is, by definition, classical." Which is peachy, but still looks like numerology to me (in my ignorance). The "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" yet again--and thank you, Professor Wigner. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 15 04:32:49 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:32:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective". References: <021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><200807141534.37812.kanzure@gmail.com><035701c8e629$1220b480$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080714222847.082d2d90@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <0f2b01c8e634$5089dfc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien writes > At 08:13 PM 7/14/2008 -0700, Lee wrote: > >>MWI has *no* problem reconciling these things. >>(One copy of you ends up in a universe with a distant friend who reports >>the same result you got, and the other copy of you ends up in the >>same universe with a copy of your friend, and once again *they* >>agree upon the result. > > And why this curious and convenient restriction? Well, see, because > >> The basic mathematical operation of QM exhibits just these two universes, >> not four.) Without being any expert, I think that often there is more to it than just the math. Consider that EPR was first applied (well, as applied as any thought experiment is ever applied) to electron pairs. So instead of sending photons off in opposite directions and checking polarization, we send electrons, and check spin direction. Now by conservation of angular momentum (as I understand it), if one of the electrons were to be found spin-up, then the other would *have* to be found spin-down. But, predictably, it's the classic tale: at the moment you make a measurement here, there is a 50% chance you'll find it spin-up and a 50% chance you'll find it spin-down. Very far away, your fellow experimentalist must find it to be just the opposite to what you found. That all seems natural enough, until you wonder how the results of *your* measurement here flew to your friend and determined his outcome there (or, if you are in a relativistic frame of reference where the thing for him happened before the thing for you, how the results of *his* measurement there flew to you here and determined your outcome). But it's nonsense to suppose that anything at all flew. The only sensible idea is that at the very instant you put the question to your electron, your universe locally splits, just like a sheet of plastic pinched on either side can be pulled apart. Distantly, your friend also pulls apart the universes, and when his split meets your split somewhere in between, it can be argued that there are only two universes (not four) that result because in either of the two other (absent) universes, youse guys would find that the law of angular momentum had been violated. And we can't have that. Or, in more detail, according to that high apostle of QM, Sir Roger himself, http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2008-January/040032.html Lee > As a physicist pal once put it to me: > > "ALL the action in QM systems comes in the cross terms. From algebra > you know (x + y)^2 = x^2 + y^2 + 2*x*y. The squared terms are called > intensities and the cross terms are the amplitudes times each > other. When you have a term for each atom in a bowling ball or > brain, it turns out that the coefficient for each of the cross terms > are random relative to each other due to environmental decoherence > and they cancel out leaving the sum of intensities, which is, by > definition, classical." > > Which is peachy, but still looks like numerology to me (in my > ignorance). The "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" yet > again--and thank you, Professor Wigner. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 15 04:46:14 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:46:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com><00345408DCAB412397381D53252BD158@ZANDRA2> <8D1D906F80D24411B52D7E7A01CAF70C@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <0f2c01c8e635$b7bd97d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Gary writes > The person who dies is not stuck with the taxes. They are dead. Yes, but the incentive of the original wealth creator is lessened knowing that at his death, much of the wealth will be gone (so he might as well either not earn so much, or just waste it). > Their heirs are the ones who are taxed on their windfall. If they > won $3.5 million in the lottery they would be taxed just the same. And so that gives people less incentive to play the lottery. (Not such a bad thing, actually, since the lottery is itself merely a tax on stupidity, which seems very unfair to people who couldn't help being born that way.) > What does it matter that the money used to create that wealth was already > taxed? > > Your employer is taxed on the profits he makes that pays your salary. You > are taxed again, and the people you spend it with are taxed again. > > It is that chain of taxation that pays for our civilization. Arrgh! You're just trying to rile up some of us here! :-) What is of value in our civilization is *not* created by governments; at most, a case can be made that for any particular small group of citizens, either they're too dumb, or too conditioned, or too individualistic, or not individualistic enough, or too colonized by the central-control/central-planning meme to make complete self-rule a realistic go, and need government to safeguard property rights and rule of law. Indeed, some citizens of some countries are so backward that no form of representative democracy is possible. A case can even be made for the kleptocracies in that many exist to forcibly hold together an army to prevent a nation from being taken over by an even worse kleptocracy. > Or you could take the Extropian alternative choosing not to die and donating > most of your money to antiaging research throughout your life in the hopes > of surviving until the singularity and thus achieving a vastly extended life > span. In this thread, people still think that there is some kind of principle determining whether the government will take money for this, or instead, take money for that. Governments follow the Willie Sutton plan: they take the money where they find it. Lee From spike66 at att.net Tue Jul 15 05:22:38 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:22:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <200807140600.m6E60dDM004533@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200807150523.m6F5MkYR004130@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Subject: Re: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years > > > ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > > Cc: Robert Bradbury > > Subject: Re: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years > > > > At 09:46 PM 7/13/2008 -0700, Spike wrote: > > > > >The Matrioshka terminology suggests solid shells within shells... > > > > But you've left out the notion of consecutive optimized swarms > > *sucking up what's being radiated outward, the left-over solar > > goodness emitted in degraded form from the next shell/swarm inward, > > and so on until beyond, say, Neptunian orbital radius > they're down to > > shooing away dregs hardly above 3deg K... Damien Broderick > > Ja, but I disagree with that aspect of the design, so the > omission was intentional... > > In my version of an M-Brain the star would still emit a faint > glow in the higher frequencies normally associated with > stars, along with a more diffuse emission in the longer > wavelengths... spike To elaborate on that comment, I did some BOTECs earlier this evening and reminded myself of a conversation Robert B and I had a few years ago. Assume no magic physics and the third law of thermodynamics continues to hold, and envision a thin solid shell surrounding the sun with a radius of one AU. Regardless of what is going on inside that shell, particles orbiting, collecting photons, re-emitting photons, completely regardless of what they do, the first and third laws require that the 1AU shell would emit blackbody radiation at a temperature of about 340 degK. How did I get that? Assume the sun radiates energy at about 5000 degK and we know that the sun subtends and angle of about half a degree, so its radius is about a quarter of a degree and a radian is about 57 degrees, so the earth's orbit radius is about 57 over a quarter or about 200 solar radii and change. Since blackbody radiation is constants times T^4 and the radiating surface increases as the square of the radius, then the blackbody temperature of the shell decreases as the inverse square root of the shell's radius. I know I didn't state that very clearly, apologies, but I am in a hurry. If the shell radius is one AU, then that's about 200 solar radii, square root is about 14, so 5000/14 ~ 340 degK. If an M-Brain had a Neptunian orbital radius, then (if I recall correctly) Neptune's orbit is about 30 AU, then that's about 6000 solar radii for single digit precision BOTECs, square root is about 80, so a Neptune radius M-Brain that big would still radiate photons at about 5000/80 or about 65 degrees Kelvin, ***absolutely regardless of what the individual nodes are doing*** assuming the first and third laws apply in an M-brain universe. Amara and other astronomy fans, do you follow my reasoning on why a Neptune-orbit sized M-Brain would radiate photons at about 65 degK? spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jul 15 05:23:56 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:23:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective". In-Reply-To: <0f2b01c8e634$5089dfc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <200807141534.37812.kanzure@gmail.com> <035701c8e629$1220b480$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080714222847.082d2d90@satx.rr.com> <0f2b01c8e634$5089dfc0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080715001734.02569550@satx.rr.com> At 09:32 PM 7/14/2008 -0700, Lee wrote: >it can be argued that [in Many Worlds accounts] >there are only two universes (not four) that result because in >either of the two other (absent) universes, youse guys would >find that the law of angular momentum had been violated. And >we can't have that. Why can't we have that? We might not ever *observe* that, and this regularity becomes codified as a "law" but it's not (on the face of it) a *performative*, it has no *force*, it's just an observation that calls for a deeper causal explanation. I know it probably follows from symmetry constraints, but in a universe with speed of light restrictions this still leaves a gaping explanatory hole. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jul 15 05:43:36 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:43:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years In-Reply-To: <200807150523.m6F5MkYR004130@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200807140600.m6E60dDM004533@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200807150523.m6F5MkYR004130@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080715004057.02392450@satx.rr.com> At 10:22 PM 7/14/2008 -0700, Spike wrote: > > > and so on until beyond, say, Neptunian orbital radius they're down to > > > shooing away dregs hardly above 3deg K... Off the cuff recollection, you understand. >If an M-Brain had a Neptunian orbital radius, then (if I recall correctly) >Neptune's orbit is about 30 AU, then that's about 6000 solar radii for >single digit precision BOTECs, square root is about 80, so a Neptune radius >M-Brain that big would still radiate photons at about 5000/80 or about 65 >degrees Kelvin, Okay, but that's still 208deg K below freezing point... pretty chilly, I reckon. Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Jul 15 07:01:28 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:01:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective". References: <021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer> <200807141534.37812.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <002a01c8e648$aa097740$0301a8c0@MyComputer> "Bryan Bishop" > What is the most striking in Feynman's version of quantum > mechanics is his impatience with the wave-particle duality I'd call it wonder not impatience. And I remind you that it was Feynman who said "I think it's safe to say nobody understands Quantum Mechanics". So if pitiful little creatures like you or me don't understand the philosophical implications of the wave-particle duality then that's just tough shit; at least we're smart enough to figure out what that FACT means when we perform an experiment. > the results of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) Paradox, > discussed above. Distant particles, whose properties have > some indeterminate quantum > correlation, "know" > instantaneously what happens to the other particles Yes. > What it means is that the wave function is a physical connection No. The wave function has no physical counterpoint, it is not even a probability, it is the square root of a probability, so it can have imaginary as well as real terms, so two different wave functions can yield the same probability, and that's why things are so weird. >its collapse is instantaneous, violating Special Relativity. No. Special Relativity didn't say nothing could travel faster than light, it only said matter, energy, or information can't. Yes I can mess with a particle here and instantly change a particle on the other side of the universe, but whatever is going on between those 2 particles it's not made of matter or energy nor can you use it to send information. > This is the key to Feynman's views: he [Feynman] likes particles > and is not interested in waves. Feynman was interested in what nature was interested in. He was never very big on names, one of his favorite words was "stuff", I don't think he gave a damn if you called them particles or waves; call them whatever you like as long as you tell me what they do. Feynman never claimed to have solved any great philosophical dilemma, and there is little indication he had any interest in doing so. To hell with philosophy, what Feynman wanted to do was predict experimental results; and in that he was successful, spectacularly successful. John K Clark From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 15 07:07:34 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:07:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] upon pondering your next million years References: <200807150523.m6F5MkYR004130@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <0f4301c8e64a$274bb320$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Spike writes > Assume the sun radiates energy at about 5000 degK It's better to use 6000 according to http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm. > and we know that the sun subtends and angle of about half a degree, so its > radius is about a quarter of a degree and a radian is about 57 degrees, so > the earth's orbit radius is about 57 over a quarter or about 200 solar radii > and change. I take the Earth to be at 215 solar radii: 865,000/2 into 93,000,000. Where I remember that the sun is about 865,000 miles in diameter. > Since blackbody radiation is constants times T^4 and the > radiating surface increases as the square of the radius, then the blackbody > temperature of the shell decreases as the inverse square root of the shell's > radius. That's quite right. I'd put it like this: If T is the temperature of the sun, then T^4 is the power emitted by one square meter of the sun's surface. If now the radius of the sun is increased by a factor of r (or we erect an inside of a Dyson shell at distance r), then the same power passes through r^2 (square) meters. (I.e., the surface has gone up by r^2.) So a new temperature T^4 ---- = (T')^4 r^2 or T' = T/(sqrt(r)) A neat application of this is to take r = 215 solar diameters, or the distance from the sun to the moon. (The moon works very well on this because one side faces the sun so long it gets into thermal equilibrium.) Using 6000/(sqrt(215)), we get T = 409 degrees. But that's Kelvin, so subtracting 273, we get T = 136 Celcius. And from http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/moon/ "TEMPERATURE The temperature on the Moon ranges from daytime highs of about 130?C = 265?F to nighttime lows of about -110?C = -170?F." So this thermodynamic VVRBOTEC (Very Very Rough Back Of The Envelope Calculation) comes within 6 degrees of the actual value!!! > If an M-Brain had a Neptunian orbital radius, then (if I recall correctly) > Neptune's orbit is about 30 AU, then that's about 6000 solar radii for > single digit precision BOTECs, square root is about 80, so a Neptune radius > M-Brain that big would still radiate photons at about 5000/80 or about 65 > degrees Kelvin, > > ***absolutely regardless of what the individual nodes are doing*** > > assuming the first and third laws apply in an M-brain universe. > > Amara and other astronomy fans, do you follow my reasoning on why a > Neptune-orbit sized M-Brain would radiate photons at about 65 degK? I get using T = 6000/sqrt(r), with r for Neptune being 30*215, T = 6000/sqrt( 6450 ) = 6000/80 = 600/8 = 300/4 = 75 degrees K. I assume I'm just using a hotter sun than you were. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 15 07:20:38 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:20:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective". References: <021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><200807141534.37812.kanzure@gmail.com> <002a01c8e648$aa097740$0301a8c0@MyComputer> Message-ID: <0f4701c8e64b$4ccb0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> John Clark writes > "Bryan Bishop" > >> What is the most striking in Feynman's version of quantum >> mechanics is his impatience with the wave-particle duality > > I'd call it wonder not impatience. And I remind you that it was > Feynman who said "I think it's safe to say nobody understands > Quantum Mechanics". He's been rightly criticized for that. He's holding up too highly some weird notion of "understands". There are plenty of people who've been doing QM calculations all their lives and understand what they're doing. Some of those people are also comfortable with MWI. I would say that David Deutsch understands quantum mechanics. >> the results of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) Paradox, >> discussed above. Distant particles, whose properties have >> some indeterminate quantum > correlation, "know" >> instantaneously what happens to the other particles > > Yes. No. Was ist das "instantaneously"? That kind of idea is reference-frame dependent. All that's happening is that the outcome of a measurement *here* is correlated with the outcome of a measurement *there*. > > its collapse is instantaneous, violating Special Relativity. > > No. Special Relativity didn't say nothing could travel faster than light, it > only said matter, energy, or information can't. Yes I can mess with a > particle here and instantly Choke! Gasp! > change a particle on the other side of the universe, but whatever is > going on between those 2 particles it's not made of matter or energy > nor can you use it to send information. Nothing is "going on" between the two particles. Measurements just happen to end up correlated, for, among other reasons, to remain consistent with conservation laws, handedness, parity, and who knows what. Damien wrote > Lee wrote: > >>it can be argued that [in Many Worlds accounts] >>there are only two universes (not four) that result because in >>either of the two other (absent) universes, youse guys would >>find that the law of angular momentum had been violated. And >>we can't have that. > > Why can't we have that? Is nothing sacred? I ask you, is NOTHING sacred??? First you gave up the bosom of the Church, then went so far as to question God's existence. Fine. But keep your hands off our Holy Conservation of Angular Momentum. Man was not meant to question some things. The next thing I know, you'll be questioning Mr. Hindbutt's Uncertainty Principle itself! Things just *are* that way, dammit. Lee > We might not ever *observe* that, and this > regularity becomes codified as a "law" but it's not (on the face of > it) a *performative*, it has no *force*, it's just an observation > that calls for a deeper causal explanation. I know it probably > follows from symmetry constraints, but in a universe with speed of > light restrictions this still leaves a gaping explanatory hole. From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 09:29:09 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:29:09 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Dogs of Immortality In-Reply-To: <8D1D906F80D24411B52D7E7A01CAF70C@ZANDRA2> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080709131553.022be4d0@satx.rr.com> <00345408DCAB412397381D53252BD158@ZANDRA2> <8D1D906F80D24411B52D7E7A01CAF70C@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: 2008/7/15 Gary Miller : > Their heirs are the ones who are taxed on their windfall. If they won $3.5 > million in the lottery they would be taxed just the same. Not in Australia! If you inherit money or win at gambling you get to keep every cent. It's only money you earn that you pay tax on. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 09:40:55 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:40:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The Italian Transhumanists' Manifesto Message-ID: <580930c20807150240g289cf1e5tb049bd923145e72a@mail.gmail.com> At a time when important components of the transhumanist movement, including the WTA, are reconsidering their very identity and strategy, I think a few relevant contributions may be contained in the Italian Transhumanists' Manifesto, made public by the Associazione Italiana Transumanisti in the latter's Web site, at http://www.transumanisti.it a few months ago. Please note that I am solely responsible for this very quick translation, which is certainly in dire need of proof-reading, and above all of subediting by somebody who be English mother-tongue before its final publication. <