From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Dec  1 02:52:15 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:52:15 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Saving the data
In-Reply-To: <4B143284.20502@aleph.se>
References: <d1988d2d0911281009p19a19b5fk1b12e3a6d44bb211@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B11BF60.2020707@rawbw.com> <C6F326450DA347E490CDB4E033294C75@spike>
	<4B143284.20502@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <62c14240911301852n66d2b896o56740e00b61a9f65@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> This scheme would of course require funding, but also a very stable
> long-term organisation that can move to new media. Perhaps allowing forking
> would be one way (some cryptographic trickery here for the escrow) so that
> even amateurs might be able to run their own version with all data smaller
> than Y gigabytes. Sounds very much like something the Long Now Foundation
> might have been considering for their 10,000 year library.
>

It also sounds like something googleBot is already doing.  We joke about
chats being "off the record" probably being stored and simply 'marked' as
"off the record" until some to-be-determined statute of intellectual
property runs out.  Good news is that it will all be used for your digital
resurrection; bad news is everyone you've ever said an unkind word to or
about will also be digitally resurrected and have full access to your then
completely transparent life.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091130/22898462/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Dec  1 08:44:07 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:44:07 -0800
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <455742C254BB4756AA5B09F094C25B33@spike>
References: <d1988d2d0911281009p19a19b5fk1b12e3a6d44bb211@mail.gmail.com><4B11BF60.2020707@rawbw.com><C6F326450DA347E490CDB4E033294C75@spike>	<C00AFC66-C5A3-4529-9E3B-BCEC8EE7E14A@bellsouth.net>
	<455742C254BB4756AA5B09F094C25B33@spike>
Message-ID: <4B14D757.1060400@rawbw.com>

Spike wrote

> I conclude with a prediction that exactly nada
> will come out of the upcoming Copenhagen meetings,
 > not one thing.

Ah, Spike the eternal optimist. I conclude we'll
have no such luck!

Lee



From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Tue Dec  1 10:38:56 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:38:56 +0100
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <455742C254BB4756AA5B09F094C25B33@spike>
References: <d1988d2d0911281009p19a19b5fk1b12e3a6d44bb211@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B11BF60.2020707@rawbw.com> <C6F326450DA347E490CDB4E033294C75@spike>
	<C00AFC66-C5A3-4529-9E3B-BCEC8EE7E14A@bellsouth.net>
	<455742C254BB4756AA5B09F094C25B33@spike>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912010238i57ee776cq7738ba29485e2816@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:52 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>        ...On Behalf Of John Clark
>        Subject: Re: [ExI] climategate again
>
>
>        >Incredible, a century's worth of raw climate data destroyed!
>

>Ja, but I noticed something interesting.  The media debate seems to be all

> about recognizing the leaked info, but reinforcing that global warming is
> still real.  OK I buy that, I agree that the planet is warming.  But the
> critical part is this: we don't know by how much.
>


Folks, this is getting silly. Temperature series (including CRU, GISTEMP
etc.) are mostly based on public data fom the GHCN (Global Historical
Climate Network) and from the US Historical Climate Network. Link to ftp
files:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/

More data sources:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

That CRU decided to delete some of their files has little impact. They
didn't measure those temperatures, they asked various national
meteorological institutes for them, and obtained a copy. This data, should
the need arise, is still with those institutes. But if you look at what's
available on public ftp sites, it's just a drop in the sea.

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091201/be0c4bf3/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Dec  1 11:03:42 2009
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:03:42 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Saving the data
Message-ID: <20091201110342.b76a8e43@secure.ericade.net>

Mike Dougherty wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se 
> > <mailto:anders at aleph.se>> wrote:
> >
> >     This scheme would of course require funding, but also a very
> >     stable long-term organisation that can move to new media. Perhaps
> >     allowing forking would be one way (some cryptographic trickery
> >     here for the escrow) so that even amateurs might be able to run
> >     their own version with all data smaller than Y gigabytes. Sounds
> >     very much like something the Long Now Foundation might have been
> >     considering for their 10,000 year library.
> >
> >
> > It also sounds like something googleBot is already doing.  We joke 
> > about chats being "off the record" probably being stored and simply 
> > 'marked' as "off the record" until some to-be-determined statute of 
> > intellectual property runs out.  

While Google is acting as the emergency backup system for the Internet, 
it is not really backing up the scientific data I'm talking about. Sure, 
you can leave your binary dataset in an open directory, but good luck 
searching for it (try figuring out what the search string for finding 
the raw data in Millikan's droplet experiment or the raw Voyager signals 
should be, assuming they were online). Even if it happens to be backed 
up by the Wayback Machine there are issues about curatorship, data 
integrity and lack of metadata.

My point is that science (and civilization in general) lives not just on 
data, but also the metainformation that makes it understandable and the 
handling practices that allows us to trust it. Getting all scientific 
data to just have metadata is going to be tricky enough, but we should 
aim higher. Currently digital lab notebooks are being developed, but it 
will take a long while before they become really good. A friend working 
at the Karolinska Institute was told to cut and paste (paper) copies of 
all data into her lab notebook. She was running supercomputer 
simulations producing terabytes of data. She asked if it was OK to glue 
hard drives to it.


However, I think Mike is right about the privacy of data. As scientists we cannot assume our data is "ours". Sometimes this can lead to problems, like the Gillberg affair in Sweden where a court-ordered FoI request collided with the promise of privacy to parents and children in a medical trial. 

--
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University 


From anders at aleph.se  Tue Dec  1 11:11:14 2009
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:11:14 +0100
Subject: [ExI] META: proper authentication
Message-ID: <20091201111114.449f3387@secure.ericade.net>

I have been having a problem ever since I returned to the list: the host reva.xtremeunix.com seems to like to bounce my emails, saying "Relaying denied. Proper authentication required." 

The reason is likely that I use a wide variety of computers and mailboxes, connecting to Oxford mail servers to send my email. No doubt that looks suspicious to the reva server. But exactly what is needed to get it to accept my email?


("Dear Extropians. I recently got a TransLife X655 body. But when I try to forward motor control to one of my forks some datafield firewalls my exoself, saying that it lacks proper credentials.")


Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University 


From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Dec  1 12:01:28 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:01:28 +0000
Subject: [ExI] META: proper authentication
In-Reply-To: <20091201111114.449f3387@secure.ericade.net>
References: <20091201111114.449f3387@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0912010401w7db529abx1665b5c5bfccd772@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/1/09, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> I have been having a problem ever since I returned to the list: the host
> reva.xtremeunix.com seems to like to bounce my emails, saying
> "Relaying denied. Proper authentication required."
>
>  The reason is likely that I use a wide variety of computers and mailboxes,
> connecting to Oxford mail servers to send my email. No doubt that looks
> suspicious to the reva server. But exactly what is needed to get it to accept my
> email?
>
>

The problem isn't reva.xtrmeunix.com. - It's you.    :)

When you swap around networks, you have to change your outgoing
mailserver to use the mailserver for the network that you're on. This
is a common problem on laptops, for example. Connecting from office or
home means using a different mailserver.

How you do the change depends on what software you're using.
Your tech department might be able to set up an automated solution for
you, to save you tinkering with SMTP setup every time you move.

Cheers, BillK


From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Dec  1 12:52:50 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 07:52:50 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Saving the data
In-Reply-To: <20091201110342.b76a8e43@secure.ericade.net>
References: <20091201110342.b76a8e43@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <62c14240912010452w7b528ac9i69b450a81d44a9b4@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> My point is that science (and civilization in general) lives not just on
> data, but also the metainformation that makes it understandable and the
> handling practices that allows us to trust it. Getting all scientific
> data to just have metadata is going to be tricky enough, but we should
>
When viewed directly it does seem obvious that data (and knowledge that it
can be ordered to produce) should be preserved.  I wonder if the
civilization in general you mentioned above fails to preserve data because
our brains selectively discard so much detail of our daily life and by
similar habit has little interest in storing volumes of information beyond a
visceral capacity to manage.  A box of old photos is a cherished keepsake,
but the sum of the world's Flickr streams is meaningless to all but the most
theoretical application of "value".

Perhaps while you make a case for preservation of the store of universal
knowledge, you could also push for better tools for mere mortals to manage
the unwieldy beast.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091201/35941865/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Tue Dec  1 13:40:57 2009
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:40:57 -0500
Subject: [ExI] META: proper authentication
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0912010401w7db529abx1665b5c5bfccd772@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091201111114.449f3387@secure.ericade.net>
	<ee50357e0912010401w7db529abx1665b5c5bfccd772@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0912010540g76014688y8a5ebc926aaafdd7@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:01 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> When you swap around networks, you have to change your outgoing
> mailserver to use the mailserver for the network that you're on. This
> is a common problem on laptops, for example. Connecting from office or
> home means using a different mailserver.

Or you can use gmail or some other web mail service.

-Dave


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec  1 13:49:28 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:49:28 +0100
Subject: [ExI] META: proper authentication
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d0912010540g76014688y8a5ebc926aaafdd7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091201111114.449f3387@secure.ericade.net>
	<ee50357e0912010401w7db529abx1665b5c5bfccd772@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d0912010540g76014688y8a5ebc926aaafdd7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091201134928.GI17686@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 08:40:57AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:

> > When you swap around networks, you have to change your outgoing
> > mailserver to use the mailserver for the network that you're on. This
> > is a common problem on laptops, for example. Connecting from office or
> > home means using a different mailserver.
> 
> Or you can use gmail or some other web mail service.

Careful about lock-in. With Gmail, you can use your own
domain (if you can publish MX records) and use IMAP
to synchronize in multiple locations. If things go
awry, you can always revert your DNS change and move
over to a different provider, losing only very little
mail if any.

In practice you should invest into your own (V)server,
which you connect to via (Open)VPN, including ability
to route your entire traffic through it.

Your ISP is not your friend, and neither are free email
providers. Caveat emptor, free can be too expensive.

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


From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Dec  1 14:04:35 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:04:35 -0500
Subject: [ExI] META: proper authentication
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0912010401w7db529abx1665b5c5bfccd772@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091201111114.449f3387@secure.ericade.net>
	<ee50357e0912010401w7db529abx1665b5c5bfccd772@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240912010604x43efb08fr17a0f5b564bc68bb@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:01 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The problem isn't reva.xtrmeunix.com. - It's you.    :)
>
> When you swap around networks, you have to change your outgoing
> mailserver to use the mailserver for the network that you're on. This
> is a common problem on laptops, for example. Connecting from office or
> home means using a different mailserver.
>
> How you do the change depends on what software you're using.
> Your tech department might be able to set up an automated solution for
> you, to save you tinkering with SMTP setup every time you move.
>
The tech department may already have provision for dealing with this
situation.  SMTP is normally available on port 25 of the email server.  Many
ISP either block or proxy this port.  If your email administrator already
added support for SMTP on another port  (like 2525 or 8025, etc.) then your
various ISP should ignore this non-standard-port traffic and allow you to
send messages directly to your own mail server - where you will
authenticate.

There is also the possibility that reva.xtrmeunix.com doesn't accept mail
from your server because your email administrator is lax on providing proper
proof of its legitimacy and perhaps the admin at xtrmeunix.com is
particularly aggressive.  Sender policy framework (SPF) is a publically
available text record in DNS that identifies what IP addresses are allowed
to send mail for your domain.  Due to a long adoption phase, most email is
accepted when this information is unavailable - however it's been
commonly adopted for a while now, so maybe xtrmeunix.com is rejecting your
email because it thinks you are a spammer masquerading as yourself.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091201/6e590ca5/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Dec  1 14:16:32 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:16:32 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Hide The Decline - Climategate
In-Reply-To: <455742C254BB4756AA5B09F094C25B33@spike>
References: <d1988d2d0911281009p19a19b5fk1b12e3a6d44bb211@mail.gmail.com><4B11BF60.2020707@rawbw.com><C6F326450DA347E490CDB4E033294C75@spike>
	<C00AFC66-C5A3-4529-9E3B-BCEC8EE7E14A@bellsouth.net>
	<455742C254BB4756AA5B09F094C25B33@spike>
Message-ID: <84545755-90CD-44D3-AFBD-1687CF9D40BD@bellsouth.net>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091201/dd7a3001/attachment.html>

From max at maxmore.com  Tue Dec  1 16:34:39 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:34:39 -0600
Subject: [ExI] =?iso-8859-1?q?8_=91extinct=92_species_found_alive_and__kic?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?king?=
Message-ID: <200912011634.nB1GYmpm004997@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34152254/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Of course, as any sane, green person knows, millions upon millions of 
species are dying every day and humans will be gone by February 4th, 2010.

Max



From spike66 at att.net  Tue Dec  1 16:41:03 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:41:03 -0800
Subject: [ExI] META: proper authentication
In-Reply-To: <20091201111114.449f3387@secure.ericade.net>
References: <20091201111114.449f3387@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <064A82DD216948F583C8668E2C1849F6@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
> ...
>Dear Extropians...

Do you remember when in our misspent youth, perhaps in the 60s or 70s, we
read the real hard-core sf?  Often the author would start out on the first
paragraph with a comment that was at once interesting, obscure, mysterious,
compelling.  It set up an alternate universe which needed exploring.  We
would dig into the story to try to figure out what the heck that first
comment means.  Anders' post brought back a flood of pleasant memories from
those days:

> ..."Dear Extropians. I recently got a TransLife X655 body. But 
> when I try to forward motor control to one of my forks some 
> datafield firewalls my exoself, saying that it lacks proper 
> credentials."	Anders Sandberg

If we want to write a collective sf story as Lee has proposed, Anders'
comment could serve as the first line.  I propose a slight variation on
Lee's idea.  Make a collective sf story, but write everything not
futuristic, but rather nowistic.  Write stuff that describes the real thing.
Your SecondLife persona would be OK.  

The future is now.  We are there.

OK, I propose a second segment to Anders' story:

1. "Dear Extropians. I recently got a TransLife X655 body. But 
when I try to forward motor control to one of my forks some 
datafield firewalls my exoself, saying that it lacks proper 
credentials."	(Anders Sandberg)

2.  As Spike finished reading Anders' comment, he wondered how he might help
the young man.  Spike was always fond of Anders, such a fine young
gentleman, a highly intelligent and kindhearted person, a combination of
characteristics not often found in humans.  But Spike was a satellite
controls specialist rather than an internet protocol expert, and so was
inadequate for the task at hand.  Spike decided to propose solving Anders'
Translife body firewall problem by proposing a collaborative science
non-fiction story with the collective intelligence to which he belonged.  

It was unclear to him how to avoid having the collective non-fiction end up
as a massively branching mess.  He proposed that everyone in the collective
wanting to contribute to the effort merely look up the latest post under the
subject line "proper authentication" then append to that version.  (spike)






spike



From max at maxmore.com  Tue Dec  1 16:19:20 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:19:20 -0600
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
Message-ID: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Alfio:
>Folks, this is getting silly. Temperature series (including CRU, 
>GISTEMP etc.) are mostly based on public data fom the GHCN (Global 
>Historical Climate Network) and from the US Historical Climate 
>Network. Link to ftp files:

I've been wondering about that. I haven't resolved the issue to my 
satisfaction yet, but here's a different view from yours:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/30/pielke-senior-revkin-perpetuates-a-myth-about-surface-temperature-record/#more-13451
Excerpt:

>On the weblog 
><http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/more-on-the-climate-files-and-climate-trends/>Dot 
>Earth today, there is text from Michael Schlesinger, a climatologist 
>at the University of Illinois, that presents analyses of long term 
>surface  temperature trends from NASA, NCDC and Japan as if these 
>are from independent sets of data from the analysis of CRU.  Andy 
>Revkin is perpetuating this myth in this write-up by not presenting 
>the real fact that these analyses draw from the same  original raw 
>data.  While they may use only a subset of this raw data, the 
>overlap has been estimated as about 90-95%.
>
>The unresolved problems with this surface data (which, of course, 
>applies to all four locations) is reported in the peer reviewed paper

Also:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/further-comment-on-the-surface-temperature-data-used-in-the-cru-giss-and-ncdc-analyses/

On top of this, I've yet to adequately verify or refute claims that 
80% of the 0.6 C rise in global temps over the last century is 
actually due to highly dubious adjustments (a la CRU) to the raw 
data. For instance: not only ignoring the urban heat island effect, 
but adjusting it the opposite way from what makes sense. (That would 
be such a serious error that I have a hard time believing even the 
global catastrophists would do it.)

I'm feeling pretty lonely on this issue. Just about everyone on all 
sides of the issue seem to be very certain of what's going on. 
Despite considerable reading of clashing sources (or because of it), 
I remain highly unsure.

Max


-------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
Extropy Institute Founder
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com
------------------------------------- 



From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec  1 17:25:11 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:25:11 +0100
Subject: [ExI] 8 ?extinct? species found alive and  kicking
In-Reply-To: <200912011634.nB1GYmpm004997@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912011634.nB1GYmpm004997@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20091201172511.GQ17686@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 10:34:39AM -0600, Max More wrote:
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34152254/ns/technology_and_science-science/
> 
> Of course, as any sane, green person knows, millions upon millions of 
> species are dying every day and humans will be gone by February 4th, 2010.

Don't care about humans one bit, but please don't holocaust my bluefin tuna.
It's hard enough to get decent sashimi as is.

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


From spike66 at att.net  Tue Dec  1 17:09:59 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:09:59 -0800
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <B1C066912F114A7BBEE28677D2A0889C@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Max More
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:19 AM
> ...
> 
> I'm feeling pretty lonely on this issue. Just about everyone 
> on all sides of the issue seem to be very certain of what's going on. 
> Despite considerable reading of clashing sources (or because 
> of it), I remain highly unsure.
> 
> Max


You said it Max, you and I are two lonely guys together.  I think the planet
is probably warming, but we don't know how much, because the people
entrusted with this calculation have shown they were intentionally trying to
force it one direction, and corrupted the peer review process.  The
warming-peers were apparently empowered by partisan fundng and memetically
inbred.

Now we have a huge task ahead of us: try to resurrect the original raw data,
and gather it somehow, then utilize the main tool that the 1980s era
researchers did not have: the internet, where everyone can get at that data,
and collectively or individually try to extract signals from that enormous
bowl of thin data soup.

spike





From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Tue Dec  1 18:28:14 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:28:14 +0100
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912011028h6b93979cp4f2384723541440d@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:

> Alfio:
>
>  Folks, this is getting silly. Temperature series (including CRU, GISTEMP
>> etc.) are mostly based on public data fom the GHCN (Global Historical
>> Climate Network) and from the US Historical Climate Network. Link to ftp
>> files:
>>
>
> I've been wondering about that. I haven't resolved the issue to my
> satisfaction yet, but here's a different view from yours:
>
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/30/pielke-senior-revkin-perpetuates-a-myth-about-surface-temperature-record/#more-13451
> Excerpt:
>
>  On the weblog <
>> http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/more-on-the-climate-files-and-climate-trends/>Dot
>> Earth today, there is text from Michael Schlesinger, a climatologist at the
>> University of Illinois, that presents analyses of long term surface
>>  temperature trends from NASA, NCDC and Japan as if these are from
>> independent sets of data from the analysis of CRU.  Andy Revkin is
>> perpetuating this myth in this write-up by not presenting the real fact that
>> these analyses draw from the same  original raw data.  While they may use
>> only a subset of this raw data, the overlap has been estimated as about
>> 90-95%.
>>
>> The unresolved problems with this surface data (which, of course, applies
>> to all four locations) is reported in the peer reviewed paper
>>
>
> Also:
>
> http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/further-comment-on-the-surface-temperature-data-used-in-the-cru-giss-and-ncdc-analyses/
>
>
Those pages are discussing the supposed independence of anlyses like CRU and
GISTEMP. Well, it's obvious that they aren't totally independent, since they
are using mostly the same input files. What they actually show is that they
arrive to very similar conclusion after different methods of interpolation
and correction. This tells us that the methods are robust.

Also, it seems to me that those blogs want to have it both ways: on one
hand, there is no raw data available because CRU deleted it. On the other
hand, GISTEMP is not independent because it uses the same data (that you can
download from ftp)! So is the raw data available or not? They need to make
up their mind.



> On top of this, I've yet to adequately verify or refute claims that 80% of
> the 0.6 C rise in global temps over the last century is actually due to
> highly dubious adjustments (a la CRU) to the raw data. For instance: not
> only ignoring the urban heat island effect, but adjusting it the opposite
> way from what makes sense. (That would be such a serious error that I have a
> hard time believing even the global catastrophists would do it.)
>
> I'm feeling pretty lonely on this issue. Just about everyone on all sides
> of the issue seem to be very certain of what's going on. Despite
> considerable reading of clashing sources (or because of it), I remain highly
> unsure.
>

I am no professional of the field, just have a basic understanding of
physics. I base my position on several things:

1) temperature is not the only relevant data. We have widespread glacier
retreat, sea level rise, arctic sea ice loss. Recent data point to ice mass
loss in both Greenland and Antarctica. Agricoltural records in temperate
climates show a lengthening of the growing season and a contraction of the
winter phase. These trends are not local, but found all over the world. All
this is consistent with global warming (whatever the cause), and with little
else.

2) basic physics tells us that Earth's energy budget must balance. We can
easily measure the input (solar), and verify that it's approximately
constant. Since we are changing the properties of the output (greenhouse
gases will redirect part of the outgoing radiation downward), internal
temperature must rise to compensate. It's about as inevitable as putting a
coat on, and feeling warmer.

3) Attribution: there is now 30% more CO2 than before industrial times. We
know CO2 greenhouse gas properties. Any conjecture that rejects global
warming must show where the extra energy trapped by CO2 went. And it's no
easy task.

4) consideration of the opposite camp: leaving apart obvious cranks (like
one should also dismiss useless alarmism), I see no coherent opposition.
Some dispute the temperature record. Some others accept the records, but
dispute anthropogenic causes. Others negate CO2 role as a greenhouse gas, or
say that it's saturated, or reject feedbacks like water vapor, or point to
supposedly warmer periods in the middle ages, or say that 1998 invalidates
all warming trends. All those arguments can be shown false or highly
dubious, but people still use them and change subjects continously.
This lack of focus gives me the impression that skeptics (really unfortunate
word, that. Skepticism is a basic feature of science) are just trying to
find something, anything, to avoid confronting reality.

Reading blogs like wattsupwiththat actually reinforced my impressions: posts
like "it's snowing here so GW is false", obvious errors like comparing
different time series without realizing that they use different baseline
periods, talks of a "recent cool period"... When any criticism seems to be
valid, it's about some minor detail that would change nothing of the general
picture.

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091201/97dbee7d/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Dec  1 19:06:23 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:06:23 -0600
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <B1C066912F114A7BBEE28677D2A0889C@spike>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<B1C066912F114A7BBEE28677D2A0889C@spike>
Message-ID: <4B15692F.7090702@satx.rr.com>

Peter Watts on the topic (I found the link on Charlie Stross's blog):

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=886

Because As We All Know, The Green Party Runs the World.

... I like to reserve these pixels for cool stuff, cutting edges that 
may or may not pan out, findings of interest (and frequently, of 
contention). Anthropogenic Climate Change hasn?t qualified for years; 
the science is settled, the effect is real, and the only uncertainty 
among the folks who actually know their shit is whether we?re in for a 
bad ride or a downright catastrophic one. The ?debate?, such as it is, 
is political and entirely dishonest at its heart. Climate-change 
skeptics like to portray themselves as a feisty rebel alliance speaking 
truth to power, up against a colossal green propaganda machine calling 
all the shots? a little like the way Glen Beck and Bill O?Reilly like to 
portray US Christians as an endangered species. Anyone familiar with the 
Bush administration?s environmental censorship of NASA, the EPA, and its 
own military knows how ridiculous that is. I have better things to do 
than research every objection raised by (as Bruce Sterling calls them) 
shortsighted sociopathic morons who don?t want to lose any money. (I 
would recommend How to Talk to a Climate Change Skeptic, however, to 
anyone who does want to fit a couple of denialists in between the 
Jehovah?s Witnesses and Birthers lined up on their stoops. It addresses 
all the usual canards, from warming-stopped-in-1998 right out to 
global-warming-on-Pluto.)

I also generally avoid going on about stuff that?s already getting a lot 
of press elsewhere; if you saw it on slashdot, boingboing, or the NY 
Times I?ll be giving it a pass unless it?s really central to my current 
interests, simply because the blogosphere will already be writhing with 
opinions on the subject and mine has probably been better put by someone 
with better insight.

Now.  In what can hardly be a coincidence, just a few weeks before the 
Copenhagen summit the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East 
Anglia got hacked. The sixty-odd megabytes of confidential e-mails that 
ended up littering the whole damn internet either a) blew the lid off a 
global conspiracy to fake the global warming crisis, or b) lay there in 
a big sludgy pile of boring communications about birthdays, conference 
meet-ups, and whether or not Poindexter over at Cal State was going to 
be allowed into the tree fort this year. Judging by the criteria I 
described at the top of the post, I should just stick my fingers in my 
ears and hum loudly until the current shitstorm abates.

But I?m not going to. Not this time.

I haven?t read all 62MB. I?ve read hardly any of it, in fact. I?m 
familiar with the money shots: the ?Nature trick? used to ?hide the 
decline? (and sorry folks, anybody who?s ever run a residual analysis 
knows there?s nothing nefarious about the word ?trick? in this context. 
Besides, climatologists need hookers same as Republicans). I?ve read the 
e-mail-deletion thread, seen quotes that decry evil denialists and call 
for the censure of skeptic-friendly journal editors. The very conditions 
under which these e-mails were released makes it entirely plausible that 
some of them were forged; but at least some of the more controversial 
bits have been verified as legitimate by their authors. I don?t have 
much to say about any of that; maybe it?s all real, maybe it?s been 
spiked, none of it compromises the overwhelming weight of evidence in 
favor of anthropogenic climate change. Whatever.

No, what I want to address here is the attitude of the scientists, and 
how that relates to the way science actually works.

I keep running into recurring commentary on the snarkiness of the 
scientists behind these e-mails. They?re really entrenched, people seem 
surprised to note. Got a real siege mentality going on, speak unkindly 
of the skeptics, take all kinds of cheap shots unbecoming of the lab 
coat. These people can be downright assholes.

No shit, Sherlock. I was a scientist myself for the longest time, and 
the people I?d gladly drop into a vat of nitric acid start with the Pope 
and go all the way down to anyone who voted for Stephen Harper?s 
conservatives.

The apologists have stepped up, pointed out that these were private 
conversations and we shouldn?t expect them to carry the same veneer of 
civility that one would expect in a public presentation. ?Science 
doesn?t work because we?re all nice,? remarked one widely-quoted NASA 
climatologist. ?Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity 
still works.?

No. I don?t think he?s got it right. I don?t think most of these people do.

Science doesn?t work despite scientists being asses. Science works, to 
at least some extent, because scientists are asses. Bickering and 
backstabbing are essential elements of the process. Haven?t any of these 
guys ever heard of ?peer review??

There?s this myth in wide circulation: rational, emotionless Vulcans in 
white coats, plumbing the secrets of the universe, their Scientific 
Methods unsullied by bias or emotionalism. Most people know it?s a myth, 
of course; they subscribe to a more nuanced view in which scientists are 
as petty and vain and human as anyone (and as egotistical as any 
therapist or financier), people who use scientific methodology to tamp 
down their human imperfections and manage some approximation of objectivity.

But that?s a myth too. The fact is, we are all humans; and humans come 
with dogma as standard equipment. We can no more shake off our biases 
than Liz Cheney could pay a compliment to Barack Obama. The best we can 
do? the best science can do? is make sure that at least, we get to 
choose among competing biases.

That?s how science works. It?s not a hippie love-in; it?s rugby. Every 
time you put out a paper, the guy you pissed off at last year?s Houston 
conference is gonna be laying in wait. Every time you think you?ve made 
a breakthrough, that asshole supervisor who told you you needed more 
data will be standing ready to shoot it down. You want to know how the 
Human Genome Project finished so far ahead of schedule? Because it was 
the Human Genome projects, two competing teams locked in bitter rivalry, 
one led by J. Craig Venter, one by Francis Collins ? and from what I 
hear, those guys did not like each other at all.

This is how it works: you put your model out there in the coliseum, and 
a bunch of guys in white coats kick the shit out of it. If it?s still 
alive when the dust clears, your brainchild receives conditional 
acceptance. It does not get rejected. This time.

Yes, there are mafias. There are those spared the kicking because they 
have connections. There are established cliques who decide what appears 
in Science, who gets to give a spoken presentation and who gets kicked 
down to the poster sessions with the kiddies. I know a couple of people 
who will probably never get credit for the work they?ve done, for the 
insights they?ve produced. But the insights themselves prevail. Even if 
the establishment shoots the messenger, so long as the message is valid 
it will work its way into the heart of the enemy?s camp. First it will 
be ridiculed. Then it will be accepted as true, but irrelevant. Finally, 
it will be embraced as canon, and what?s more everyone will know that it 
was always so embraced, and it was Our Glorious Leader who had the idea. 
The credit may not go to those who deserve it; but the field will have 
moved forward.

Science is so powerful that it drags us kicking and screaming towards 
the truth despite our best efforts to avoid it. And it does that at 
least partly fueled by our pettiness and our rivalries. Science is 
alchemy: it turns shit into gold. Keep that in mind the next time some 
blogger decries the ill manners of a bunch of climate scientists under 
continual siege by forces with vastly deeper pockets and much louder 
megaphones.

As for me, I?ll follow the blogs with interest and see how this all 
shakes out. But even if someone, somewhere, proves that a handful of 
climatologists deliberately fudged their findings ? well, I?ll be there 
with everyone else calling to have the bastards run out of town, but it 
won?t matter much in terms of the overall weight of the data.  I went 
running through Toronto the other day on a 17?C November afternoon. 
Canada?s west coast is currently underwater. Sea level continues its 
3mm/yr creep up the coasts of the world, the western Siberian permafrost 
turns to slush. Swathes of California and Australia are pretty much 
permanent firestorm zones these days. The glaciers retreat, the Arctic 
ice cap shrinks, a myriad migratory species still show up at their 
northern destinations weeks before they?re supposed to. The pine beetle 
furthers its westward invasion, leaving dead forests in its wake? the 
winters, you see, are no longer cold enough to hit that lethal reset 
button that once kept their numbers in check.

I could go on, but you get my drift. And if the Climate-Change Hoax 
Machine is powerful enough to do all that, you know what?

They deserve to win.
This entry was written by Peter Watts , posted on Sunday November 22 
2009at 08:11 pm , filed under climate, scilitics .
[see link at top for comments]


From max at maxmore.com  Tue Dec  1 19:06:46 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:06:46 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate again]
Message-ID: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Alfio wrote:

>Also, it seems to me that those blogs want to have it both ways: on 
>one hand, there is no raw data available because CRU deleted it. On 
>the other hand, GISTEMP is not independent because it uses the same 
>data (that you can download from ftp)! So is the raw data available or not?

Perhaps they are using the same *adjusted* data. (Again, I'm not 
clear about this.)

>I am no professional of the field, just have a basic understanding 
>of physics. I base my position on several things:
>
>1) temperature is not the only relevant data. We have widespread 
>glacier retreat, sea level rise, arctic sea ice loss. Recent data 
>point to ice mass loss in both Greenland and Antarctica. 
>Agricoltural records in temperate climates show a lengthening of the 
>growing season and a contraction of the winter phase. These trends 
>are not local, but found all over the world. All this is consistent 
>with global warming (whatever the cause), and with little else.

This is one point on which I'm fairly sure, and sure that you are 
mistaken. One example: arctic ice depends not just on temperature but 
on the ambient moisture level -- which depends on factors other than 
temperature. Also, note that glacier retreat may only tell us that 
the coldest places are becoming a bit less cold, not that it's 
getting hotter in most places. My understanding is that all, or 
almost all, the observed warming is due to less extreme cold and not 
to higher temperatures in the warmer places. That might have some 
beneficial consequences in addition to the costs required to adapt.

Anyway, your first point supports only the point that some warming 
has occurred, which I'm not disputing. (Even so, why do we see even 
more reports of melting ice when there has been no significant 
warming for 12 years? That suggests that either the cause is other 
than warming, or that reports of ice melting etc. are highly 
selective... and selected. That certainly seems to be the case with 
regard to polar bears.)

>2) basic physics tells us that Earth's energy budget must balance. 
>We can easily measure the input (solar), and verify that it's 
>approximately constant.

Have you heard of the Early Faint Sun Paradox? Around 2.5 billion 
years ago, the Sun was 20% to 30% less bright than now. And yet the 
oceans were not frozen. This contradicts your assumption of extreme 
climate sensitivity.

On this, see Lindzen's nicely written piece:
The Climate Science Isn't Settled
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

BTW, Prof Richard Lindzen is the Chairman of the Alfred P. Sloan 
Meteorology, Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences Department at 
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He's a highly credible 
expert who is not a "denier" of warming, only of extreme 
catastrophism -- which must be why people like Mike Treder (MDT) hate 
him so much. (MDT = Most Dishonest Transhumanist.)

>Since we are changing the properties of the output (greenhouse gases 
>will redirect part of the outgoing radiation downward), internal 
>temperature must rise to compensate. It's about as inevitable as 
>putting a coat on, and feeling warmer.

Not at all. See the Lindzen piece.

>4) consideration of the opposite camp

See, this is exactly the kind of thing that bothers me. "The opposite 
camp". Opposite to what? There are multiple views, not two. Lindzen, 
for instance, does not deny that the planet has warmed modestly over 
the last 100 to 150 years, but he does have considerable doubts about 
the reliability of models and he disputes the extremity of the 
suggested responses. (He's about the closest to my own current views 
as I've seen.)

>This lack of focus gives me the impression that skeptics (really 
>unfortunate word, that. Skepticism is a basic feature of science) 
>are just trying to find something, anything, to avoid confronting reality.

Exactly the same can be said of the anti-skeptic views, so that 
doesn't help in the least.

>Reading blogs like wattsupwiththat actually reinforced my 
>impressions: posts like "it's snowing here so GW is false", obvious 
>errors like comparing different time series without realizing that 
>they use different baseline periods, talks of a "recent cool 
>period"... When any criticism seems to be valid, it's about some 
>minor detail that would change nothing of the general picture.

I'm sure there are plenty of posts there dealing with details, 
because details matter. The same is true of a relatively good 
pro-consensus site such as Realclimate. But wattsupwiththat also 
addresses the wider issues. Perhaps you haven't read much of the 
site. I've read a lot of both of those sites.

Max







-------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
Extropy Institute Founder
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com
------------------------------------- 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Dec  1 19:10:14 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:10:14 -0600
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912011028h6b93979cp4f2384723541440d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011028h6b93979cp4f2384723541440d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B156A16.8040207@satx.rr.com>

On 12/1/2009 12:28 PM, Alfio Puglisi wrote:

> it seems to me that those blogs want to have it both ways: on one hand,
> there is no raw data available because CRU deleted it. On the other
> hand, GISTEMP is not independent because it uses the same data (that you
> can download from ftp)! So is the raw data available or not?

This struck me immediately as the cried of dismay rose on every side. 
Are we missing something here? Did everyone else used the reduced not 
the raw data?

Damien Broderick


From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  1 20:55:53 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:55:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Newton's birthday season request
Message-ID: <463245.70495.qm@web59903.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

May I submit a piece to be given the once-over by someone? If they wish, he or she can deconstruct it like a shark tearing apart a side of beef.





      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091201/41039477/attachment.html>

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Tue Dec  1 22:16:30 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 23:16:30 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
	again]
In-Reply-To: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>

After writing this email, I find it much longer than I expected. Maybe I got
a bit carried away :-)  If it is too long, feel free to skip over anything
boring.


On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:


>One example: arctic ice depends not just on temperature but on the ambient
moisture level -- which depends on factors other than temperature.

I must admit I don't remember ambient moisture level discussed for arctic
ice. But isn't this just one of the things I lamented further down? We know
Arctic temperatures are going up - no urban heat effect there. Models
predict arctic warming in excess of the global mean thanks to ice-albedo
feedback. Arctic ice goes down and what's the reaction? maybe temps are
going up and the albedo feedback is kicking in? No, there are other factors
like ambient moisture... then we have to think about something else to
explain the northward migration of ecosystems, and then...

>This is one point on which I'm fairly sure, and sure that you are mistaken

If the point was arctic ice, I would like to see more. If the point was the
sheer number of secondary global warming effects, apart from temperature,
that all point in the same general direction, I'm afraid it will take a
massive amount of evidence.

(btw, if you have references to papers on moisture influences on arctic ice,
I'm interested in them. I think they will just confirm the general picture
but, hey, you never know).


> My understanding is that all, or almost all, the observed warming is due to
> less extreme cold and not to higher temperatures in the warmer places.
>


You are correct. And that's exactly what climate models predict for
greenhouse-caused warming. Cold places warm up more than hot places. Night
temperatures go up more than day temperatures. If, for example, the warming
was caused by increased solar output, we would see the opposite.



>
> Anyway, your first point supports only the point that some warming has
> occurred, which I'm not disputing. (Even so, why do we see even more reports
> of melting ice when there has been no significant warming for 12 years? That
> suggests that either the cause is other than warming, or that reports of ice
> melting etc. are highly selective... and selected. That certainly seems to
> be the case with regard to polar bears.)
>

Glaciers are great integrators of climate. If temperature goes up, a glacier
will go out of equilibrium and start to melt, but the response will not be
instantaneus. Reaching a new equilibrium takes years. The current decade has
been the warmest on record, and ice melts in response. If the last few
decades had been colder than before, you would see glaciers growing even if
the cooling trend stabilized for some years.

About your suggestion that reports of ice mass balance are selected for the
most melting ones... that's a very serious accusation. Have you got any
proof of that kind of selection? Anything?

Go to the world glacier monitoring service: http://www.wgms.ch   See for
example:  http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/mbb10/sum07.html
And you can't select in Arctic sea ice loss, or Greenland mass balance.
There's only one of each.


>
>  2) basic physics tells us that Earth's energy budget must balance. We can
>> easily measure the input (solar), and verify that it's approximately
>> constant.
>>
>
> Have you heard of the Early Faint Sun Paradox? Around 2.5 billion years
> ago, the Sun was 20% to 30% less bright than now. And yet the oceans were
> not frozen. This contradicts your assumption of extreme climate sensitivity.
>

"approximately constant" will do for any period less than many millions of
years. The Sun output is still going up, and it's likely to turn the planet
into a desert in a billion of years or so (and a badly burnt piece of rock
at the end) but I'm not blaming it for the current global warming  :-)

I also heard about Snowball Earth about 600 million years ago, when all the
planet freezed over. We are talking about periods when the continents were
different, oceanic currents had a different pattern, the atmosphere was
completely different (at the time you cite, oxygen would have been scarce!)
and basically unknown: various greenhouse gases, from CO2 to carbonyl
sulfide, have been proposed to solve the faint sun paradox. The very fact
that different atmospheric composition are proposed means that we are not
sure of what kind of atmosphere was present those days.

In short, I think you can't derive any conclusion from that remote past to
today's situation. It was basically a different planet. To estimate climate
sensitivity, the ice age epoch is much better suited: close to our time, and
with ideal cold-hot-cold step responses to study :-)

 On this, see Lindzen's nicely written piece:

> The Climate Science Isn't Settled
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870393940457456742391702us5400.html<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html>
>
>
The piece you linked is a concentrate of spin, irrelevant points and
outright errors, or falsehoods. And very easy to spot even for me. I'll
quote some of them:

"the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing."

Well, duh. Who says otherwise?

"Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down"

Look at any plot of the temperature record (1880-present) and tell me if
"sometimes up, sometimes down" is an accurate description. And it's clear,
from the next sentence, that he's talking about long periods.

"and occasionally?such as for the last dozen years or so?it does little that
can be discerned.""

Misleading: isolate other dozen years periods in the record (the one that
even Lindzen himself says is warming). Many times, the trend is not that
clear. It's not just the last dozen, but many such dozens where "little can
be discerned", which tells you the last dozen hasn't been much different
than before.

"Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research
Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this
so as to maximize apparent changes."

False. CRU didn't "maximize" any temperature anomaly, and doesn't say so in
any email (their series data comes out nearly identical to GISS, using
publicly available data and code). Some CRU emails did talk equivocally
about tree proxy data, which are used in temperature reconstructions.
Lindzen is confusing the two.

"That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth's atmosphere are
water vapor and high clouds. Let's refer to these as major greenhouse
substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances."

Again misleading. Lindzen knows full well that water vapor is a feedback,
and that even if it is carrying most of the natural greenhouse effect on its
shoulders, it can't do anything to change Earth's temperature on its own.

"Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between
incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%"

2% is significant when your planet has an average temperature of 290K. And
he didn't include the feedbacks (but didn't he talk about water vapor a few
lines before? Why not now?)

"The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific Assessment two
years ago was that it was likely that most of the warming since 1957 (a
point of anomalous cold)"

the IPCC talks of "50 years trends", not of 1957. This is like selecting
1998 in other contexts.

"Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of
these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years
was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal
variability."

False. Many models show 10-year scale periods of stable and even cooling
temperatures right in the middle of a longer-term warming trend. Only when
you average a dozen of them a monotonous year-by-year warming appears.
Models do show short-term variability, and El-Nino-like behaviours. They
can't reproduce the exact El-Nino et al. pattern we have on this planet, and
so can't model temperatures on small timescales.

"They do so because in these models, the main greenhouse substances (water
vapor and clouds) act to amplify anything that CO2 does."

Ah, ok, so he talks about feedbacks eventually.

"The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is
intuitively implausible,"

Exaggerating. Whoever said that our climate is "dominated" by positive
feedbacks? If that was the case, the first ice age would have been the end
of life, and the first interglacial would have roasted the remains. Earth is
not Venus.

//////////////////////

Ok, enough. On a more constructive tone:


All the talks Lindzen does about feedbacks is invalidated by ice age cores.
Without feedbacks, you can't explain the ice-age / interglacial alternance.
We know that orbital forcings cause ice ages (the timing is just too
perfect), but we also know that they are too weak on their own. Rejecting
something with great explanatory power (feedbacks) with, well, nothing,
isn't going to fly for most scientists.



>  Since we are changing the properties of the output (greenhouse gases will
>> redirect part of the outgoing radiation downward), internal temperature must
>> rise to compensate. It's about as inevitable as putting a coat on, and
>> feeling warmer.
>>
>
> Not at all. See the Lindzen piece.
>

When I say "inevitable", I refer to conservation of energy. Radiation
emitted downward *will* do something. Bodies with radiation imbalances
*will* warm up. Anything me, you or Lindzen thinks is irrelevant.

You may have noticed the low opinion I have of Lindzen. This is because,
because of all the MIT titles you listed above, I really can't accuse him of
ignorance. This leaves less palatable options.



>  4) consideration of the opposite camp
>>
>
> See, this is exactly the kind of thing that bothers me. "The opposite
> camp". Opposite to what?


To most of the science. That's where they have set, by their choice. Almost
all of them don't publish, many actually actively refuse results of
peer-review articles, and have nothing substantial to contribute.



> There are multiple views, not two.


My feeling is that there is one well-developed theory, and then a group of
mutually inconsistent views with little to offer, except "this part is
wrong".



> Lindzen, for instance, does not deny that the planet has warmed modestly
> over the last 100 to 150 years, but he does have considerable doubts about
> the reliability of models and he disputes the extremity of the suggested
> responses. (He's about the closest to my own current views as I've seen.)
>


As for the first part, he can't deny the warming, really. No one would take
him seriously. I'll give him points for publishing, but sloppy articles like
the wsj above don't help.




>
>  This lack of focus gives me the impression that skeptics (really
>> unfortunate word, that. Skepticism is a basic feature of science) are just
>> trying to find something, anything, to avoid confronting reality.
>>
>
> Exactly the same can be said of the anti-skeptic views, so that doesn't
> help in the least.
>

It's not the same. (and what is an "anti-skeptic view"? :-)   Global warming
is a well-developed theory with multiple supporting lines of evidence:
different kind of observations, and physics-based models. I don't see how
one can take only one part (say, the observation of temperature warming) but
not the rest (the explanation of that warming, and it's likely future
consequences). Without an obvious falsification, one would need to produce
an alternative explanation, and the proposed ones (there have been some:
solar, cosmic rays, ice age rebound and surely some other I'm forgetting)
didn't survive investigation.



Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091201/95d3ba49/attachment.html>

From asyluman at gmail.com  Tue Dec  1 22:48:03 2009
From: asyluman at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:48:03 -0500
Subject: [ExI] more math and maybe some fermat
Message-ID: <a40a2a7b0912011448v74235291sde10d1320572a7ef@mail.gmail.com>

Probably already a thing (as it always is) but Wikipedia and Wolfram aren't
turning anything up so:

Today I was thinking about squares as the sum of odd numbers, and saw that
the reason was because to create the next square, you must add a row of n
spots and then a row of n-1, summing to 2n-1, as shown:

o o O
*o o O*
OOO

and I saw it was easily extendable to any dimension (e.g. for cubes we add a
face of x*( blocks, then one of x(x-1), and finally one of (x-1)(x-1); for
quartics, x(x)(x) + x(x)(x-1) + (x)(x-1)(x-1) + (x-1)(x-1)(x-1).

So I generalized it to the equation in the attached file.  Neat.

More interesting was this:

You can see with geometric simplicity that a^2+b^2 can equal c^2 for
9+16=25:

oeeeee
oooeee
oooooe
ooooooo

As we can see, the odd numbers mesh together to make a box of 4*6 +1:
(n-1)*(n+1) + 1 = n^2 -1 + 1 = n^2  (n=5).

What's so difficult is we can see a special reason for this occurring with
the squares, but it is much harder to show how it does NOT occur in the
higher powers.  I think this could lead to an elementary proof of Fermat's
Last Theorem.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091201/88a012fd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: POWERZ.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1684 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091201/88a012fd/attachment.gif>

From asyluman at gmail.com  Tue Dec  1 22:58:13 2009
From: asyluman at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:58:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] more math and maybe some fermat
In-Reply-To: <a40a2a7b0912011448v74235291sde10d1320572a7ef@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a40a2a7b0912011448v74235291sde10d1320572a7ef@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a40a2a7b0912011458t419990eakd0686c7b6875561e@mail.gmail.com>

attached: more elegant sum

I love math

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Will Steinberg <asyluman at gmail.com> wrote:

> Probably already a thing (as it always is) but Wikipedia and Wolfram aren't
> turning anything up so:
>
> Today I was thinking about squares as the sum of odd numbers, and saw that
> the reason was because to create the next square, you must add a row of n
> spots and then a row of n-1, summing to 2n-1, as shown:
>
> o o O
> *o o O*
> OOO
>
> and I saw it was easily extendable to any dimension (e.g. for cubes we add
> a face of x*( blocks, then one of x(x-1), and finally one of (x-1)(x-1); for
> quartics, x(x)(x) + x(x)(x-1) + (x)(x-1)(x-1) + (x-1)(x-1)(x-1).
>
> So I generalized it to the equation in the attached file.  Neat.
>
> More interesting was this:
>
> You can see with geometric simplicity that a^2+b^2 can equal c^2 for
> 9+16=25:
>
> oeeeee
> oooeee
> oooooe
> ooooooo
>
> As we can see, the odd numbers mesh together to make a box of 4*6 +1:
> (n-1)*(n+1) + 1 = n^2 -1 + 1 = n^2  (n=5).
>
> What's so difficult is we can see a special reason for this occurring with
> the squares, but it is much harder to show how it does NOT occur in the
> higher powers.  I think this could lead to an elementary proof of Fermat's
> Last Theorem.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091201/5e924f39/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: POWERZ.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1261 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091201/5e924f39/attachment.gif>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Tue Dec  1 23:25:21 2009
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 15:25:21 -0800
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 75, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <mailman.715.1259705812.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.715.1259705812.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <d1988d2d0912011525pbe98df3xdcd9b17a834bfde8@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:16 PM,  Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:

snip
>
> I'm feeling pretty lonely on this issue. Just about everyone on all
> sides of the issue seem to be very certain of what's going on.
> Despite considerable reading of clashing sources (or because of it),
> I remain highly unsure.

I am irritated by the whole thing.

What we have is people endlessly arguing about the ship rusting or not
and if this will sink it in 50 to 100 years in the future.  Meanwhile
there is a torpedo in the water headed for the ship.

Running out of cheap energy is a far more serious matter than climate
change and will happen sooner.  That has to be solved to avert famines
and resource wars.

There are no long term solutions to this problem that involves
endlessly putting carbon in the air so any solution to the problem
must involve displacing fossil fuel with some less expensive source of
energy.

Nuclear, SBSP, or some new method, however we solve the energy
problem, we also solve the climate problem to whatever extent it is
real and to whatever extent the problem is caused by humans.  If CO2
is a problem in 30-40 years, we can pull it out of the atmosphere to
any degree we want (300 TW years will take out 100 ppm).

I.e., it doesn't matter a bit if the data has been fudged or not.

Keith


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Dec  2 01:08:12 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:38:12 +1030
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 75, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d0912011525pbe98df3xdcd9b17a834bfde8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.715.1259705812.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d0912011525pbe98df3xdcd9b17a834bfde8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912011708t5634dd69p13b70f0b57437ccd@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/2 Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:16 PM, ?Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>>
>> I'm feeling pretty lonely on this issue. Just about everyone on all
>> sides of the issue seem to be very certain of what's going on.
>> Despite considerable reading of clashing sources (or because of it),
>> I remain highly unsure.
>
> I am irritated by the whole thing.
>
> What we have is people endlessly arguing about the ship rusting or not
> and if this will sink it in 50 to 100 years in the future. ?Meanwhile
> there is a torpedo in the water headed for the ship.
>
> Running out of cheap energy is a far more serious matter than climate
> change and will happen sooner. ?That has to be solved to avert famines
> and resource wars.
>
> There are no long term solutions to this problem that involves
> endlessly putting carbon in the air so any solution to the problem
> must involve displacing fossil fuel with some less expensive source of
> energy.
>
> Nuclear, SBSP, or some new method, however we solve the energy
> problem, we also solve the climate problem to whatever extent it is
> real and to whatever extent the problem is caused by humans. ?If CO2
> is a problem in 30-40 years, we can pull it out of the atmosphere to
> any degree we want (300 TW years will take out 100 ppm).
>
> I.e., it doesn't matter a bit if the data has been fudged or not.
>
> Keith

If this was facebook, I could press the "like" button. Consider it
pressed, anyway.

Also, from a positive angle, really interesting things happen if we
get cheap renewable energy, stuff that extropians would like, and we
wont get it from sticking with the current situation which appears to
be on the decline. There's a giant fusion reactor *right there in the
sky* out your window, and we don't really harness it.

Properly cheap renewable energy (ie: catching a tiny sliver of the
waste energy coming out of the sun) solves all water, food, and other
resource problems.

I think there are many more cool graphs that trend exponentially
upward in our future, once we get serious about cheap renewable
energy.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Dec  2 02:35:36 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:05:36 +1030
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
	again]
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912011835u18559882ga8d6631238f6e13@mail.gmail.com>

How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic
Coby Beck

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

"Below is a listing of all the articles to be found in the "How to
Talk to a Climate Sceptic" guide, presented as a handy one-stop shop
for all the material you should need to rebut the more common
anti-global warming science arguments constantly echoed accross the
internet.

In what I hope is an improvement on the original categorization, they
have been divided and subdivided along 4 seperate lines: Stages of
Denial, Scientific Topics, Types of Argument, Levels of
Sophistication. This should facilitate quick retrieval of specific
entries. Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and
may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading.

Please feel free to quote from, paraphrase, link to and otherwise use
any or all of them in the best way possible to fight the good fight
against mis- and dis- information where ever it appears! Email
suggestions for new topics or links to more current scientific
information to "a(dot)few(dot)things(dot)illconsidered(at)gmail(dot)com"
or leave them in the comments."

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Dec  2 03:24:46 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:24:46 -0800
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <4B15DDFE.8030807@rawbw.com>

Max says

> I'm feeling pretty lonely on this issue. Just about everyone on all 
> sides of the issue seem to be very certain of what's going on. Despite 
> considerable reading of clashing sources (or because of it), I remain 
> highly unsure.

Hmm, I'm not sure what's wrong with you either.

Or me and the others who just aren't any too sure.

Why can't we have nice healthy attitudes like

   "I was a scientist myself for the longest time, and the people
   I?d gladly drop into a vat of nitric acid start with the Pope
   and go all the way down to anyone who voted for Stephen Harper?s
   conservatives."            ---Peter Watts (credit: Damien)

I think that to have (or to get) a definitive opinion
on things like this, i.e. to stop being so wimpy,
one perhaps has to join in the singing of "Hide the
Decline" (credit John Clark), or engage in other
soul-fulfilling rituals that leave no doubt about
who're the good guys and who're the bad.

Me, I just don't feel like calling other people names
yet---not to mention dropping them in nitric acid. Yes,
learning to sing along would doubtless help me too!

Lee



From kanzure at gmail.com  Wed Dec  2 03:50:43 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:50:43 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [twister] Meta Conspiracy
In-Reply-To: <20091202031300.GJ5352@sifter.org>
References: <20091202031300.GJ5352@sifter.org>
Message-ID: <55ad6af70912011950k7b6e7cd9ie5b3b51591dfd10a@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brandyn <brandyn at mail.sifter.org>
Date: Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Subject: [twister] Meta Conspiracy
To: Twister <twister at mail.sifter.org>


? ? ? ?So, I have noticed that with high reliability certain people
take predictable sides on most issues, even new and seemingly unrelated
issues where the side is predictable by the nature of the argument as
opposed to any particular bias of fact or topic.

? ? ? ?For instance, certain people are prone to prefer what I might call
mystical interpretations even when the topic isn't mysticism (so it is
some bias of the way they think, not just a learned belief in mysticism),
some naturally latch on to conspiracy theories, some to mainstream science,
and so on. ?As I mentioned before, all tend to defend their faction by
digging a little further behind any disenting evidence until they find
the next bit which discredits it, and then they stop, satisfied that they
have swept aside what they knew was a bogus challenge before they even
bothered to put the effort in to prove it. ?None of this is remarkable --
pretty well defines human thinking most of the time. ?What's interesting
to me is to try to tease out the real underlying differences that establish
the sides in the first place, particularly where they are not by topic but
by manner...

? ? ? ?E.g., there is definitely a faction here who see themselves as
scientific,
rational, no-nonsense, obvious truth, keep it simple, don't be silly, and
everybody knows (or, at least, everybody with a Phd knows). ?And then there
is an often opposing faction who see themselves as scientific, rational,
consider everything, the truth isn't always what it appears to be on the
surface, and science makes progress one death at a time.

? ? ? ?If I could take a first stab at qualifying the difference between
the two, the first seems universally more optimistic about human nature,
in terms of objectivity, motive, and sometimes ability, and especially
in power of the group mean or concensus to win over individual defects
in these things. ?The latter sees man as a rationalizing animal, self-
deluding, sometimes malicious, regularly deceptive whether by unwitting
bias or conscious intent, and with group-think tending to exagerate rather
than mediate these defects.

? ? ? ?So, I wonder where these biases come from, and whether one or the
other tends to be more predictive of reality.

? ? ? ?I am pretty well in the latter camp, and I can trace it back to my
childhood of being an outsider, always "the new kid" and so had to do
a lot of cold-reading of the social scene, and got to see a lot of
variations thereof; close friends and family members variously involved
in three letter agencies, government weapons programs, the police force,
the maffia, various politicized scientific domains, and so on. ?Throughout
my adult life, I encounter regular reenforcement of these "biases" through
encounters with people involved in these things today, and so I always
expect that the "opposition" must be coming over to my side by the year
since surely they must hear the same stories...

? ? ? ?But of course that isn't true, and they are seeing the other side of
the same biased coin, thinking surely I am going to clue in eventually...

? ? ? ?And sometimes I get a glimpse of how this happens, and the story is
usually pretty close to this: ?One side thinks there are scorpions everywhere,
and one should always wear shoes. ?The other side says there are none, and
has never seen a scorpion their entire life. ?The difference, it turns out,
is simply that one, expecting to find scorpions, lifts up rocks, and often
finds them, and the other, certain there are none, never looks and never sees.
But that's a biased analogy--favorable to the second faction--so I am still
curious to distill it down to something more essential and central.

? ? ? ?Thoughts?

? ? ? ?-Brandyn

--
---------- brandyn at sifter.org ------- http://www.sifter.org/~brandyn ----------

? ? ? The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
? ? ? which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?-- John Stuart Mill


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
General options: http://sifter.org/al/
Unsubscribe from this thread, sub-thread, poster, or forum:
http://sifter.org/al/?msg=emsg.5607&_from=bm.574&group=group.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



-- 
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507


From spike66 at att.net  Wed Dec  2 04:33:14 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 20:33:14 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re:
	climategateagain]
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912011835u18559882ga8d6631238f6e13@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com><4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0912011835u18559882ga8d6631238f6e13@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <96C8847F12AE46B2B0FB09300FCBD7E5@spike>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:36 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: 
> Re: climategateagain]
> 
> How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic
> Coby Beck
> 
> http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a
> _sceptic.php
> 
> "Below is a listing of all the articles to be found in the 
> "How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic" guide...
> Emlyn


Thanks Emlyn.  The problem I have with this approach is that it is about
denial that climate change exists or doesn't.  But the real question in
light of the recent revelations about CRU is not philosophical, but rather:
how much is climate changing?  Is it really a tenth of a degree C per
decade?  Or a hundredth?

Regarding the notion of resurrecting the raw temperature data from all those
stations, it occurred to me that even if we manage to do it, that probably
will make the picture even murkier.  I had entertained the notion of getting
the orginal data and examining the computer code that CRU used to reduce
their data.  But a thought occurred to me that makes me now doubt this
approach.

Weather stations everywhere that were set up a long time ago would naturally
show an increase in temperature because of urbanization.  Cities are warmer
than rural areas, because there are heat sources everywhere.  Practically
every long-operational station would see that effect, so the science
community must figure out a way to compensate for that.  If we had just the
raw data and no compensation model, we would vastly overestimate the warming
of the planet.  So if the CRU guys were either intentionally or mistakenly
exaggerating the warming, it could be from undercompensating for
urbanization.

Without knowing how much the actual temperatures are changing, it doesn't
look to me like we are ready for *any* action on an international scale.

This problem will not be at all easy to untangle.

spike







From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Dec  2 05:10:35 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:40:35 +1030
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re:
	climategateagain]
In-Reply-To: <96C8847F12AE46B2B0FB09300FCBD7E5@spike>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0912011835u18559882ga8d6631238f6e13@mail.gmail.com>
	<96C8847F12AE46B2B0FB09300FCBD7E5@spike>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912012110r4ca328fclca7c5fecd50f4834@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/2 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>> How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic
>> Coby Beck
>>
>> http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a
>> _sceptic.php
>>
>> "Below is a listing of all the articles to be found in the
>> "How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic" guide...
>> Emlyn
>
> Weather stations everywhere that were set up a long time ago would naturally
> show an increase in temperature because of urbanization. ?Cities are warmer
> than rural areas, because there are heat sources everywhere. ?Practically
> every long-operational station would see that effect, so the science
> community must figure out a way to compensate for that. ?If we had just the
> raw data and no compensation model, we would vastly overestimate the warming
> of the planet. ?So if the CRU guys were either intentionally or mistakenly
> exaggerating the warming, it could be from undercompensating for
> urbanization.
>

>From the link I posted:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/warming-due-to-urban-heat-island.php

Objection:

The apparent rise of global average temperatures is actually an
illusion due to the urbanization of land around weather stations, the
Urban Heat Island effect.

Answer:

Urban Heat Island Effect has been examined quite thoroughly and simply
found to have a negligible effect on temperature trends. Real Climate
has a detailed discussion of this here. What's more, NASA GISS takes
explicit steps in their analysis to remove any such spurious signal by
normalizing urban station data trends to the surrounding rural
stations.  It is a real phenomenon, but it is one climate scientists
are well  aware of and have taken any required steps to remove its
influence from the raw data.

But heavy duty data analysis and statistical processing aside, a
little common sense and a couple of pertinent images should put this
idea to bed.  Here is an image, taken from Astronomy Picture of the
Day (a wonderful site, by the way), of the surface of the earth.  It
is a composite of hundreds of satellite images all taken at night.
(The large version is well worth the download time!)

http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/earthlights02_dmsp.jpg

Aside from being very beautiful, it is a perfect indicator of
urbanization on earth. As you can see, the greatest urbanization is
over the continental United States, Europe, India, Japan, Eastern
China and generally coastal South America.

This next image was taken from NASA GISS. It is a global surface
temperature anomaly map which shows warming (and infrequently,
cooling) by region.

http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/global-anomalies.gif

Look at North America, look at Europe, at Asia, Australia, Africa and
the Poles and compare them to the urbanization in the image from APOD.
There is quite simply no way to discern any correlation whatsoever
between urbanization and warming.  If the UHI effect were the cause of
warming in the globally averaged record, we would see it in this map.

The claim that Global Warming is an artefact of Urban Heat Island
Effect is simply an artefact of the Urban Myth Effect.

Addendum: Wikipedia has a very good article on this subject. Among all
the interesting details it mentions a few papers that directly discuss
efforts to identify and quantify UHI influences on the global
temperature trend including this one which would be a good one to
cite:

    A 2003 paper ("Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface
temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found"; J
climate; Peterson; 2003) indicates that the effects of the urban heat
island may have been overstated, finding that "Contrary to generally
accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization
could be found in annual temperatures." This was done by using
satellite-based night-light detection of urban areas, and more
thorough homogenisation of the time series (with corrections, for
example, for the tendency of surrounding rural stations to be slightly
higher, and thus cooler, than urban areas). As the paper says, if its
conclusion is accepted, then it is necessary to "unravel the mystery
of how a global temperature time series created partly from urban in
situ stations could show no contamination from urban warming." The
main conclusion is that micro- and local-scale impacts dominate the
meso-scale impact of the urban heat island: many sections of towns may
be warmer than rural sites, but meteorological observations are likely
to be made in park "cool islands."

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed Dec  2 08:17:49 2009
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 03:17:49 -0500
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912011028h6b93979cp4f2384723541440d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011028h6b93979cp4f2384723541440d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60912020017m14eb4fe0ub77817ae5fe2c0a6@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/1 Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>:

> Those pages are discussing the supposed independence of anlyses like CRU and
> GISTEMP. Well, it's obvious that they aren't totally independent, since they
> are using mostly the same input files. What they actually show is that they
> arrive to very similar conclusion after different methods of interpolation
> and correction. This tells us that the methods are robust.

### Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt and others insisted on many occasions
that CRU and GISS are independent, so it is not "obvious" that they
aren't, right? Obviously, Jones was indulging in propaganda, and got
corrected by the bloggers. It's good then that you obviously agree
with bloggers and obviously disagree with Jones.

The high correlation between GISS, NCDC and CRU does not show
robustness. It shows they apply exactly the same methodology to the
data or they adjust their results to fit. "Robust" means that
independent approaches come to the same conclusion, not three groups
doing exactly the same procedure. You don't get a 0.98 correlation
between the results of complex, non-trivial transformations of data
(and we know from reading of the CRU program comments that the "value
adding" is a hopelessly confused mess), unless the persons doing the
work share their programs or adjust results to agree with each other.

------------------------
>
> Also, it seems to me that those blogs want to have it both ways: on one
> hand, there is no raw data available because CRU deleted it. On the other
> hand, GISTEMP is not independent because it uses the same data (that you can
> download from ftp)! So is the raw data available or not? They need to make
> up their mind.
>
### Here is a direct quote from a response to a FOIA request to CRU
(April 27, 2007)

"Additionally, even if we were able to create such a list we would not
be able to link the sites with sources of data. The station database
has evolved over time and the Climate Research Unit was not able to
keep multiple versions of it as stations were added, amended and
deleted. This was a consequence of a lack of data storage in the 1980s
and early 1990s compared to what we have at our disposal currently. It
is also likely that quite a few stations consist of a mixture of
sources."

CRU deleted the list of stations they selected to come up with
HadCRUT3. At the same time they claim that the raw data from the
stations are available from GHCN, and from NMSs - but without the list
of stations you can't verify their methodology even if you could
retrieve all data from MNSs (which is itself problematic). So whatever
they did, it cannot be replicated. We only know that somehow the
output they got was almost perfectly correlated with GISS but we do
not know how this unusual effect was achieved. Certainly, it could not
have been achieved by independent processing of available data.
-------------------
> I am no professional of the field, just have a basic understanding of
> physics. I base my position on several things:
>
> 1) temperature is not the only relevant data. We have widespread glacier
> retreat, sea level rise, arctic sea ice loss.

### Glacier retreat started long before CO2 started going up. Arctic
ice loss : see here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-increases-at-record-rate/,
the sea level has been going up for 13 000 years until very recently
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sea_level_temp_140ky.gif), then
dropped, now increased 8 inches in a linear fashion since 1880. What
do you think does all this have to do with CO2?

-------------

 Recent data point to ice mass
> loss in both Greenland and Antarctica. Agricoltural records in temperate
> climates show a lengthening of the growing season and a contraction of the
> winter phase. These trends are not local, but found all over the world. All
> this is consistent with global warming (whatever the cause), and with little
> else.

### There is CO2 fertilization, no? And which global warming do you
mean - the one in 1934? 1880? 1998? The planet has been warming and
cooling all the time, out of step with CO2, which is the important
issue here.

------------------------
>
> 2) basic physics tells us that Earth's energy budget must balance. We can
> easily measure the input (solar), and verify that it's approximately
> constant. Since we are changing the properties of the output (greenhouse
> gases will redirect part of the outgoing radiation downward), internal
> temperature must rise to compensate. It's about as inevitable as putting a
> coat on, and feeling warmer.

### No, Alfio, the Earth is not "basic physics", and it does not have
to obey your notions. You need to read up on aerosols, water vapor,
cloud cover and a lot of other things before you can say what the
Earth "must" do.
-----------------

>
> 3) Attribution: there is now 30% more CO2 than before industrial times. We
> know CO2 greenhouse gas properties. Any conjecture that rejects global
> warming must show where the extra energy trapped by CO2 went. And it's no
> easy task.
>
### No, all we need to show is the poor correlation between recent CO2
rise and global temperatures, and this has been shown very clearly.

Rafal


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed Dec  2 09:21:45 2009
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 04:21:45 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
	again]
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60912020121m45222eeapaec7b31a2d8ab598@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/1 Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>:
>
> Look at any plot of the temperature record (1880-present) and tell me if
> "sometimes up, sometimes down" is an accurate description. And it's clear,
> from the next sentence, that he's talking about long periods.

### Look at the plot 1000 AD - present (but the real one, not from
Mann et. al) What do you see?

----------------

> False. CRU didn't "maximize" any temperature anomaly, and doesn't say so in
> any email (their series data comes out nearly identical to GISS, using
> publicly available data and code). Some CRU emails did talk equivocally
> about tree proxy data, which are used in temperature reconstructions.
> Lindzen is confusing the two.

### CRU brazenly manipulated proxy data for the pre-instrumental
period, and appear to have fudged their analysis of the instrumental
period as well.

--------------
. Lindzen knows full well that water vapor is a feedback,
> and that even if it is carrying most of the natural greenhouse effect on its
> shoulders, it can't do anything to change Earth's temperature on its own.

### Do you understand what you wrote? I certainly don't.

------------
>
> "Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between
> incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%"
>
> 2% is significant when your planet has an average temperature of 290K. And
> he didn't include the feedbacks (but didn't he talk about water vapor a few
> lines before? Why not now?)

### Because nobody knows the feedback but available data are
consistent with absence of positive feedback.

-----------------
>
> False. Many models show 10-year scale periods of stable and even cooling
> temperatures right in the middle of a longer-term warming trend. Only when
> you average a dozen of them a monotonous year-by-year warming appears.
> Models do show short-term variability, and El-Nino-like behaviours. They
> can't reproduce the exact El-Nino et al. pattern we have on this planet, and
> so can't model temperatures on small timescales.

### Trenberth seems to disagree with you. He thinks it's a "travesty"
that their models cannot account for the present period of cooling.

------------------
>
> Exaggerating. Whoever said that our climate is "dominated" by positive
> feedbacks?

### Without strong positive CO2-related feedback there is no
catastrophic climate change, so every climate hysteric out there is
either explicitly or implicitly talking about near future dominated by
such feedback.

-----------------

> All the talks Lindzen does about feedbacks is invalidated by ice age cores.
> Without feedbacks, you can't explain the ice-age / interglacial alternance.

### So why does CO2 start rising only about 800 000 years after the
end of an ice age? What is driving the feedback?
-----------------

> When I say "inevitable", I refer to conservation of energy. Radiation
> emitted downward *will* do something. Bodies with radiation imbalances
> *will* warm up. Anything me, you or Lindzen thinks is irrelevant.

### If what you think is irrelevant, why do you mention it?

---------------------------
>
> You may have noticed the low opinion I have of Lindzen. This is because,
> because of all the MIT titles you listed above, I really can't accuse him of
> ignorance. This leaves less palatable options.

### Sure. He's too credentialed to be dismissed as a "crank", or
"whackaloon" (as climate hysterics like to refer to climate realists),
so he must be a Satanist, or something.

As you mentioned above, this is you writing in "constructive" mode.
I'd hate to read you being snarky.

---------------------
>
> To most of the science. That's where they have set, by their choice. Almost
> all of them don't publish, many actually actively refuse results of
> peer-review articles, and have nothing substantial to contribute.
>
### Since when are government bureaucrats like Hansen, Jones, and Karl
"science"? Since when is peer-review defined as Mann at al, reviewing
Mann at al?

---------------------
>
> It's not the same. (and what is an "anti-skeptic view"? :-)?? Global warming
> is a well-developed theory with multiple supporting lines of evidence:
> different kind of observations, and physics-based models.

### Anthropogenic CO2 driven catastrophic warming is a lunatic fringe
theory supported by large government bureaucracies. All lines of
evidence supporting the hockey stick (bristlecone, sediment, treering)
have been discredited. The "physics-based models" don't even model
cloud cover, much less impacts on ocean circulation, aerosols,
methane, anthropogenic albedo changes, other albedo changes, all the
stuff you need to know to tell the difference between high positive
feedback to CO2 (the only important situation) and low or even
negative feedback.

But we do know that at no time in the past 600 million years did Earth
exceed a temperature anomaly of +8C, despite CO2 levels much higher
than today and this is enough to summarily reject the idea that CO2 is
likely to cause catastrophic warming.
-------------------

 I don't see how
> one can take only one part (say, the observation of temperature warming) but
> not the rest (the explanation of that warming, and it's likely future
> consequences).

### Because the explanations do not make any sense in light of
available data, and the future consequences are unknown, but extremely
unlikely (see above) to be dire.

------------------

 Without an obvious falsification, one would need to produce
> an alternative explanation, and the proposed ones (there have been some:
> solar, cosmic rays, ice age rebound and surely some other I'm forgetting)
> didn't survive investigation.

### Read up on cosmic rays and aerosols.

Rafal


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed Dec  2 09:31:04 2009
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 04:31:04 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re:
	climategateagain]
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912012110r4ca328fclca7c5fecd50f4834@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0912011835u18559882ga8d6631238f6e13@mail.gmail.com>
	<96C8847F12AE46B2B0FB09300FCBD7E5@spike>
	<710b78fc0912012110r4ca328fclca7c5fecd50f4834@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60912020131nbd59c9fre21917a3b49ac4ac@mail.gmail.com>

How to talk to a climate alarmist about UHI:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/26/correcting-the-surface-temperature-record-for-uhi/#more-11182


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Dec  2 10:00:39 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:00:39 +0100
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 75, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d0912011525pbe98df3xdcd9b17a834bfde8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.715.1259705812.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d0912011525pbe98df3xdcd9b17a834bfde8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091202100039.GR17686@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 03:25:21PM -0800, Keith Henson wrote:

> I am irritated by the whole thing.

Not just you. I'm entirely unsurprised, because this is how
people always address a crisis. See Jared Diamond's
"Collapse" for plenty of examples.

The only difference this time is that the crisis is global, not
local.
 
> What we have is people endlessly arguing about the ship rusting or not
> and if this will sink it in 50 to 100 years in the future.  Meanwhile
> there is a torpedo in the water headed for the ship.

Good metaphor. We need to initiate a immediate change of course,
at full machine power. Anything less won't bring us out of
harm's way.
 
> Running out of cheap energy is a far more serious matter than climate
> change and will happen sooner.  That has to be solved to avert famines
> and resource wars.

We're arguably in resource war regime already. It's just small scale 
mostly (with the exception of the US), but if it reaches China, India, 
Arabia, Africa, North America it's going to get arbitrarily ugly.
 
> There are no long term solutions to this problem that involves
> endlessly putting carbon in the air so any solution to the problem
> must involve displacing fossil fuel with some less expensive source of
> energy.

D'accord. 1000%.
 
> Nuclear, SBSP, or some new method, however we solve the energy
> problem, we also solve the climate problem to whatever extent it is
> real and to whatever extent the problem is caused by humans.  If CO2
> is a problem in 30-40 years, we can pull it out of the atmosphere to
> any degree we want (300 TW years will take out 100 ppm).
> 
> I.e., it doesn't matter a bit if the data has been fudged or not.

But it is so convenient to point fingers instead having to deal
with problems. You first deny that the problem exists, that somebody
invented it. Then, when you no longer can deny it exists you start
blaming somebody else causing it (it's never you, so much mutual
finger pointing ensues). Then when everybody realizes you're in
a zero-sum game everybody starts fighting about what's left, until
you terminate enough parties so there's enough. Except, in this
stage you use nuclear and biological weapons, so there are quite
few indeed left, and they're preoccupied with other things. Like
staying alive, for instance. 

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


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Dec  2 11:13:37 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:13:37 +0100
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <4B15DDFE.8030807@rawbw.com>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4B15DDFE.8030807@rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <20091202111337.GW17686@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 07:24:46PM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote:

> Why can't we have nice healthy attitudes like
> 
>   "I was a scientist myself for the longest time, and the people
>   I?d gladly drop into a vat of nitric acid start with the Pope
>   and go all the way down to anyone who voted for Stephen Harper?s
>   conservatives."            ---Peter Watts (credit: Damien)

What a horrible person. You have to use hot Caro's acid,
not nitric acid. And slowly lower them down, starting with the toes.
 
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Dec  2 11:15:33 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:15:33 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
	again]
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912011835u18559882ga8d6631238f6e13@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0912011835u18559882ga8d6631238f6e13@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091202111533.GX17686@leitl.org>

On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 01:05:36PM +1030, Emlyn wrote:

> How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic

Talking is not an effective way of dealing with a belief system.
Any belief system. It's just not worth the time.

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


From anders at aleph.se  Wed Dec  2 12:48:22 2009
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:48:22 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Spirited molecules
In-Reply-To: 20091202111337.GW17686@leitl.org
Message-ID: <20091202124822.8c68a152@secure.ericade.net>

Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> What a horrible person. You have to use hot Caro's acid,
> not nitric acid. And slowly lower them down, starting with the toes.
>

I wonder about the ignition/explosion hazard. It is not all substances that have a hazard sheet that proclaims them to be incompatible with acids, bases, metals and organic material.

It reminds me of one of the funnier chemistry blog subjects, "Things I Won't Work With"
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/
Some of them are pure poetry.

Life must have a peculiar vividness when your job is to come in and see if triazadienyl fluoride does anything when you expose it to fluorine monoxide.
- Derek Lowe

Cyanogen azide is trouble right from its empirical formula: CN4, not one hydrogen atom to its name. A molecular weight of 68 means that you?re dealing with a small, lively compound, but when the stuff is 82 per cent nitrogen, you can be sure that it?s yearning to be smaller and livelier still. That?s a common theme in explosives, this longing to return to the gaseous state, and nitrogen-nitrogen bonds are especially known for that spiritual tendency.
- Derek Lowe

[On chlorine trifluoride]
?It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that's the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals-steel, copper, aluminium, etc.-because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminium keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes.?
- John Clark, Ignition!

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute 
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University 


From painlord2k at libero.it  Wed Dec  2 14:47:21 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:47:21 +0100
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 75, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <20091202100039.GR17686@leitl.org>
References: <mailman.715.1259705812.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>	<d1988d2d0912011525pbe98df3xdcd9b17a834bfde8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20091202100039.GR17686@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <4B167DF9.4000305@libero.it>

Il 02/12/2009 11.00, Eugen Leitl ha scritto:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 03:25:21PM -0800, Keith Henson wrote:

> Not just you. I'm entirely unsurprised, because this is how
> people always address a crisis. See Jared Diamond's
> "Collapse" for plenty of examples.

> The only difference this time is that the crisis is global, not
> local.

It will be felt differently in different parts of the globe, as 
somewhere water is abundant and somewhere it is scarce and somewhere Sun 
is abundant and somewhere it is scarce.


>> What we have is people endlessly arguing about the ship rusting or not
>> and if this will sink it in 50 to 100 years in the future.  Meanwhile
>> there is a torpedo in the water headed for the ship.

> Good metaphor. We need to initiate a immediate change of course,
> at full machine power. Anything less won't bring us out of
> harm's way.

The metaphor broke when you advise for "full machine power".
There is no thinking that the ship could absorb the hit and repair the 
damage after. And there is no thinking that in the water there is more 
than a torpedo; there are rocks under the water and waves over it and if 
you change course in the wrong direction you sink the ship over them. 
Add that the ship could not be able to sustain the strain of a "full 
machine power change of course" without breaking.

But the difference that broke the torpedo metaphor is that a torpedo hit 
is an instantaneous thing, where ending of cheap energy is a long (as in 
years or decades) thing.
Enough time to react if we leave the market (the people) to react 
accordingly to their needs and wills.

>> Running out of cheap energy is a far more serious matter than climate
>> change and will happen sooner.  That has to be solved to avert famines
>> and resource wars.

> We're arguably in resource war regime already.

I don't see it.
What I see is a commodity bubble caused by cheap money and quantitative 
easing all around. Given the uncertain about the value of the $ (and 
partially of ?) people with money (that don't give interests) buy hard 
stuff that last and keep a value whatever the Central Bankers do.


> It's just small scale
> mostly (with the exception of the US), but if it reaches China, India,
> Arabia, Africa, North America it's going to get arbitrarily ugly.

There is no something like an "arbitrary ugly" thing.

>> There are no long term solutions to this problem that involves
>> endlessly putting carbon in the air so any solution to the problem
>> must involve displacing fossil fuel with some less expensive source of
>> energy.

> D'accord. 1000%.

90% only.
Current CTL technologies (Coal to Liquid) are competitive with a oil at 
50$. The problem for investors is:
1) The log term price of oil.
2) The Carbon Trading and Carbon Taxes schemes that would put them out 
of the market with increased costs

Coal is cheap and abundant enough to supplant oil for a century and more.

Anyway, I'm a supporter of any and all power/energy sources and 
technologies related that don't need subsides. Nuclear plant (very cheap 
if the legal framework don't cause them to need 20 years to be built 
instead of 5).


> But it is so convenient to point fingers instead having to deal
> with problems.

It what skeptics said about warmists behavior.
Finger pointing to CO2, but only to the man made one. And never to the 
agriculture CO2 (20%) but only to the car emitted CO2 (10%) or the 
industrial CO2.

> You first deny that the problem exists, that somebody
> invented it. Then, when you no longer can deny it exists you start
> blaming somebody else causing it (it's never you, so much mutual
> finger pointing ensues).

Is this Mann made psychology?
I think that many people have different aims than the stated ones 
(always the same for what I con understand) and move from a reason to 
another to obtain them.

> Then when everybody realizes you're in
> a zero-sum game everybody starts fighting about what's left, until
> you terminate enough parties so there's enough. Except, in this
> stage you use nuclear and biological weapons, so there are quite
> few indeed left, and they're preoccupied with other things. Like
> staying alive, for instance.

I'm a huge fan of Mad Max, but the plot and the background is as 
credible as the plot of an Alien or Zombie comics (where people behave 
like moron continuously - how they were allowed out of an asylum and 
managed to stay alive is matter for a fantasy plot).

Liberal, market oriented society don't go in war against each other, nor 
they go in war against other if not heavily provoked and menaced.
Mobilizing an Army is too costly to be done for long. It divert 
productive young people from more useful jobs and clearly is a bad 
investment.

I think humans are irrational creature too, but they all are not moronic 
irrational creatures. Often they use their rational brain to something 
useful, also.

The way you are reasoning about humans is not far from justifying 
manipulating them to obtain some "good" outcome. Where "good" is of your 
choice.

Mirco

-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.90/2540 -  Data di rilascio: 12/02/09 08:33:00

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  2 14:49:38 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 06:49:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1259755201.23734.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <354542.69938.qm@web32008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> argued:

> Talking is not an effective way of dealing with a belief system.
> Any belief system. It's just not worth the time.

Well, I used to believe otherwise, but you've convinced me you're right.

Oh, wait...

Ben Zaiboc


      


From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Dec  2 15:29:28 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:29:28 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled
In-Reply-To: <354542.69938.qm@web32008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1.1259755201.23734.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<354542.69938.qm@web32008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20091202152928.GB17686@leitl.org>

On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 06:49:38AM -0800, Ben Zaiboc wrote:

> Well, I used to believe otherwise, but you've convinced me you're right.
> 
> Oh, wait...

You are cute. Do you like unicorns?



From msd001 at gmail.com  Wed Dec  2 16:29:05 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:29:05 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled
In-Reply-To: <20091202152928.GB17686@leitl.org>
References: <mailman.1.1259755201.23734.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<354542.69938.qm@web32008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20091202152928.GB17686@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <62c14240912020829x3e94018cpe9b2e810c11cd5b0@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 06:49:38AM -0800, Ben Zaiboc wrote:
>
> > Well, I used to believe otherwise, but you've convinced me you're right.
> >
> > Oh, wait...
>
> You are cute. Do you like unicorns?
>
>
I do.  Especially grilled.  Mmm...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091202/86fd37f5/attachment.html>

From painlord2k at libero.it  Wed Dec  2 19:03:24 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:03:24 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [twister] Meta Conspiracy
In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70912011950k7b6e7cd9ie5b3b51591dfd10a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091202031300.GJ5352@sifter.org>
	<55ad6af70912011950k7b6e7cd9ie5b3b51591dfd10a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B16B9FC.8030307@libero.it>

Il 02/12/2009 4.50, Bryan Bishop ha scritto:

> E.g., there is definitely a faction here who see themselves as
> scientific, rational, no-nonsense, obvious truth, keep it simple,
> don't be silly, and everybody knows (or, at least, everybody with a
> Phd knows).  And then there is an often opposing faction who see
> themselves as scientific, rational, consider everything, the truth
> isn't always what it appears to be on the surface, and science makes
> progress one death at a time.

> If I could take a first stab at qualifying the difference between the
> two, the first seems universally more optimistic about human nature,
> in terms of objectivity, motive, and sometimes ability, and
> especially in power of the group mean or consensus to win over
> individual defects in these things.  The latter sees man as a
> rationalizing animal, self- deluding, sometimes malicious, regularly
> deceptive whether by unwitting bias or conscious intent, and with
> group-think tending to exaggerate rather than mediate these defects.

This question could be related with the Premise Checker message:
Meme 200: Frank Forman: Conservatism and Technology
sent 9.10.14
The main point made was "Conservatism is the application of time to 
politics. By time, I mean that history is the cumulation of random or 
unrelated causes."

I would modify a bit the axioms describing the first group and would 
change "universally more optimistic about human nature" with 
"universally more optimistic about their human nature".

One could think the first group have a more mechanistic understanding of 
human behavior (like clock gears), where the second have a more 
agricultural vision of human behavior (like animals/plants).
The first believe they can manipulate other humans to an aim, without 
unwanted effects, where the second think other humans must respected for 
what they are and no amount of tinkering will change their fundamental 
way of being.

If we take the definition (axioms) of Brian for the first group and try 
to build over them, we could find that being more optimistic about human 
nature, abilities and objectivity the first group will not feel the need 
of the same level of checks and balances on the power of themselves, the 
groups [they belong], their majority and their leadership.

The second group, instead, will feel the need of more checks and 
balances for themselves, the groups, the majority and the leadership.

Another difference, counterintuitive at first, is that the first group, 
as optimist they are, when confronted with people not sharing their 
views on some topics [they consider important] and when unable to change 
their mind, will try to push out the opposition from the debate (in some 
less civilized part of the world, liquidate them outright). It is 
logical, as if humanity is good, eliminating the obviously not good 
people will leave only the good ones and, if humanity is good, not good 
people is not so human as they resemble. There is no need to provocation 
or real interference to cause this reaction; the simply fact that 
someone don't share their point of view is enough to marginalize the 
dissenter or worse.

The other side will not resort to this (unless physical harm is feared) 
as they understand human being have flaws. They will not like to resort 
to exclusion and elimination of dissenters or opposer because this would 
legitimize others (the wrong side) to act in the same way. And given 
disagreements will not be eliminated this would cause endless problems 
for both people in the right (them) and in the wrong side.

The individuals of the first group have evolved (with time) the ability 
to change their belief so it will match the belief dominant; this is 
done mainly without conscious thinking. This evolution must be expected 
as people in the losing party/parties have an advantage to flip to the 
other side and sticking with the losing party would be damaging in the 
long run. The fact that the winning party is wrong is often immaterial 
in the short (and not so short) run. Positively, being able to align 
faster with the [apparent] winner is useful against other rival groups 
and the ability to change opinion is useful when the other opinion is right.

> And sometimes I get a glimpse of how this happens, and the story is
> usually pretty close to this:  One side thinks there are scorpions
> everywhere, and one should always wear shoes.  The other side says
> there are none, and has never seen a scorpion their entire life.  The
> difference, it turns out, is simply that one, expecting to find
> scorpions, lifts up rocks, and often finds them, and the other,
> certain there are none, never looks and never sees. But that's a
> biased analogy--favorable to the second faction--so I am still
> curious to distill it down to something more essential and central.

To add to the metaphor, I would say they never look into the shoes 
before putting them on and never look where they step on after they have 
put them on, where the bare foot people usually look where they put 
their feet.

Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.90/2540 -  Data di rilascio: 12/02/09 08:33:00

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Wed Dec  2 19:32:33 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:32:33 +0100
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60912020017m14eb4fe0ub77817ae5fe2c0a6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011028h6b93979cp4f2384723541440d@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60912020017m14eb4fe0ub77817ae5fe2c0a6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912021132n7518ed2buf8d8b9307fcc4d18@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
> wrote:

>
> You don't get a 0.98 correlation
> between the results of complex, non-trivial transformations of data
>
> We only know that somehow the
> output they got was almost perfectly correlated with GISS but we do
> not know how this unusual effect was achieved. Certainly, it could not
> have been achieved by independent processing of available data.
>

When you analyze data that is measuring the same thing (surface
temperature), and mostly the same temperature stations, it's easy to get the
same results.




> ------------------
> > I am no professional of the field, just have a basic understanding of
> > physics. I base my position on several things:
> >
> > 1) temperature is not the only relevant data. We have widespread glacier
> > retreat, sea level rise, arctic sea ice loss.
>
> ### Glacier retreat started long before CO2 started going up. Arctic
> ice loss : see here
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-increases-at-record-rate/
> ,
>

What's that? An analysis of re-freezing speed after sea ice minimums? What
does it mean? The author doesn't come to any conclusion.
This picture of tells you what happened in the last 30 arctic summers:

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png




> the sea level has been going up for 13 000 years until very recently
> (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sea_level_temp_1Please don't
> post40ky.gif <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sea_level_temp_140ky.gif>),
> then
> dropped, now increased 8 inches in a linear fashion since 1880. What
> do you think does all this have to do with CO2?
>

Well, what's causing the rise since 1880? Your "very recently" is actually
7,000 years ago.
You can't see it clearly in your graph, because it's too compressed. Try
these two for a better picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png

So, what has thrown out a balance that has lasted for 7,000 years?



## And which global warming do you

> mean - the one in 1934? 1880? 1998? The planet has been warming and
> cooling all the time, out of step with CO2, which is the important
> issue here.
>

Out of step? This is not the case, and it's very easy to show: you can plot
the two curves almost one over the other, like in the first graph of this
page:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html



> ------------------------
> >
> > 2) basic physics tells us that Earth's energy budget must balance. We can
> > easily measure the input (solar), and verify that it's approximately
> > constant. Since we are changing the properties of the output (greenhouse
> > gases will redirect part of the outgoing radiation downward), internal
> > temperature must rise to compensate. It's about as inevitable as putting
> a
> > coat on, and feeling warmer.
>
> ### No, Alfio, the Earth is not "basic physics", and it does not have
> to obey your notions. You need to read up on aerosols, water vapor,
> cloud cover and a lot of other things before you can say what the
> Earth "must" do.
>

If you want to falsify conservation of energy, let me know when you make
some progress.



> >
> > 3) Attribution: there is now 30% more CO2 than before industrial times.
> We
> > know CO2 greenhouse gas properties. Any conjecture that rejects global
> > warming must show where the extra energy trapped by CO2 went. And it's no
> > easy task.
> >
> ### No, all we need to show is the poor correlation between recent CO2
> rise and global temperatures, and this has been shown very clearly.
>

The graph I linked above from skepticalscience.com will show the "poor
correlation" in the proper context.

If you prefer numerical results, you will be pleased to know that
correlation between CO2 and temperature is something like 0.87.
Here is a simple demonstration using linear regression:
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html



> Rafal
>

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091202/5f9759eb/attachment.html>

From painlord2k at libero.it  Wed Dec  2 19:55:42 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:55:42 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
 again]
In-Reply-To: <20091202111533.GX17686@leitl.org>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>	<710b78fc0912011835u18559882ga8d6631238f6e13@mail.gmail.com>
	<20091202111533.GX17686@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <4B16C63E.5070100@libero.it>

Il 02/12/2009 12.15, Eugen Leitl ha scritto:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 01:05:36PM +1030, Emlyn wrote:

>> How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic

> Talking is not an effective way of dealing with a belief system.
> Any belief system. It's just not worth the time.

If talking is not effective, what is last?

Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.90/2540 -  Data di rilascio: 12/02/09 08:33:00

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Wed Dec  2 20:08:50 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 21:08:50 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
	again]
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60912020121m45222eeapaec7b31a2d8ab598@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60912020121m45222eeapaec7b31a2d8ab598@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912021208v3b77eed1g81f47f16566c79c3@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/12/1 Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>:
> >
> > Look at any plot of the temperature record (1880-present) [...]
>
> ### Look at the plot 1000 AD - present (but the real one, not from
> Mann et. al) What do you see?
>
> ----------------
>
> > False. CRU didn't "maximize" any temperature anomaly  [...]
>
> ### CRU brazenly manipulated proxy data for the pre-instrumental
> period, and appear to have fudged their analysis of the instrumental
> period as well.
>

Lindzen was talking about global temperature anomaly, not temperature
reconstructions. He's a MIT professor, so I assume he knows the difference.




> --------------
> . Lindzen knows full well that water vapor is a feedback,
> > and that even if it is carrying most of the natural greenhouse effect on
> its
> > shoulders, it can't do anything to change Earth's temperature on its own.
>
> ### Do you understand what you wrote? I certainly don't.
>

Sorry, English is my second language. What I meant is that you can't
influence climate using water vapor, because its residence time in the
atmosphere is something like two weeks, and any extra water vapor will soon
become rain and fall to the ground. So even if water vapor is the main
contributor the overall greenhouse effect, it is irrelevant to the issue of
current global warming. Lindzen of course knows this.


> > "Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between
> > incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%"
> >
> > 2% is significant when your planet has an average temperature of 290K.
> And
> > he didn't include the feedbacks (but didn't he talk about water vapor a
> few
> > lines before? Why not now?)
>
> ### Because nobody knows the feedback but available data are
> consistent with absence of positive feedback.
>

Unfortunately, ice age data can't be explained without positive feedbacks.
Orbital forcings are too small.


>
> ### Trenberth seems to disagree with you. He thinks it's a "travesty"
> that their models cannot account for the present period of cooling.
>

No, you are reading CRU emails out of context. Trenberth is lamenting the
fact that we are missing precise measurement of short-term radiation
imbalance and heat transfer, and so we cannot properly model short term
variation. Read Trendberth's paper, cited in the same email:

"An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth?s global energy"

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/11/energydiagnostics09final.pdf

Abstract:
Planned adaptation to climate change requires
information about what is happening and why. While a
long-term trend is for global warming, short-term periods
of cooling can occur and have physical causes
associated with natural variability.     However, such
natural variability means that energy is rearranged or
changed within the climate system, and should be
traceable. An assessment is given of our ability to track
changes in reservoirs and flows of energy within the
climate system. Arguments are given that developing
the ability to do this is important, as it affects
interpretations of global and especially regional climate
change, and prospects for the future.



-----------------
>
> > All the talks Lindzen does about feedbacks is invalidated by ice age
> cores.
> > Without feedbacks, you can't explain the ice-age / interglacial
> alternance.
>
> ### So why does CO2 start rising only about 800 000 years after the
> end of an ice age? What is driving the feedback?
>

You probably mean 800, which is the typical CO2 rise lag at the end of a
glacial period. In that case, the periodical change in Earth's orbit change
the solar flux. That's the forcing, CO2 in that context is a feedback.



>
> ---------------------
> >
> > It's not the same. (and what is an "anti-skeptic view"? :-)   Global
> warming
> > is a well-developed theory with multiple supporting lines of evidence:
> > different kind of observations, and physics-based models.
>
> ### Anthropogenic CO2 driven catastrophic warming is a lunatic fringe
> theory supported by large government bureaucracies.


I know your political views. I am disappointed that you can't separate them
from scientific arguments.


But we do know that at no time in the past 600 million years did Earth
> exceed a temperature anomaly of +8C, despite CO2 levels much higher
> than today and this is enough to summarily reject the idea that CO2 is
> likely to cause catastrophic warming.
>

You think +8C would be a walk in the park? That's about the difference
between an ice age and the present climate. That's 120 meters of sea level
rise.


>
> ------------------
>
>  Without an obvious falsification, one would need to produce
> > an alternative explanation, and the proposed ones (there have been some:
> > solar, cosmic rays, ice age rebound and surely some other I'm forgetting)
> > didn't survive investigation.
>
> ### Read up on cosmic rays and aerosols.
>

I did. Found little to change the overall picture.

 Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091202/3a23266e/attachment.html>

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Wed Dec  2 20:17:07 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 21:17:07 +0100
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 75, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <4B167DF9.4000305@libero.it>
References: <mailman.715.1259705812.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<d1988d2d0912011525pbe98df3xdcd9b17a834bfde8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20091202100039.GR17686@leitl.org> <4B167DF9.4000305@libero.it>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912021217v490e753aodaf0abd8527a5893@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/2 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>

>
> Liberal, market oriented society don't go in war against each other, nor
> they go in war against other if not heavily provoked and menaced.
> Mobilizing an Army is too costly to be done for long. It divert productive
> young people from more useful jobs and clearly is a bad investment.
>

I am not so sure. The US is arguably the most free-market oriented nation in
the world, and still it spends a huge amount of GDP on its military, as much
or more than the rest of the world combined. Soviet russia in its days,
somewhat the opposite politically, also spent large amounts of money to the
same end. I don't see much correlation.

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091202/750567cd/attachment.html>

From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Wed Dec  2 20:19:00 2009
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:19:00 -0700
Subject: [ExI] An extropian animation!!!
Message-ID: <EE766E0135C340BCB9FBDD59E00492A1@3DBOXXW4850>

My dear Extropians, I finally have an animation that I made with a song I wrote just for you! I know you have been thinking it has been a long time since I made the Rosie the Roboteer image and even longer since my Dermal Display animation and you have been thinking, where is my animation? Well this just might be it. One day while working on a completely different animation (which I still have to go back to!) I started singing to myself "I am a robot..." I decided to write the words down and wrote a little song. Then I decided to record them into my computer and I knew that at some point I would have to make an animation to go along with it so I registered the song with the copyright office. I tried to get back to my other word and put this on the back burner, but I couldn't! So here it is "My Heart is Von Neumann":
http://nanogirl.com/museumfuture/myheartisvonneumann.html
This was a very personal piece for me, my song, by bot, my hope for how advancing technologies could help us. This isn't a technical piece, it is more an artistic vision of what I am trying to express. I hope you enjoy it - please let me know if you do. Sincerely, your, Nanogirl 

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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091202/2f31217c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed Dec  2 20:49:40 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:49:40 -0800
Subject: [ExI] signal to noise again
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912021132n7518ed2buf8d8b9307fcc4d18@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com><4902d9990912011028h6b93979cp4f2384723541440d@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60912020017m14eb4fe0ub77817ae5fe2c0a6@mail.gmail.com>
	<4902d9990912021132n7518ed2buf8d8b9307fcc4d18@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1BF00C32B99542A7A98340533AAE8E20@spike>

 
Do let me commend the ExI-chat list on the excellent signal to noise ratio
lately.  The biggies are posting again, Eugen, Max, Anders, Rafal, Lee,
Keith, Damien, the Italians, the others who consistently post smart,
interesting stuff (and you know who you are even if I didn't name you)
thanks all!  These days, reading ExI is well worth the time invested.

spike



	 
	 
	 




From natasha at natasha.cc  Wed Dec  2 21:03:25 2009
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:03:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] signal to noise again
In-Reply-To: <1BF00C32B99542A7A98340533AAE8E20@spike>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com><4902d9990912011028h6b93979cp4f2384723541440d@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60912020017m14eb4fe0ub77817ae5fe2c0a6@mail.gmail.com>
	<4902d9990912021132n7518ed2buf8d8b9307fcc4d18@mail.gmail.com>
	<1BF00C32B99542A7A98340533AAE8E20@spike>
Message-ID: <20091202160325.xfrguh4k61w804g4@webmail.natasha.cc>


Great to have these big heads back on the list, although Damien was  
never missing in action nor was Keith, et al.

Nevertheless, I'm very glad to have 'gene, Max and Anders back and talking.

Natasha



Quoting spike <spike66 at att.net>:

>
> Do let me commend the ExI-chat list on the excellent signal to noise ratio
> lately.  The biggies are posting again, Eugen, Max, Anders, Rafal, Lee,
> Keith, Damien, the Italians, the others who consistently post smart,
> interesting stuff (and you know who you are even if I didn't name you)
> thanks all!  These days, reading ExI is well worth the time invested.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>





From painlord2k at libero.it  Wed Dec  2 22:02:03 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:02:03 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
 again]
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912021208v3b77eed1g81f47f16566c79c3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>	<7641ddc60912020121m45222eeapaec7b31a2d8ab598@mail.gmail.com>
	<4902d9990912021208v3b77eed1g81f47f16566c79c3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B16E3DB.3060109@libero.it>

Il 02/12/2009 21.08, Alfio Puglisi ha scritto:

> -------------- . Lindzen knows full well that water vapor is a
> feedback,
>> and that even if it is carrying most of the natural greenhouse
> effect on its
>> shoulders, it can't do anything to change Earth's temperature on
> its own.
>
> ### Do you understand what you wrote? I certainly don't.

> Sorry, English is my second language. What I meant is that you can't
> influence climate using water vapor, because its residence time in
> the atmosphere is something like two weeks, and any extra water
> vapor will soon become rain and fall to the ground. So even if water
> vapor is the main contributor the overall greenhouse effect, it is
> irrelevant to the issue of current global warming. Lindzen of course
> knows this.

I understood both, but you must make a rational and scientific claim
that a greenhouse effect exist and what it really is.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/politics_and_greenhouse_gasses.html
>> Now, the IPCC "consensus" atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to
>> global warming has been shown not only to be unverifiable, but to
>> actually violate basic laws of physics.
>>
>> The analysis comes from an independent theoretical study detailed
>> in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations,
>> 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205
>> references) paper prepared by two German physicists, Gerhard
>> Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner, and published in several updated
>> versions over the last couple of years. The latest version appears
>> in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern
>> Physics. In the paper, the two authors analyze the greenhouse gas
>> model from its origin in the mid-19th century to the present IPCC
>> application.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf


>> Further, they go on to show that any mechanism whereby CO2 in the
>> cooler upper atmosphere could exert any thermal enhancing or
>> "forcing" effect on the warmer surface below violates both the
>> First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Well, I suppose that the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics are some
inconvenient truths.

>> "Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance
>> between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%"
> 2% is significant when your planet has an average temperature of
> 290K. And he didn't include the feedbacks (but didn't he talk about
> water vapor a few lines before? Why not now?)

I think the right number is 0.03%

>> ### Because nobody knows the feedback but available data are
>> consistent with absence of positive feedback.
> Unfortunately, ice age data can't be explained without positive
> feedbacks. Orbital forcings are too small.

Changing solar energy output?
Solar cycles are known. What we don't know is how and why they change.
But we know they change.
In the last few decades the solar cycles lasted 10-11 years.
The current cycle is projected to last 15 years (it is posed to break
the number of consecutive spotless days) and during the Maunder Minimum
some cycle lasted for 25 years.
If not, how do you explain the Little Ice Age?

> You probably mean 800, which is the typical CO2 rise lag at the end
> of a glacial period. In that case, the periodical change in Earth's
> orbit change the solar flux. That's the forcing, CO2 in that context
> is a feedback.

But, if the CO2 have a forcing effect, the two must compound.
Why didn't a "runaway effect" start in the past?
Did CO2 changed its physical features in the past?


>> It's not the same. (and what is an "anti-skeptic view"? :-) Global
>> warming is a well-developed theory with multiple supporting lines
>> of evidence: different kind of observations, and physics-based
>> models.

Physic-based models validated by who? Physics?
Is it like the statistical models never validated by any statistician?
But it is difficult to validate stuff nobody saw, apart the true prophets.
Then there is the mathematics, that could be uncomputable with the 
current tools:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_mathematics_of_global_warm.html




> But we do know that at no time in the past 600 million years did
> Earth exceed a temperature anomaly of +8C, despite CO2 levels much
> higher than today and this is enough to summarily reject the idea
> that CO2 is likely to cause catastrophic warming.

> You think +8C would be a walk in the park? That's about the
> difference between an ice age and the present climate. That's 120
> meters of sea level rise.

Given a large part of the industries emitting CO2 are located near the 
seas, there would be a stopping of emissions after a sea raise of 1 m.
So what are you worrying about?


Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.90/2540 -  Data di rilascio: 12/02/09 08:33:00

From painlord2k at libero.it  Wed Dec  2 22:12:52 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:12:52 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled
In-Reply-To: <62c14240912020829x3e94018cpe9b2e810c11cd5b0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1259755201.23734.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>	<354542.69938.qm@web32008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<20091202152928.GB17686@leitl.org>
	<62c14240912020829x3e94018cpe9b2e810c11cd5b0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B16E664.8020509@libero.it>

Il 02/12/2009 17.29, Mike Dougherty ha scritto:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org
> <mailto:eugen at leitl.org>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 06:49:38AM -0800, Ben Zaiboc wrote:
>      > Well, I used to believe otherwise, but you've convinced me you're
>      > right.
>      > Oh, wait...
>     You are cute. Do you like unicorns?
> I do.  Especially grilled.  Mmm...

This is blasphemy!!!
Unicorns must be roasted.
Grilling is for Pegasus

Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.90/2540 -  Data di rilascio: 12/02/09 08:33:00

From msd001 at gmail.com  Wed Dec  2 23:15:40 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:15:40 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled
In-Reply-To: <4B16E664.8020509@libero.it>
References: <mailman.1.1259755201.23734.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<354542.69938.qm@web32008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20091202152928.GB17686@leitl.org>
	<62c14240912020829x3e94018cpe9b2e810c11cd5b0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B16E664.8020509@libero.it>
Message-ID: <62c14240912021515n51297ce0scdb101bd3c3b2ea1@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/2 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>

> Il 02/12/2009 17.29, Mike Dougherty ha scritto:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org
>> <mailto:eugen at leitl.org>> wrote:
>>
>>    On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 06:49:38AM -0800, Ben Zaiboc wrote:
>>     > Well, I used to believe otherwise, but you've convinced me you're
>>     > right.
>>     > Oh, wait...
>>    You are cute. Do you like unicorns?
>> I do.  Especially grilled.  Mmm...
>>
>
> This is blasphemy!!!
> Unicorns must be roasted.
> Grilling is for Pegasus
>

Oh yeah, they already have that convenient pointy part on one end for
turning over the fire.  My mis-steak.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091202/0298d946/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 00:44:38 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:14:38 +1030
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled
In-Reply-To: <20091202152928.GB17686@leitl.org>
References: <mailman.1.1259755201.23734.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<354542.69938.qm@web32008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20091202152928.GB17686@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912021644l7124db1bhb946020890043bd1@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/3 Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 06:49:38AM -0800, Ben Zaiboc wrote:
>
>> Well, I used to believe otherwise, but you've convinced me you're right.
>>
>> Oh, wait...
>
> You are cute. Do you like unicorns?

That sounds like grooming talk from an anime board :-)

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 01:02:10 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:02:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] An extropian animation!!!
In-Reply-To: <EE766E0135C340BCB9FBDD59E00492A1@3DBOXXW4850>
References: <EE766E0135C340BCB9FBDD59E00492A1@3DBOXXW4850>
Message-ID: <2d6187670912021702y7abccfbtdd262ee20887002@mail.gmail.com>

Gina Miller wrote:
My dear Extropians, I finally have an animation that I made with a song I
wrote just for you!...

This was a very personal piece for me, my song, by bot, my hope for how
advancing technologies could help us. This isn't a technical piece, it is
more an artistic vision of what I am trying to express. I hope you enjoy it
- please let me know if you do.
>>>

Gina, I was deeply impressed by the visuals, lyrics and your ethereal
voice.  When I encounter a piece of futurist art in any form that leaves me
feeling both giddy and yet somehow chilled, I know the artist has done their
job!  Please keep it coming, as time allows!  : )

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091202/269e088c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu Dec  3 01:13:53 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:13:53 -0800
Subject: [ExI] man controls robotic hand with thoughts
Message-ID: <BA0A008DE7724236A307C114F89D4134@spike>

Cool!
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34237583/ns/health-more_health_news/
 
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091202/53de9eb3/attachment.html>

From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Thu Dec  3 01:19:03 2009
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:19:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] An extropian animation!!!
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670912021702y7abccfbtdd262ee20887002@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EE766E0135C340BCB9FBDD59E00492A1@3DBOXXW4850>
	<2d6187670912021702y7abccfbtdd262ee20887002@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <904BEE227D2944BC848A04E1A162C8B9@3DBOXXW4850>

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I've been waiting all day to hear some thoughts on my new animation. This was the first time I wrote my own song and sang for one of my animations so I was especially nervous, I am glad you liked it. And the way you describe your reaction, well it's making me feel the same way. Hearing feedback on my work and knowing I achieved the goal I was striving for is really my biggest reward - even if only for one person. 

Please, everyone if you get the chance to look at my new animation, let me know your thoughts as well. And thanks again John. 

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/myheartisvonneumann.html

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Grigg 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [ExI] An extropian animation!!!


  Gina Miller wrote:
  My dear Extropians, I finally have an animation that I made with a song I wrote just for you!... 

  This was a very personal piece for me, my song, by bot, my hope for how advancing technologies could help us. This isn't a technical piece, it is more an artistic vision of what I am trying to express. I hope you enjoy it - please let me know if you do.  
  >>>

  Gina, I was deeply impressed by the visuals, lyrics and your ethereal voice.  When I encounter a piece of futurist art in any form that leaves me feeling both giddy and yet somehow chilled, I know the artist has done their job!  Please keep it coming, as time allows!  : ) 

  John  




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091202/5ccd750c/attachment.html>

From painlord2k at libero.it  Thu Dec  3 01:43:10 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:43:10 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
 again]
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B1717AE.4010109@libero.it>

Il 01/12/2009 23.16, Alfio Puglisi ha scritto:

>     My understanding is that all, or almost all, the observed warming is
>     due to less extreme cold and not to higher temperatures in the
>     warmer places.
> You are correct. And that's exactly what climate models predict for
> greenhouse-caused warming. Cold places warm up more than hot places.
> Night temperatures go up more than day temperatures. If, for example,
> the warming was caused by increased solar output, we would see the opposite.








>     Anyway, your first point supports only the point that some warming
>     has occurred, which I'm not disputing. (Even so, why do we see even
>     more reports of melting ice when there has been no significant
>     warming for 12 years? That suggests that either the cause is other
>     than warming, or that reports of ice melting etc. are highly
>     selective... and selected. That certainly seems to be the case with
>     regard to polar bears.)
> Glaciers are great integrators of climate.

The local, for sure. The global not so much.

> If temperature goes up, a
> glacier will go out of equilibrium and start to melt, but the response
> will not be instantaneus.

The same is true for reduced moisture in the air, less snow or less rain.

> Reaching a new equilibrium takes years. The
> current decade has been the warmest on record, and ice melts in
> response. If the last few decades had been colder than before, you would
> see glaciers growing even if the cooling trend stabilized for some years.

The current decade, as we know from actual temperature readings and the 
words written in the infamous emails, had no warming whatsoever over the 
measurement error.

> About your suggestion that reports of ice mass balance are selected for
> the most melting ones... that's a very serious accusation. Have you got
> any proof of that kind of selection? Anything?

The newspapers' reports for sure. As it confirm the narrative they 
choose. They are in the infotainment business not the fact reporting 
business.

But, indeed, there are glaciers that grow and glaciers that shrink.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/27/glaciers-in-norway-alaska-growing-again/

> Go to the world glacier monitoring service: http://www.wgms.ch   See for
> example: http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/mbb10/sum07.html
> And you can't select in Arctic sea ice loss, or Greenland mass balance.
> There's only one of each.

The data, I see end in the 2007.
This is the "hide the decline" trick, again?

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

People can note that the 2009 line is over the 2008 line and the 208 
line is over the 2007 line (higher = more ice).

But the CO2 emission don't went down.

CRU models didn't predict this nor explain this.

> "approximately constant" will do for any period less than many millions
> of years. The Sun output is still going up, and it's likely to turn the
> planet into a desert in a billion of years or so (and a badly burnt
> piece of rock at the end) but I'm not blaming it for the current global
> warming  :-)

The Sun energy emission is variable with the time aka Solar Cycle.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/12/another-parallel-with-the-maunder-minimum/

[]cit.]Tree rings from the Urals have more uses than just making hockey 
sticks.  Due to the paucity of sunspots in the Maunder Minimum (1645 ? 
1710), C14 data provides the evidence for the presence of solar cycles 
and their length.  According to Makarov and Tlatov, solar cycles 
averaged 20 years long in the Maunder.  In Figure 2 above, solar minima 
are associated with higher C14 content and are on the top side of the 
graphic.  I have marked the solar minima with vertical blue lines.  The 
blue figures along the x axis are the length of the solar cycles from 
minimum to minimum in years.[cit]

Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.90/2540 -  Data di rilascio: 12/02/09 08:33:00

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 02:16:21 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:46:21 +1030
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
	again]
In-Reply-To: <20091202111533.GX17686@leitl.org>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0912011835u18559882ga8d6631238f6e13@mail.gmail.com>
	<20091202111533.GX17686@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912021816s28f09ff2x818b034c0f3de137@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/2 Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 01:05:36PM +1030, Emlyn wrote:
>
>> How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic
>
> Talking is not an effective way of dealing with a belief system.
> Any belief system. It's just not worth the time.

When you start hearing this from Germans, the shit is about to go down!

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From ddraig at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 02:41:57 2009
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 13:41:57 +1100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
	again]
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912021816s28f09ff2x818b034c0f3de137@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com> 
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com> 
	<710b78fc0912011835u18559882ga8d6631238f6e13@mail.gmail.com> 
	<20091202111533.GX17686@leitl.org>
	<710b78fc0912021816s28f09ff2x818b034c0f3de137@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f430d9be0912021841x65515657u7797ca721a85b0f8@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/3 Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com>:
> 2009/12/2 Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>:
>> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 01:05:36PM +1030, Emlyn wrote:
>>
>>> How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic
>>
>> Talking is not an effective way of dealing with a belief system.
>> Any belief system. It's just not worth the time.
>
> When you start hearing this from Germans, the shit is about to go down!

Don't mention the, errrr... thingy

Dwayne
-- 
   ddraig at pobox.com irc.deoxy.org #chat
   ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e...
  http://www.barrelfullofmonkeys.org/Data/3-death.jpg
our aim is wakefulness,  our enemy is dreamless sleep


From spike66 at att.net  Thu Dec  3 05:04:32 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 21:04:32 -0800
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670912021702y7abccfbtdd262ee20887002@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EE766E0135C340BCB9FBDD59E00492A1@3DBOXXW4850>
	<2d6187670912021702y7abccfbtdd262ee20887002@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D4540BCFFAB749D3AECC795ACCBBF9BE@spike>

Oh this one is good.  Have a most enjoyable 7 minutes.  Keith this one is
for you pal.  {8-]
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk
 
spike
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091202/3f7cc249/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 09:23:59 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 19:53:59 +1030
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <D4540BCFFAB749D3AECC795ACCBBF9BE@spike>
References: <EE766E0135C340BCB9FBDD59E00492A1@3DBOXXW4850>
	<2d6187670912021702y7abccfbtdd262ee20887002@mail.gmail.com>
	<D4540BCFFAB749D3AECC795ACCBBF9BE@spike>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912030123y1eb377c0iaa0939e7e1d6cdc3@mail.gmail.com>

+1 like!

2009/12/3 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
> Oh this one is good.? Have a most enjoyable 7 minutes.? Keith this one is
> for you pal.? {8-]
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>



-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Dec  3 09:30:04 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 10:30:04 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
	again]
In-Reply-To: <f430d9be0912021841x65515657u7797ca721a85b0f8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0912011835u18559882ga8d6631238f6e13@mail.gmail.com>
	<20091202111533.GX17686@leitl.org>
	<710b78fc0912021816s28f09ff2x818b034c0f3de137@mail.gmail.com>
	<f430d9be0912021841x65515657u7797ca721a85b0f8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091203093004.GM17686@leitl.org>

On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 01:41:57PM +1100, ddraig wrote:

> > When you start hearing this from Germans, the shit is about to go down!
> 
> Don't mention the, errrr... thingy

HITLER, HITLER, HITLER, HITLER!  

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


From painlord2k at libero.it  Thu Dec  3 12:38:08 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:38:08 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
 again]
In-Reply-To: <20091203093004.GM17686@leitl.org>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>	<710b78fc0912011835u18559882ga8d6631238f6e13@mail.gmail.com>	<20091202111533.GX17686@leitl.org>	<710b78fc0912021816s28f09ff2x818b034c0f3de137@mail.gmail.com>	<f430d9be0912021841x65515657u7797ca721a85b0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20091203093004.GM17686@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <4B17B130.1040402@libero.it>

Il 03/12/2009 10.30, Eugen Leitl ha scritto:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 01:41:57PM +1100, ddraig wrote:
>>> When you start hearing this from Germans, the shit is about to go
>>> down!
>> Don't mention the, errrr... thingy
> HITLER, HITLER, HITLER, HITLER!

Well, the same argument is done in Islam.
Quran 002:006
As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it 
is all one for them; they believe not.

I suppose you already know the fate destined to them:
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Mischief

No wonder Hitler admired Islam and was friend with the Jerusalem Mufti.

Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.91/2542 -  Data di rilascio: 12/03/09 08:32:00

From painlord2k at libero.it  Thu Dec  3 12:38:52 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:38:52 +0100
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 75, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912021217v490e753aodaf0abd8527a5893@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.715.1259705812.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>	<d1988d2d0912011525pbe98df3xdcd9b17a834bfde8@mail.gmail.com>	<20091202100039.GR17686@leitl.org>
	<4B167DF9.4000305@libero.it>
	<4902d9990912021217v490e753aodaf0abd8527a5893@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B17B15C.5060807@libero.it>

Il 02/12/2009 21.17, Alfio Puglisi ha scritto:

> 2009/12/2 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it
> <mailto:painlord2k at libero.it>>

>     Liberal, market oriented society don't go in war against each other,
>     nor they go in war against other if not heavily provoked and menaced.
>     Mobilizing an Army is too costly to be done for long. It divert
>     productive young people from more useful jobs and clearly is a bad
>     investment.

> I am not so sure. The US is arguably the most free-market oriented
> nation in the world, and still it spends a huge amount of GDP on its
> military, as much or more than the rest of the world combined. Soviet
> Russia in its days, somewhat the opposite politically, also spent large
> amounts of money to the same end. I don't see much correlation.

The difference is the relative size of the economy.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php
The % of the GDP spent on defense is shrinking over the time, as the GDP 
grow. It went over 10% only during the WW2 and a few years during the 
'50s (build up of nuclear arsenal?). Currently is around 4% (and the 
disponsable spending share is reducing - more is tied to salaries and 
fixed costs).

USSR spending went, in peace time, from estimated 15% to 25% and maybe 
more (depend on how data is compounded - like the climate stuff - 
usually the soviet don't included the money spent to pay the soldiers 
and their upkeep). 15% or 25% of a smaller economy.

Smaller economy than the U.S.S.R. like Ethiopia (Soviet backed) spent 
30-50% and more in their military. In effect, these government were in a 
constant war against their populations, so it is understandable they 
needed so much money for theirs armies.

I think it is smart to devote 5-10% of own earnings to security 
(depending on the security risks present or foreseeable). It is like an 
insurance against bad outcomes, where the insurance level help to reduce 
the bad outcomes frequencies and not to repay for the damages after. We 
also spend money in funding police (internal security), so why not 
spending it in external security also?

The trick is to spend wisely and the needed (or a bit more) and not too 
much (that will cripple  the economy) or not enough (that will be not 
useful to dissuade, repel them or preempt them).

Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.91/2542 -  Data di rilascio: 12/03/09 08:32:00

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  3 12:13:31 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 04:13:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled
In-Reply-To: <mailman.720.1259802835.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <391421.39510.qm@web32002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> creepily asked:


> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 06:49:38AM -0800, Ben Zaiboc wrote:

>> Well, I used to believe otherwise, but you've convinced me you're right.
>>
>> Oh, wait...

> You are cute. Do you like unicorns?

Only the pink invisible ones.
Wearing teapots.
Full of Noodly Goodness.
Created Last Thursday.

On a (slightly) more serious note, though, there are known methods of changing people's minds.  Apart from physical violence, I mean.  Simply contradicting someone's beliefs never does any good, of course, but to say that talking never does any good is a simplification, I think.

Don't you agree? ;>

Ben Zaiboc


      


From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 13:29:30 2009
From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:29:30 -0200
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
References: <EE766E0135C340BCB9FBDD59E00492A1@3DBOXXW4850><2d6187670912021702y7abccfbtdd262ee20887002@mail.gmail.com>
	<D4540BCFFAB749D3AECC795ACCBBF9BE@spike>
Message-ID: <8C3D968C82EC44CC9C63474817A10BA2@Notebook>

<spike>
Oh this one is good.  Have a most enjoyable 7 minutes.  Keith this one is 
for you pal.  {8-]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk
</spike>

Good one indeed. He said exactly what I think, much more eloquently than I 
ever could. 



From msd001 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 13:59:18 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 08:59:18 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled
In-Reply-To: <391421.39510.qm@web32002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.720.1259802835.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<391421.39510.qm@web32002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240912030559y65147574g224e334be2aab49b@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On a (slightly) more serious note, though, there are known methods of
> changing people's minds.  Apart from physical violence, I mean.  Simply
> contradicting someone's beliefs never does any good, of course, but to say
> that talking never does any good is a simplification, I think.
>
> Don't you agree? ;>
>
I agree that it is possible to change someone's mind.  For someone firmly
entrenched in their own ideas, it takes considerable work to first
understand them well enough to deconstruct their position and introduce an
alternate possibility.  Email conversations rarely have the patience to do
that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091203/e41adc43/attachment.html>

From max at maxmore.com  Thu Dec  3 14:41:09 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:41:09 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Shale as a renewed source of energy
Message-ID: <200912031441.nB3EfNrK007887@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

I haven't looked into shale in years, so I'm posting this link with 
an invitation to comment. The piece makes it sound promising as a 
medium-term energy source.

Is shale an answer to the energy question?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34253199/ns/business-oil_and_energy/

Excerpt:
"The United States is sitting on over 100 years of gas supply at the 
current rates of consumption," he said. Because natural gas emits 
half the greenhouse gases of coal, he added, that "provides the 
United States with a unique opportunity to address concerns about 
energy security and climate change."

Recoverable U.S. gas reserves could now be bigger than the immense 
gas reserves of Russia, some experts say.



-------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
Extropy Institute Founder
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com
------------------------------------- 



From andrii.z at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 12:46:59 2009
From: andrii.z at gmail.com (Andrii Zvorygin)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 07:46:59 -0500
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912030123y1eb377c0iaa0939e7e1d6cdc3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EE766E0135C340BCB9FBDD59E00492A1@3DBOXXW4850>
	<2d6187670912021702y7abccfbtdd262ee20887002@mail.gmail.com>
	<D4540BCFFAB749D3AECC795ACCBBF9BE@spike>
	<710b78fc0912030123y1eb377c0iaa0939e7e1d6cdc3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ccc900580912030446m48d62cfs5feb28f08bc4fd5e@mail.gmail.com>

he seems like an angry confused person.

I hope he learns to love himself.
Realizing that he has many beliefs.

Like science and earth ethics...
Oh well, I guess he's having a good time,
making new friends,
that relate to his vibration.

it's all good.
:)

a little more patience,
and calmness,
would let him live longer.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 like!
>
> 2009/12/3 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
> > Oh this one is good.  Have a most enjoyable 7 minutes.  Keith this one is
> > for you pal.  {8-]
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk
> >
> > spike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Emlyn
>
> http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
> http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
> http://emlynoregan.com - main site
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091203/4c934e07/attachment.html>

From andrii.z at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 13:24:16 2009
From: andrii.z at gmail.com (Andrii Zvorygin)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 08:24:16 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Climate for Transhumanism
Message-ID: <ccc900580912030524j735b0021v9a5c8de9e36ddc6e@mail.gmail.com>

What is the best climate for the development of transhumanism?

In astrophysics,
and they state it was hot in the beginning of the universe,
and has been cooling down since.

By inference,
more advanced things are cooler.

Liquid water host-bodies are more advanced than whirl wind host bodies,
and are generally cooler.

So technological host bodies,
cooler than water host-bodies.

It's easier to think when it's colder.
Can be proved through contradiction,
go to a really hot place,
and try to do some thinking.

One of the reasons I think the Transtopia idea
of getting a  place in the hot Caribbean,
isn't going to lead to much innovation,
except perhaps some air conditioning.

In the Arctic or Antarctic,
where people can think quite clearly,
and have much motivation to use technology,
from fulfilling everyday desires.
To help make their lives easier,
via artificial structures for warmth,
wind power generators, heating technology,
and indoor growing environments.

Also if a robot is made,
it can travel across a relatively flat surface,
and have readily accessible wind power at all times of year,
in most locations (other than caves),
Also relatively safe from biota,
which is spare on the tundra.
Though there maybe the occasional curious polar bear,
they typically avoid things that don't smell like meat.

Best of all,
the Arctic is free,
much of it remains uninhabited,
even by nomadic tribes.

Quite open to trans-humanist research.
I've developed a boat,
designed and modeled,
that allows for all year access to the arctic,
by traveling on liquid and solid water (waves and ice),
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b118a1cc8c6a.jpg

I have the designs available if someone is interested.
http://lokiworld.org/hexagonal.txt

designed for two people, it's 11ft long.
regular sides, makes for easy building.
sails operable from inside, (potentially by computer controls).

already technological innovation is creeping in to this cooler lifestyle.

So what are your thoughts on climate for transhumanism?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091203/9c0b1c21/attachment.html>

From andrii.z at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 15:06:07 2009
From: andrii.z at gmail.com (Andrii Zvorygin)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 10:06:07 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Shale as a renewed source of energy
In-Reply-To: <200912031441.nB3EfNrK007887@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912031441.nB3EfNrK007887@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <ccc900580912030706t5713b74dnf6f17e3f747888a3@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:

> I haven't looked into shale in years, so I'm posting this link with an
> invitation to comment. The piece makes it sound promising as a medium-term
> energy source.
>
> Is shale an answer to the energy question?
>
>
sure it's an answer. but more accurately it would be "natural gas".

but so is oil, coal, wind, wood, waves.

Greenhouse gases are beneficial to the environment.
Increasing the amount of carbon available to turn into biomass.

Much of the carbon that used to be in the atmosphere is now locked up in
sedimentary rock.
Burning coal is a great idea,
to restore the carbon to the environment.

So we could have bigger fruits and vegetables, and thereby biomass in
general.

Also if we manage to offset global cooling,
we'll have more land available for longer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091203/4215084a/attachment.html>

From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Thu Dec  3 15:51:57 2009
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 08:51:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] An extropian animation!!!
In-Reply-To: <904BEE227D2944BC848A04E1A162C8B9@3DBOXXW4850>
References: <EE766E0135C340BCB9FBDD59E00492A1@3DBOXXW4850><2d6187670912021702y7abccfbtdd262ee20887002@mail.gmail.com>
	<904BEE227D2944BC848A04E1A162C8B9@3DBOXXW4850>
Message-ID: <C3E53552AB44442AB5D54855B5D153B8@3DBOXXW4850>

"My Heart is Von Neumann" is now up at youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AljV-cRyPAM

and here are the Lyrics to the song:

I am a robot
made by a human
I want to love you
my heart is Von Neumann.

You can see through me
but I can be deeper
I can help you 
I'll be your keeper

help you live longer,
repair your destruction
I can be your friend
programmed by function.

We can live forever
fix all the wrongs
like they were never.
We'll go on together.

We will save ourselves
sail into the universe
where science delves
we'll discover,

that I am a robot
made by a human
I want to love you
my heart is Von Neumann.

You can see through me
but I can be deeper
I can help you 
I'll be your keeper.
I'll be your keeper.
I'll be your keeper.
I'll be your keeper.
-----------end------------

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
http://www.nanogirl.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091203/068d659c/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 15:56:53 2009
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 10:56:53 -0500
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <ccc900580912030446m48d62cfs5feb28f08bc4fd5e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EE766E0135C340BCB9FBDD59E00492A1@3DBOXXW4850> 
	<2d6187670912021702y7abccfbtdd262ee20887002@mail.gmail.com> 
	<D4540BCFFAB749D3AECC795ACCBBF9BE@spike>
	<710b78fc0912030123y1eb377c0iaa0939e7e1d6cdc3@mail.gmail.com> 
	<ccc900580912030446m48d62cfs5feb28f08bc4fd5e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0912030756i2a0a0d15y5fab5a6c399e5103@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/3 Andrii Zvorygin <andrii.z at gmail.com>:
> he seems like an angry confused person.

Angry? Sure. Confused? I don't see it.

> I hope he learns to love himself.

What makes you think he doesn't?

> Realizing that he has many beliefs.

I don't him denying having beliefs.

-Dave


From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 17:07:09 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:07:09 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
	again]
In-Reply-To: <4B16E3DB.3060109@libero.it>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60912020121m45222eeapaec7b31a2d8ab598@mail.gmail.com>
	<4902d9990912021208v3b77eed1g81f47f16566c79c3@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B16E3DB.3060109@libero.it>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912030907y6b49afa3i1172d7d33d6043a5@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/2 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>


> I understood both, but you must make a rational and scientific claim
> that a greenhouse effect exist and what it really is.
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/politics_and_greenhouse_gasses.html
>
>> Now, the IPCC "consensus" atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to
>>> global warming has been shown not only to be unverifiable, but to
>>> actually violate basic laws of physics.
>>>
>>> The analysis comes from an independent theoretical study detailed
>>> in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations,
>>> 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205
>>> references) paper prepared by two German physicists, Gerhard
>>> Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner, and published in several updated
>>> versions over the last couple of years. The latest version appears
>>> in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern
>>> Physics. In the paper, the two authors analyze the greenhouse gas
>>> model from its origin in the mid-19th century to the present IPCC
>>> application.
>>>
>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
>
>
>  Further, they go on to show that any mechanism whereby CO2 in the
>>> cooler upper atmosphere could exert any thermal enhancing or
>>> "forcing" effect on the warmer surface below violates both the
>>> First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
>>>
>>
> Well, I suppose that the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics are some
> inconvenient truths.
>
> Hello Mirco,
I suggest that you apply a bit of skepticism to your sources: asserting that
global warming is against laws of thermodynamics is, frankly, ridicolous.
The Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper makes basic mistakes. A good place to
start is the realclimate wiki page on the subject:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=G._Gerlich_and_R._D._Tscheuschner


 "Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance
>> between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%"
>>
> 2% is significant when your planet has an average temperature of
> 290K. And he didn't include the feedbacks (but didn't he talk about
> water vapor a few lines before? Why not now?)
>

I think the right number is 0.03%
>

I'm not sure which units you are using.  0.03% of what? If it is in W/m^2,
it seems way too small.



>
>  ### Because nobody knows the feedback but available data are
>>> consistent with absence of positive feedback.
>>>
>> Unfortunately, ice age data can't be explained without positive
>> feedbacks. Orbital forcings are too small.
>>
>
> Changing solar energy output?
>

To my knowledge, there is no stellar model that suggests 100 kilo-year
cycles with abrupt transitions.

But, if the CO2 have a forcing effect, the two must compound.
> Why didn't a "runaway effect" start in the past?
>

Because evidently the positive feedbacks have limits, or other negative
feedbacks kick in. For example, the ice-albedo feedback disappears after
there is no or little ice during arctic summer. The ice age cores tell us
that: 1) there are some positive feedbacks  2) they are not enough to
trigger runaway effects under natural conditions.


> Then there is the mathematics, that could be uncomputable with the current
> tools:
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_mathematics_of_global_warm.html



The opening sentence of the page you linked:

"The forecasts of global warming are based on mathematical solutions for
equations of weather models. But all of these solutions are inaccurate.
Therefore, no valid scientific conclusions can be made concerning global
warming."

is nonsense. Just because your knowledge is not perfect, it doesn't mean
that you can make valid conclusions. If that was the case, science would
have made no progress since 1600.


Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091203/b8ac2294/attachment.html>

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 17:19:29 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:19:29 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
	again]
In-Reply-To: <4B1717AE.4010109@libero.it>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1717AE.4010109@libero.it>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912030919q7bbe3c41xc6cc503f13fd115@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/3 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>


> The current decade, as we know from actual temperature readings and the
> words written in the infamous emails, had no warming whatsoever over the
> measurement error.
>

>From GISS data I calculate the following averages:

1971-1980:  + 0.01 ?C
1981-1990:  + 0.28 ?C
1991-2000:  + 0.38 ?C
2001-2008:  + 0.64 ?C

Standard deviation less than 0.15 ?C in all cases. Do you have different
numbers?




>  About your suggestion that reports of ice mass balance are selected for
>> the most melting ones... that's a very serious accusation. Have you got
>> any proof of that kind of selection? Anything?
>>
>
> The newspapers' reports for sure.


I don't get my info from newspapers.


People can note that the 2009 line is over the 2008 line and the 208 line is
> over the 2007 line (higher = more ice).
>
> But the CO2 emission don't went down.
>
> CRU models didn't predict this nor explain this.


No current climate model make predictions on a period of 3 years. Try a
minimum of 10 years averages, 30 years is better.

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091203/a95b734b/attachment.html>

From painlord2k at libero.it  Thu Dec  3 22:16:46 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:16:46 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
 again]
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912030907y6b49afa3i1172d7d33d6043a5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>	<7641ddc60912020121m45222eeapaec7b31a2d8ab598@mail.gmail.com>	<4902d9990912021208v3b77eed1g81f47f16566c79c3@mail.gmail.com>	<4B16E3DB.3060109@libero.it>
	<4902d9990912030907y6b49afa3i1172d7d33d6043a5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B1838CE.8010706@libero.it>

Il 03/12/2009 18.07, Alfio Puglisi ha scritto:
>     http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

>     Well, I suppose that the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics are some
>     inconvenient truths.

> Hello Mirco,
> I suggest that you apply a bit of skepticism to your sources: asserting
> that global warming is against laws of thermodynamics is, frankly,
> ridicolous. The Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper makes basic mistakes. A
> good place to start is the realclimate wiki page on the subject:
> http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=G._Gerlich_and_R._D._Tscheuschner

The paper I linked reply to the criticism (they update their paper to v4 
to do so), pointing out the errors done by the author of the paper 
linked (at least the English one, I don't understand German).

Also, the paper you linked don't show any error in the paper of G & T. 
It simply state that the greenhouse gas effect exist approximating the 
Sun and the  Earth as black bodies.

I'm surely not an expert but G & T claim that is an error to treat the 
Sun and the Earth as radiating black bodies is correct, as they are not 
black bodies as people can see.
Interesting the last sentence of the paper:
"The authors express their hope that in the schools around the world the 
fundamentals of physics will be taught correctly and not by using 
award-winning \Al Gore" movies shocking every straight physicist by 
confusing absorption/emission with reflection, by confusing the
tropopause with the ionosphere, and by confusing microwaves with 
shortwaves."




>         "Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance
>         between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%"

>     2% is significant when your planet has an average temperature of
>     290K. And he didn't include the feedbacks (but didn't he talk about
>     water vapor a few lines before? Why not now?)

>     I think the right number is 0.03%

> I'm not sure which units you are using.  0.03% of what? If it is in
> W/m^2, it seems way too small.

Citing from the paper

"It is obvious that a doubling of the concentration of the trace gas 
CO2, whose thermal conductivity is approximately one half than that of 
nitrogen and oxygen, does change the thermal conductivity at the most by 
0.03% and the isochoric thermal diffusivity at the most by 0.07 %. These 
numbers lie within the range of the measuring inaccuracy and other 
uncertainties such as rounding errors and therefore have no 
signi
ficance at all."


>     But, if the CO2 have a forcing effect, the two must compound.
>     Why didn't a "runaway effect" start in the past?
> Because evidently the positive feedbacks have limits, or other negative
> feedbacks kick in. For example, the ice-albedo feedback disappears after
> there is no or little ice during arctic summer. The ice age cores tell
> us that: 1) there are some positive feedbacks  2) they are not enough to
> trigger runaway effects under natural conditions.

The ice cores also say there was first an heating and after a CO2 
increase (some decades after).

> The opening sentence of the page you linked:

> "The forecasts of global warming are based on mathematical solutions for
> equations of weather models. But all of these solutions are inaccurate.
> Therefore, no valid scientific conclusions can be made concerning global
> warming."

> is nonsense. Just because your knowledge is not perfect, it doesn't mean
> that you can make valid conclusions. If that was the case, science would
> have made no progress since 1600.

We can differentiate the accuracy of conclusions in two groups:
"good enough" and "not good enough" to be used to predict the future.

Mirco

P.S.
Possible experiment:

To falsify the theory of G & T it is only needed to build a greenhouse 
that is filled with air with varying concentration of CO2, but with a 
"ground" surface where the "sunlight" shine that have is temperature 
kept stable (at or under the air temperature).
Varying the concentration of CO2, the temperature of the surface and his 
albedo, and the intensity of the light would produce results that prove 
or disprove their assumption.
If a greenhouse-gas effect exist, keeping the ground surface temperature 
under the temperature of the air would stop any convection (cold gas 
near the surface would not raise, hotter gas higher would not lower). 
But the higher air would continue to trap energy and raise its 
temperature anyway depending on the concentration of CO2.

Sound as something not to difficult to setup for physicists, engineers 
and tech savvy people. Reducing the measurement errors could be tricky.





-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.91/2542 -  Data di rilascio: 12/03/09 08:32:00

From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 22:28:12 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:28:12 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Shale as a renewed source of energy
In-Reply-To: <200912031441.nB3EfNrK007887@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912031441.nB3EfNrK007887@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912031428n62ac693fjc25db2c024cca2f0@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/4 Max More <max at maxmore.com>:
> I haven't looked into shale in years, so I'm posting this link with an
> invitation to comment. The piece makes it sound promising as a medium-term
> energy source.
>
> Is shale an answer to the energy question?
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34253199/ns/business-oil_and_energy/
>
> Excerpt:
> "The United States is sitting on over 100 years of gas supply at the current
> rates of consumption," he said. Because natural gas emits half the
> greenhouse gases of coal, he added, that "provides the United States with a
> unique opportunity to address concerns about energy security and climate
> change."
>
> Recoverable U.S. gas reserves could now be bigger than the immense gas
> reserves of Russia, some experts say.

In addition to shale gas there is coal seam gas and the possibility
(economic at higher oil prices) of converting coal to gas.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From rob4332000 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  3 22:17:46 2009
From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 14:17:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Me
Message-ID: <30255.90755.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>




>From childhood's hour I have not been
As others were; I have not seen 
As others saw; I could not bring
My passions from a common spring. 
>From the same source I have not taken
My sorrow; I could not awaken
My heart to joy at the same tone;
And all I loved, I loved alone.

It's all mine.


Rob Masters



      


From rob4332000 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  3 22:20:24 2009
From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 14:20:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Who is Ayn Rand?
Message-ID: <462361.30206.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com>






The works of  Alice Rosenbaum...

	
DIRGE

WE THE LIVING DEAD

THE CLOGGED FOUNTAIN

ATLAS SHIT


Her culminating achievement was the novel ATLAS SHIT.  It is the amazing story of how one speech changed the entire course of history.  

Alice Rosenbaum was really smart.  She told her philosophy professor so.  She said she was not yet famous in the history of philosophy--but she would be.


Documentary on Alice Rosenbaum:

AYN RAND:  A SENSE OF DEATH



Alice Rosenbaum's son and lover:


BRANDEN


In Hebrew, "Ben" means "Son of," as in "Ben-Gurion" and "Ben-Hur."  Nathan Rosenthal chose to call himself "Branden"--which thus means "son of Rand."
He and Rand performed sex rituals together on Rand's bed.  The aim of these rituals was to turn her into the "Ayn"  (sometimes spelled "Ain"), which in the inner tradition of Judiasm (the Kabbalah) is the  supreme and highest source of existence.

Alice really went a long way from that day she told her philosophy professor she would rank among Aristotle and Plato.  She actually became AYN.  But the crucial question is EXACTLY what went on in that incestuous Jewish ritual.  Did it include anal penetration? Sub/dom? Rape?  Pissing?  Shitting?  The public has a right to know.

Nathaniel Branden has admitted that they had sex, but stopped short of a full confession.  That won't do.  After all, he was the one who chose to reveal the "affair" as a justification for his own actions.  What were the DETAILS of the affair?



Rob Masters













		


      


From rob4332000 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  3 22:23:49 2009
From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 14:23:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] we die alone
Message-ID: <182452.64981.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com>



2 Dec 09
5:23 a.m.

I almost died just now.  I dreamed that I was drowning, and I remembered that one is supposed to shout at such times.  So I started yelling at the top of my voice (in the dream, and then as I woke up) while jumping out of bed and running toward the front door of my apartment.  For the first few seconds everything in the apartment looked weird, as if covered with a radiant film; then that effect subsided.






Rob Masters
robert.masters4 at comcast.net


      


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Dec  3 22:57:32 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:57:32 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Me
In-Reply-To: <30255.90755.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <30255.90755.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B18425C.1060109@satx.rr.com>

On 12/3/2009 4:17 PM, Robert Masters wrote:
>
>
>> From childhood's hour I have not been
> As others were; I have not seen
> As others saw; I could not bring
> My passions from a common spring.
>> From the same source I have not taken
> My sorrow; I could not awaken
> My heart to joy at the same tone;
> And all I loved, I loved alone.
>
> It's all mine.

Report from the ExI readership:

"Me too!"

"Me too!"

"The Cat who walks by himself."

"Me too!"

"Yo!!"

"Me too!"

"Me too!"

"Oh you say it so beautifully i couldnt have put it so sweetly but yes i 
feel that way also"

"Me too!"

"Me too!"

"Huh???"

"I know what u mean!"

"Me too!"

"yes I feel exactlty that way, not like anyone else in the whole world."


From painlord2k at libero.it  Thu Dec  3 22:57:54 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:57:54 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
 again]
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912030919q7bbe3c41xc6cc503f13fd115@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>	<4B1717AE.4010109@libero.it>
	<4902d9990912030919q7bbe3c41xc6cc503f13fd115@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B184272.3020206@libero.it>

Il 03/12/2009 18.19, Alfio Puglisi ha scritto:
> 2009/12/3 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it
> <mailto:painlord2k at libero.it>>

>     The current decade, as we know from actual temperature readings and
>     the words written in the infamous emails, had no warming whatsoever
>     over the measurement error.

>  From GISS data I calculate the following averages:

> 1971-1980:  + 0.01 ?C
> 1981-1990:  + 0.28 ?C
> 1991-2000:  + 0.38 ?C
> 2001-2008:  + 0.64 ?C

> Standard deviation less than 0.15 ?C in all cases. Do you have different
> numbers?

What massaged data set?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Here I have to choose:
1) After combining Sources at same location
2) Raw GCHN data + USHCN corrections
3) After homogeneity adjustement

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1878
The adjustement feast.

Do you used the set corrected for the 1934-1998 inversion?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html


Scientist, real ones, record numbers or observations, then keep them and 
make them available.
They don't substitute them with adjusted, better, improved version 
without clear explanation, citing sources and providing justifications.
And always keep the originals.
Try doing this with accountability and I think the IRS will not take it 
lightly.

This is like old Muhammed stating that Allah substituted the old suras 
with better one (when he didn't remember the suras he "revelated" 
previously).

>     People can note that the 2009 line is over the 2008 line and the 208
>     line is over the 2007 line (higher = more ice).
>
>     But the CO2 emission don't went down.
>
>     CRU models didn't predict this nor explain this.

> No current climate model make predictions on a period of 3 years. Try a
> minimum of 10 years averages, 30 years is better.

Well.
I would wait 30 years to verify the predictions, then I would trust the 
following predictions much more.


Mirco

-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.91/2542 -  Data di rilascio: 12/03/09 08:32:00

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 23:12:22 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 00:12:22 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
	again]
In-Reply-To: <4B184272.3020206@libero.it>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1717AE.4010109@libero.it>
	<4902d9990912030919q7bbe3c41xc6cc503f13fd115@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B184272.3020206@libero.it>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912031512s2d38d996n78bb4cc6c06bdbc7@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/3 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>



> Scientist, real ones, record numbers or observations, then keep them and
> make them available.
>

GISS uses publicly available data from GCHN and USHCN ftp sites. If you
download the code, it includes a copy of part of the data, and tells you
where to download the rest.


>   The current decade, as we know from actual temperature readings and
>  the words written in the infamous emails, had no warming whatsoever
>  over the measurement error.

So, since you don't like GCHN and USHCN data, what are these temperature
readings that you referring to? Please share.


Well.
> I would wait 30 years to verify the predictions, then I would trust the
> following predictions much more.
>

Since predictions made in Hansen et al. 1998  are for now on track, you only
have 10 more years to wait :-)

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091204/a0f65e22/attachment.html>

From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 23:14:38 2009
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:14:38 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Who is Ayn Rand?
In-Reply-To: <462361.30206.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <462361.30206.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1E888355-2574-4379-B99D-DE1AA9BCE673@GMAIL.COM>


On Dec 3, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Robert Masters wrote:
> The works of  Alice Rosenbaum...
>
> 	
> DIRGE
>
> WE THE LIVING DEAD
>
> THE CLOGGED FOUNTAIN
>
> ATLAS SHIT
>
>
> Her culminating achievement was the novel ATLAS SHIT.  It is the  
> amazing story of how one speech changed the entire course of history.
I'm not really sure what to make of this. Ayn Rand was not perfect,  
often tending to be too quick to denounce others morally because they  
simply disagreed. But her philosophy is quite good in my estimation,  
and particularly the general outline of her morality and politics (any  
reason-based epistemology is enough, in my opinion, to serve as the  
foundation for them). Your post seems almost like a satire of  
criticisms, but I think it may very well be an actual criticism  
itself. One clue that it might simply be satirical of criticisms is  
that you got her name wrong, it was Alisa Rosenbaum, not Alice.

Have you, by any chance, read any of the above novels, particularly  
"The Fountainhead" or "Atlas Shrugged"? If you had, it seems unlikely  
that you could characterize them so unfairly. If you have not, then I  
suggest that you do before you declare them effectively piles of shit.

On a somewhat related note, I find Objectivism quite in tune with the  
Principles of Extropy. The Principles are individualist and have a  
strong emphasis on reason and an open economy and society, which is  
just the same aim as Objectivism. Extropianism, from what I've been  
able to tell from the articles available online, seems much like  
Objectivism plus transhuman technologies.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Thu Dec  3 23:17:21 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 00:17:21 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
	again]
In-Reply-To: <4B1838CE.8010706@libero.it>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60912020121m45222eeapaec7b31a2d8ab598@mail.gmail.com>
	<4902d9990912021208v3b77eed1g81f47f16566c79c3@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B16E3DB.3060109@libero.it>
	<4902d9990912030907y6b49afa3i1172d7d33d6043a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1838CE.8010706@libero.it>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912031517y7a86f1fdg45a4e1b5ffd4ff2@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/3 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>

>
> I'm not sure which units you are using.  0.03% of what? If it is in
>> W/m^2, it seems way too small.
>>
>
> Citing from the paper
>
> "It is obvious that a doubling of the concentration of the trace gas CO2,
> whose thermal conductivity is approximately one half than that of nitrogen
> and oxygen, does change the thermal conductivity at the most by 0.03% and
> the isochoric thermal diffusivity at the most by 0.07 %. These numbers lie
> within the range of the measuring inaccuracy and other uncertainties such as
> rounding errors and therefore have no signi ficance at all."


Ah, now I understand. G &T derive their number from the thermal capacity of
CO2, which of course is a very small number because it has a very small mass
compared to the rest of the atmosphere. That percentage ignores the
radiation part of the equation, which is the basis of the CO2 greenhouse
effect. Just confirming that it's a really, really poor paper.


 The ice age cores tell
> us that: 1) there are some positive feedbacks  2) they are not enough to
> trigger runaway effects under natural conditions.
>

The ice cores also say there was first an heating and after a CO2 increase
> (some decades after).


Sure, that's clear from the time series. They basically say that, if you
increase temperature, CO2 will rise after a while. In our current situation
the order is reversed, because we started increasing CO2 first.



>
>  The opening sentence of the page you linked:
>>
>
>  "The forecasts of global warming are based on mathematical solutions for
>> equations of weather models. But all of these solutions are inaccurate.
>> Therefore, no valid scientific conclusions can be made concerning global
>> warming."
>>
>
>  is nonsense. Just because your knowledge is not perfect, it doesn't mean
>> that you can make valid conclusions. If that was the case, science would
>> have made no progress since 1600.
>>
>
> We can differentiate the accuracy of conclusions in two groups:
> "good enough" and "not good enough" to be used to predict the future.
>

Possibly, but it needs to be quantified. Actually I'm not sure where to
start. Treat it as an insurance-like problem? Or like when engineers design
dams for 100 or 500 years floods? Current understanding says that there is
some X % of serious consequences, so it's acceptable to devote Y% of
resources to avoid the problem? The Economist (not exactly a hotbed of
environmentalism) has a special report out, that report estimates of the
cost at 1% of global GDP per year to limit CO2 at 500ppm.

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091204/e8e6fdfc/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 01:25:15 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:25:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] we die alone
In-Reply-To: <182452.64981.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <182452.64981.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670912031725h518525dev8d9971ec68a5d82b@mail.gmail.com>

Rob Masters wrote:
I almost died just now.  I dreamed that I was drowning, and I remembered
that one is supposed to shout at such times.  So I started yelling at the
top of my voice (in the dream, and then as I woke up) while jumping out of
bed and running toward the front door of my apartment.  For the first few
seconds everything in the apartment looked weird, as if covered with a
radiant film; then that effect subsided.
>>>

A strange experience.  Has this ever happened to you before?  Will you talk
to your doctor about it?  The fact everything looked radiant for a few
seconds after you woke up is mildly alarming to me.  I have had some
disturbing dreams, but never with that side effect.

Take care and know that people care.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091203/3cc6a709/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Dec  4 02:00:13 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:00:13 -0800
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <20091202111337.GW17686@leitl.org>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>	<4B15DDFE.8030807@rawbw.com>
	<20091202111337.GW17686@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <4B186D2D.6070003@rawbw.com>

Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 07:24:46PM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote:
> 
>> Why can't we have nice healthy attitudes like
>>
>>   "I was a scientist myself for the longest time, and the people
>>   I?d gladly drop into a vat of nitric acid start with the Pope
>>   and go all the way down to anyone who voted for Stephen Harper?s
>>   conservatives."            ---Peter Watts (credit: Damien)
> 
> What a horrible person. You have to use hot Caro's acid,
> not nitric acid. And slowly lower them down, starting with the toes.

Quite. Thanks for updating the traditional "boiling in oil".
And if that was good enough for our ancestors, it should be
good enough for us.

Lee


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Dec  4 02:08:51 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:08:51 -0800
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912030123y1eb377c0iaa0939e7e1d6cdc3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EE766E0135C340BCB9FBDD59E00492A1@3DBOXXW4850>	<2d6187670912021702y7abccfbtdd262ee20887002@mail.gmail.com>	<D4540BCFFAB749D3AECC795ACCBBF9BE@spike>
	<710b78fc0912030123y1eb377c0iaa0939e7e1d6cdc3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B186F33.4050401@rawbw.com>

Now hold on, PC fans.

Did you not hear the part where Pat Condell came out
against the trinity?  The trinity of faith, and,
<uh, I forgot whatelse>, and *righteousness*?

He comes out against the righteous?

Does he know what it means?

On this side of Earth's ocean Atlantic it means

    right?eous
??   /?ra?t??s/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rahy-chuhs] Show IPA
    ?adjective
    1. 	characterized by uprightness or morality: a righteous observance of the law.
    2. 	morally right or justifiable: righteous indignation.
    3. 	acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous: a righteous and godly person.
    4. 	Slang. absolutely genuine or wonderful: some righteous playing by a jazz great.

(though no telling since PC's a brit)

Or.... was he letting the Christians win the wor of wards
with *their* debased notion of the word's meaning? See

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

<Righteousness (also called rectitude) is an important theological concept in Judaism and Christianity. It is an attribute that 
implies that a person's actions are justified, and can have the connotation that the person has been "judged" or "reckoned" as 
leading a life that is pleasing to God. Righteousness is also used as an attribute for God. Psalm 2 speaks of one being shielded by 
God and receiving favor because of righteousness.>

Actually, If I have pride in anything, it may be that
I am more righteous now than I was as a child or teen.

Let us not yield this word to those purveyors of darkness.

Lee


Emlyn wrote:
> +1 like!
> 
> 2009/12/3 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>> Oh this one is good.  Have a most enjoyable 7 minutes.  Keith this one is
>> for you pal.  {8-]
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk
>>
>> spike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 


From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 02:15:36 2009
From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 00:15:36 -0200
Subject: [ExI] we die alone
References: <182452.64981.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<2d6187670912031725h518525dev8d9971ec68a5d82b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7DDE0B42E26447EE9017DD8E1144ED05@Notebook>

Rob Masters wrote:
I almost died just now.  I dreamed that I was drowning, and I remembered 
that one is supposed to shout at such times.  So I started yelling at the 
top of my voice (in the dream, and then as I woke up) while jumping out of 
bed and running toward the front door of my apartment.  For the first few 
seconds everything in the apartment looked weird, as if covered with a 
radiant film; then that effect subsided.
>>>

<Grigg>A strange experience.  Has this ever happened to you before?  Will 
you talk to your doctor about it?  The fact everything looked radiant for a 
few seconds after you woke up is mildly alarming to me.  I have had some 
disturbing dreams, but never with that side effect.</Grigg>

That?s probably because his eyes were a bit dry. Once he blinked a bunch of 
times and the eyes became properly wet the radiant film effect went away. 



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Dec  4 02:21:08 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:21:08 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Me
In-Reply-To: <4B18425C.1060109@satx.rr.com>
References: <30255.90755.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<4B18425C.1060109@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4B187214.9090903@rawbw.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> On 12/3/2009 4:17 PM, Robert Masters wrote:
>>
>>> From childhood's hour I have not been
>> As others were; I have not seen
>> As others saw; I could not bring
>> My passions from a common spring.
>>> From the same source I have not taken
>> My sorrow; I could not awaken
>> My heart to joy at the same tone;
>> And all I loved, I loved alone.
>>
>> It's all mine.
> 
> Report from the ExI readership:
> 
> "Me too!", "Me too!", "The Cat who walks by himself.", "Me too!", "Yo!!", "Me too!"
> "Me too!", "Oh you say it so beautifully i couldnt have put it so sweetly but yes i 
> feel that way also", "Me too!", "Me too!", "Huh???", "I know what u mean!", "Me too!"
> "yes I feel exactlty that way, not like anyone else in the whole world."

Well, let's read that again---carefully this time:

 > From childhood's hour I have not been
  As others were; I have not seen
  As others saw; I could not bring
  My passions from a common spring.
 > From the same source I have not taken
  My sorrow; I could not awaken
  My heart to joy at the same tone;
  And all I loved, I loved alone.

ExI members are like *that*?  Hath not an Extropian
lungs with which to laugh at the Three Stooges,
lips with which to moan at bad puns (and the political
opposition)?  Hath not an Extropian eyes to see
what others do indeed see? (Most often, that is.)
Are our passions not aroused from movies and
comedies too numerous to refer to?

Hath not an Extropian pain and anguish, joining
millions in sad recognition of bad trends? Join
not Extropians in rooting for Obama or McCain?
(Or just plain rutting?)

Hath not an Extropian sympathy and infinite regret
at our poor friend Hal's great torment?

The writer is indeed very special, or has misspoke,
or is deluded.

All that we love, we love alone? Let anyone but
the OP (or his source) say it's true! I dare you.

Lee


From rob4332000 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  4 02:28:54 2009
From: rob4332000 at yahoo.com (Robert Masters)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:28:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Assassination tango
Message-ID: <976799.19921.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>




3 Dec 09
6:21 p.m.


Another attempt.  Again I woke up disoriented, COUGHING.  Hint: coughing helps. 


Rob Masters


      


From spike66 at att.net  Fri Dec  4 02:47:18 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:47:18 -0800
Subject: [ExI] we die alone while ogling the divers
In-Reply-To: <182452.64981.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <182452.64981.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00A4F8668B384C2584840D149DD22DCE@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Robert Masters
... 
> 
> 2 Dec 09
> 5:23 a.m.
> 
> I almost died just now.  I dreamed that I was drowning, and I 
> remembered that one is supposed to shout at such times.  So I 
> started yelling at the top of my voice (in the dream, and 
> then as I woke up).....Rob Masters

Wrong-o, so very wrong Rob me lad.  

If you have drowning dreams very often it might indicate sleep apnea, so you
need to see the medics about that.  

But I have found a much better approach.  Whenever I dream I are drowning,
instead of shouting, I dream that I discover that I can breathe water.  How
cool would that be!  You could become the greatest undersea wildlife
observer in history.  You could go into the Bond James Bond line of
business.  You play some excellent gags with that skill, scare the piss out
of people by unexpectedly emerging from the swamp, that sorta thing.  Your
wife would ask why it is that you so often wake up laughing.  But even
better, you could swim along the bottom of the lake to position yourself
underneath the diving board.  No one would see you down there and you
wouldn't make a bunch of bubbles as a scuba diver would, so you could
quietly observe the diving ladies having the occasional wardrobe
malfunction.  THAT would be a SERIOUSLY cool dream.

Now why would you want to shout and mess up that?

spike



 




From spike66 at att.net  Fri Dec  4 02:54:34 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:54:34 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Who is Ayn Rand?
In-Reply-To: <1E888355-2574-4379-B99D-DE1AA9BCE673@GMAIL.COM>
References: <462361.30206.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<1E888355-2574-4379-B99D-DE1AA9BCE673@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <9031C3E58CA24514AB0A16C17C000795@spike>


> > ...Ayn Rand was not 
> perfect, often tending to be too quick to denounce others 
> morally because they simply disagreed... Joshua Job

I disagree!  Ayn Rand WAS perfect, you depraved and iniquitous philistine,
you debauched barbarian!





Well, maybe a little imperfect.



{8^D



spike





From sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com  Fri Dec  4 02:35:20 2009
From: sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com (Sockpuppet99@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 19:35:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Assassination tango
In-Reply-To: <976799.19921.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <976799.19921.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP46C436D3BCC04388858911CF930@phx.gbl>


I think you have a vagus nerve issue.

Tom D

Sent from my iPod

On Dec 3, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Robert Masters <rob4332000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> 3 Dec 09
> 6:21 p.m.
>
>
> Another attempt.  Again I woke up disoriented, COUGHING.  Hint:  
> coughing helps.
>
>
> Rob Masters
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 03:22:49 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 22:22:49 -0500
Subject: [ExI] we die alone
In-Reply-To: <7DDE0B42E26447EE9017DD8E1144ED05@Notebook>
References: <182452.64981.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<2d6187670912031725h518525dev8d9971ec68a5d82b@mail.gmail.com>
	<7DDE0B42E26447EE9017DD8E1144ED05@Notebook>
Message-ID: <62c14240912031922s3cd507b7k728fe83e00b29293@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Henrique Moraes Machado <
cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com> wrote:

> Rob Masters wrote:
> I almost died just now.  I dreamed that I was drowning, and I remembered
> that one is supposed to shout at such times.  So I started yelling at the
> top of my voice (in the dream, and then as I woke up) while jumping out of
> bed and running toward the front door of my apartment.  For the first few
> seconds everything in the apartment looked weird, as if covered with a
> radiant film; then that effect subsided.
>
>>
>>>>
> <Grigg>A strange experience.  Has this ever happened to you before?  Will
> you talk to your doctor about it?  The fact everything looked radiant for a
> few seconds after you woke up is mildly alarming to me.  I have had some
> disturbing dreams, but never with that side effect.</Grigg>
>
> That?s probably because his eyes were a bit dry. Once he blinked a bunch of
> times and the eyes became properly wet the radiant film effect went away.
>
>
I almost died:  i expected this to be followed with happened.
I dreamed I was drowning:  I expected that you had fallen asleep on a boat
and that your dream was also real.
I remembered...to shout: I guess that's so someone can help?  though I'm not
sure shouting is possible while drowning.
jumping...and running:  That sounds very lively, hardly like dieing at all.
few seconds...everything...looked weird:  Interesting judgment for one so
nearly dead.
that effect subsided:  It still looks that way, you've just grown accustomed
to it. :)
...
Then what happened?  I kept waiting to hear about how you almost died.

Reminds me of the opening (and closing) line to the movie Fallen....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091203/95e3f8d9/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri Dec  4 03:10:06 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 19:10:06 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Me
In-Reply-To: <4B187214.9090903@rawbw.com>
References: <30255.90755.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com><4B18425C.1060109@satx.rr.com>
	<4B187214.9090903@rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <47E32132FC994EFCB13F116C898940AC@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
> ...
> 
> Hath not an Extropian sympathy and infinite regret at our 
> poor friend Hal's great torment?... Lee


Has anyone heard from Hal in the past few weeks?  If you post to him
offlist, do let him know his friends and fans over here worry and wish him
the best under trying circs.

spike









From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 04:45:25 2009
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 23:45:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
	again]
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912031517y7a86f1fdg45a4e1b5ffd4ff2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60912020121m45222eeapaec7b31a2d8ab598@mail.gmail.com>
	<4902d9990912021208v3b77eed1g81f47f16566c79c3@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B16E3DB.3060109@libero.it>
	<4902d9990912030907y6b49afa3i1172d7d33d6043a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1838CE.8010706@libero.it>
	<4902d9990912031517y7a86f1fdg45a4e1b5ffd4ff2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0912032045x29a7c32ak354a3940cd2f8a07@mail.gmail.com>

Without meaning to be a nay-sayer -- because I believe global warming is
real (lost glaciers and the loss of ice at the poles being the most obvious
demonstrations) -- I hope you all do realize that the problem once molecular
nanotechnology becomes available to the average citizen (i.e. 10 kg of
nanorobots per person) the problem flips completely in the opposite
direction).  The problem is not excess CO2 in the atmosphere but a complete
shortage of CO2 and the extinction of most plant life and microorganisms (at
least those that depend on photosynthesis) on the planet.  Or have you all
forgotten (or overlooked) why I called it "Sapphire Mansions" rather than
"Diamond Mansions"? (Note that the shift required from atmospheric carbon
overabundance to atmospheric carbon shortages is much more significant than
the current global warming debate because the costs for solving the first in
terms of shifting from the archived carbon resources to sustainable
resources are non-trivial (but essentialy standard of living questions).  In
contrast the shift from rampant harvesting of carbon from the atmosphere to
abiding by ones "reasonable" resource limit when the the resources are
effectively free -- i.e. one only has moral and/or legal persuasion -- and
those may not be enough (one has to change human nature in a significant way
in a very short period of time).

So exerting effort in this area (debating whether global warming is real or
fiction) is a complete waste of time (given that we can envision
technological solutions for turning the problem completely upside down).
 Instead you should be designing molecular nanoparts or working towards the
funding of their realization (while at the same time being as green as one
can -- if only for the simple reason that one has to shift the economy and
the framework in which humanity operates in the direction of millenia
sustainability -- because "unsustainability" leads to bubbles and crashes
and we would like to avoid more of these over the next century and longer).
 If I were to take a general survey, even of serious scientists, I don't
think they would push "real" nanotechnology out beyond ~50 years, the most
severe pressure to develop it around the time that current photolithographic
methods start becoming very very hard to improve.  And that implies, that
unless Eric, Ralph and Robert are wrong -- global cooling rather than global
warming is the real problem we face.

The barrier is extremely low at this point -- Nanoengineer-1 from Nanorex is
free to download.  A good organic chemistry textbook might cost $50-$100 (or
presumably many can be downloaded).  So in scanning this thread I was left
with the thought -- "Haven't you all got better things to do?"

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091203/8f9be9af/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 04:51:18 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:21:18 +1030
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
	again]
In-Reply-To: <20091203093004.GM17686@leitl.org>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0912011835u18559882ga8d6631238f6e13@mail.gmail.com>
	<20091202111533.GX17686@leitl.org>
	<710b78fc0912021816s28f09ff2x818b034c0f3de137@mail.gmail.com>
	<f430d9be0912021841x65515657u7797ca721a85b0f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<20091203093004.GM17686@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912032051o20ddc3cas101977cb60d83b0d@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/3 Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 01:41:57PM +1100, ddraig wrote:
>
>> > When you start hearing this from Germans, the shit is about to go down!
>>
>> Don't mention the, errrr... thingy
>
> HITLER, HITLER, HITLER, HITLER!

Best. Godwin. Ever.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 10:18:00 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:18:00 +0000
Subject: [ExI] we die alone
In-Reply-To: <182452.64981.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <182452.64981.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0912040218r6b02be62ue9a839b6bd7b3032@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/3/09, Robert Masters wrote:
>  I almost died just now.  I dreamed that I was drowning,

Then I realized that my hot water bottle had burst during the night.

Then I remembered that I don't have a hot water bottle................



BillK


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Fri Dec  4 11:11:39 2009
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 06:11:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] Assassination tango
In-Reply-To: <976799.19921.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <976799.19921.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <50300.12.77.168.224.1259925099.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>

>
>
>
> 3 Dec 09
> 6:21 p.m.
>
>
> Another attempt.  Again I woke up disoriented, COUGHING.  Hint: coughing helps.
>
>

Perhaps you're getting a cold.  My neighbor has a cold. My boss just got over one.
I'm hopeful, but that's all.

A cold coming on would make your breathing odd and might offer up the knocking you
heard, the dry eye radiance thing, and the coughing.

Take care of yourself.

Regards,
MB



From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 11:20:06 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 11:20:06 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Me
In-Reply-To: <4B187214.9090903@rawbw.com>
References: <30255.90755.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<4B18425C.1060109@satx.rr.com> <4B187214.9090903@rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0912040320k31e6a643y4e2f74ea0640265@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/4/09, Lee Corbin wrote:
<snip>
>  The writer is indeed very special, or has misspoke,
>  or is deluded.
>
>  All that we love, we love alone? Let anyone but
>  the OP (or his source) say it's true! I dare you.
>
>

Indeed. The writer was a tortured soul.

<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Alone_(Poe)>

Although undated, it is thought to have been written when Poe was
about 20 years old. In the middle of his teenage angst, gothic period.
(Which pretty much continued for the rest of his short life).

BillK


From sparge at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 13:58:25 2009
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:58:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Climate Change Lectures
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0912040558p1b986c7dqcf198318daeada34@mail.gmail.com>

Passing this on. Looks interesting, but haven't watched them all yet.

"David Archer is a professor at the University of Chicago doing
research on CO2/ climate change and has written a couple of good books
on the topic.  He teaches a class for non-science majors on the
subject called "Global Warming - Understanding the Forecast" and
during the Fall 2009 quarter he videotaped the lectures and has made
them publicly available (he even makes reference to the current email
hacking controversy in one lecture).  Viewing them requires
Quicktime...

For those interested the link to the lectures:

http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
"

-Dave


From painlord2k at libero.it  Fri Dec  4 14:15:47 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:15:47 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate
 again]
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912031517y7a86f1fdg45a4e1b5ffd4ff2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011907.nB1J6x5P029237@andromeda.ziaspace.com>	<4902d9990912011416p8693c44lc520c52ac5c3b1ea@mail.gmail.com>	<7641ddc60912020121m45222eeapaec7b31a2d8ab598@mail.gmail.com>	<4902d9990912021208v3b77eed1g81f47f16566c79c3@mail.gmail.com>	<4B16E3DB.3060109@libero.it>	<4902d9990912030907y6b49afa3i1172d7d33d6043a5@mail.gmail.com>	<4B1838CE.8010706@libero.it>
	<4902d9990912031517y7a86f1fdg45a4e1b5ffd4ff2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B191993.5050502@libero.it>

Il 04/12/2009 0.17, Alfio Puglisi ha scritto:
>
>
> 2009/12/3 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it
> <mailto:painlord2k at libero.it>>
>
>
> I'm not sure which units you are using.  0.03% of what? If it is in
> W/m^2, it seems way too small.
>
>
> Citing from the paper
>
> "It is obvious that a doubling of the concentration of the trace gas
> CO2, whose thermal conductivity is approximately one half than that
> of nitrogen and oxygen, does change the thermal conductivity at the
> most by 0.03% and the isochoric thermal diffusivity at the most by
> 0.07 %. These numbers lie within the range of the measuring
> inaccuracy and other uncertainties such as rounding errors and
> therefore have no significance at all."
>
>
> Ah, now I understand. G &T derive their number from the thermal
> capacity of CO2, which of course is a very small number because it
> has a very small mass compared to the rest of the atmosphere. That
> percentage ignores the radiation part of the equation, which is the
> basis of the CO2 greenhouse effect. Just confirming that it's a
> really, really poor paper.

You never red the paper, so judging it from a sentence is a bit
prejudiced, I think.

This is only in the first part of the paper, where they lay the
foundation of their case. This is needed to establish that conduction
and radiation are not how the heat is transmitted into the air.

> The ice age cores tell us that: 1) there are some positive feedbacks
> 2) they are not enough to trigger runaway effects under natural
> conditions. The ice cores also say there was first an heating and
> after a CO2 increase (some decades after).

> Sure, that's clear from the time series. They basically say that, if
> you increase temperature, CO2 will rise after a while. In our current
>  situation the order is reversed, because we started increasing CO2
> first.

You say so, but a scientific explanation of the former and the latter is
due. You can not reverse the cause and the effect and say the same
mechanics worked in the reverse.

The explanation of the first is raising temperature liberated CO2 from
their sinks. CO2 having no real greenhouse effect did nothing.
If CO2 would have a greenhouse effect so strong as you claim, would have
caused supplemental heating. But, IIRC, the CO2 continued to climb up
even after the temperatures started to go down, following them after a
delay.
So, or the greenhouse effect of the CO2 don't exist, or some natural
phenomenon is much stronger than the CO2. The Sun, maybe?


> Possibly, but it needs to be quantified. Actually I'm not sure where
> to start. Treat it as an insurance-like problem?

Wrong. You can not insure against a rainy day. Because all will feel the
effect of the rain. There is no sharing of different individual risks.
Only self-insurance would work, here.

> Or like when engineers design dams for 100 or 500 years floods?

I don't know many design that are done to last so much.
Usually this is a byproduct of designing for safety.
And, even the N.O. floods was more a byproduct of not enough maintenance
than not designing for safety enough.
Occur to me that the costs to build a dam system able to protect New
Orleans from a Cat. 5 Hurricane would cost so much to bankrupt the city
itself. So, wisely, it was not done.
What could be done, but was not done, was to use the buses used to bus
around schoolboys and schoolgirls to move out of the city, in safer
places, the people, until the storm end. There are [not so] pretty sat
photos (courtesy of Google Earth and the curious eyes of interested
people) showing all these buses underwater, in their parking lots. The
Major never gave the orders needed, and the Police preferred to join the
looters or flee than doing their jobs.

What is the point to give to corrupted people the money for gargantuan
projects, when the best they will do is steal it and waste it.

Already, in Denmark, UK and other places there are investigation about
frauds and organize crime involved with carbon trading.



> Current understanding says that there is some X % of serious
> consequences, so it's acceptable to devote Y% of resources to avoid
> the problem?

Where and when any problem was avoided paying more taxes that would be 
diverted to unrelated spending?
Mr. Gore will become billionaire with his investment if carbon trading. 
That, for what I can understand, is only a way to sell indulgences (as 
stated by a first hour, grandaddy, of the AGW theory.
The problem is the real goal of the greens/leftist.
They want destroy capitalism, because they don't like it, and any reason 
is good to justify this goal. And whatever the price others will pay is 
immaterial. For this, it is enough to see they dishonesty of their 
positions. They are against CO2 emission, but don't want nuclear energy. 
The talk much of wind power, but don't want it in their backyard or to 
save some pests. Not to talk about the fact they want others to subside 
their projects. If these projects are sustainable, what subsides are for?

> The Economist (not exactly a hotbed of environmentalism)

The Economist that tasked Tana de Zulueta to write about Italy politics?
After many passages in TV show where she was presented only as an 
impartial Economist journalist, she would be candidate and elected for 
the post communist party (PDS, now PD).
The same newspaper that back only the leftist governments of Italy and 
is fed practically only by leftist Italian journalists about the news 
and their interpretations?


> has a special report out, that report estimates of the cost at 1% of
> global GDP per year to limit CO2 at 500ppm.

 From 350 ppm?
So we devote 1% to obtain an increase anyway in 90 years.
If we devote the same money to adapt to the changes we would spend less.
We could devote much less and seed the seas so there is more carbon 
capturing.

Last time I checked, the Kyoto protocols would cause the globe to delay 
of three years over a century the same results. Killing the economies of 
the world in the meantime (with many billions starving).

I keep the CO2 and any warming predicted and I'm sure I and the rest of 
planet population will live fine anyway.

Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.93/2544 -  Data di rilascio: 12/04/09 08:32:00

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Dec  4 15:24:18 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:24:18 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Me
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0912040320k31e6a643y4e2f74ea0640265@mail.gmail.com>
References: <30255.90755.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>	<4B18425C.1060109@satx.rr.com>
	<4B187214.9090903@rawbw.com>
	<ee50357e0912040320k31e6a643y4e2f74ea0640265@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B1929A2.7000602@rawbw.com>

BillK wrote:

> On 12/4/09, Lee Corbin wrote:
> <snip>
>>  The writer is indeed very special, or has misspoke,
>>  or is deluded.
>>
>>  All that we love, we love alone? Let anyone but
>>  the OP (or his source) say it's true! I dare you.
> 
> Indeed. The writer was a tortured soul.
> 
> <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Alone_(Poe)>

Oh, for heaven's sake! The extra ">" at two places in

  > From childhood's hour I have not been
   As others were; I have not seen
   As others saw; I could not bring
   My passions from a common spring.
  > From the same source I have not taken
   My sorrow; I could not awaken
   My heart to joy at the same tone;
   And all I loved, I loved alone.

did make me suspect that the OP was not the original
source. Thanks so much, BillK, for doing the simple
and obvious---and tracking it down. It was Poe.
It figures.

> Although undated, it is thought to have been written when Poe was
> about 20 years old. In the middle of his teenage angst, gothic period.
> (Which pretty much continued for the rest of his short life).

Oh, I'll bet he had his ups and downs during the rest
(January 19, 1809 ? October 7, 1849). But how bad one's
thirties or forties are must vary hugely.


Those of us who have mild to moderate, or moderate to severe
depression from time to time, just can have no concept of
how unrelentingly bad it can be are the intensely and
chronically depressed. Some suffer from depression,
or as they used to say, melancholia, their whole lives. It
all takes us straight back to www.hedweb.org, and the
straight facts that in our benighted era so little effort
is focused on happy pills that would have very few or no
damaging side effects.

Lee


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Dec  4 15:25:45 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:25:45 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Me and Poe
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0912040320k31e6a643y4e2f74ea0640265@mail.gmail.com>
References: <30255.90755.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>	<4B18425C.1060109@satx.rr.com>
	<4B187214.9090903@rawbw.com>
	<ee50357e0912040320k31e6a643y4e2f74ea0640265@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B1929F9.8050407@satx.rr.com>

On 12/4/2009 5:20 AM, BillK wrote:

> The writer was a tortured soul.
>
> <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Alone_(Poe)>
>
> Although undated, it is thought to have been written when Poe was
> about 20 years old. In the middle of his teenage angst, gothic period.

Good catch! The teen loneliness and misery comes through with great 
precision. And, pace Lee Corbin, I'd say quite a few people on a list 
such as this would have suffered such an agony in eight fits. It 
reminded me of a tragically hip note I jotted down in a diary on a 
teenaged birthday: "Now I am 19, and still the world is full of lies & 
tears."

It still is, but you learn to cope, mostly.

Damien Broderick


From spike66 at att.net  Fri Dec  4 17:42:36 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:42:36 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Me and Poe
In-Reply-To: <4B1929F9.8050407@satx.rr.com>
References: <30255.90755.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>	<4B18425C.1060109@satx.rr.com><4B187214.9090903@rawbw.com><ee50357e0912040320k31e6a643y4e2f74ea0640265@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1929F9.8050407@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <D30E7F5E2CF848FCBAAFB5E6EE753E55@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick

> ...And, pace Lee Corbin, I'd say quite a few 
> people on a list such as this would have suffered such an 
> agony... Damien Broderick

Ja, and I would agree that often some of one's best thinking and writing is
done during periods of this kind of agony.

spike









From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Fri Dec  4 18:11:37 2009
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 11:11:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Me and Poe
In-Reply-To: <D30E7F5E2CF848FCBAAFB5E6EE753E55@spike>
References: <30255.90755.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>	<4B18425C.1060109@satx.rr.com><4B187214.9090903@rawbw.com><ee50357e0912040320k31e6a643y4e2f74ea0640265@mail.gmail.com><4B1929F9.8050407@satx.rr.com>
	<D30E7F5E2CF848FCBAAFB5E6EE753E55@spike>
Message-ID: <CFCAEA68C3154E7BB7190B21F3C42CCC@3DBOXXW4850>

My version of Poe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ywkv1urqP0


Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
www.nanogirl.com



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Me and Poe


>
>
>> ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
>
>> ...And, pace Lee Corbin, I'd say quite a few
>> people on a list such as this would have suffered such an
>> agony... Damien Broderick
>
> Ja, and I would agree that often some of one's best thinking and writing 
> is
> done during periods of this kind of agony.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 



From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 19:41:20 2009
From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:41:20 -0200
Subject: [ExI] Is Mr. Henson somehow involved in this?
Message-ID: <A574F9B2F574435B9C8B6163EAEDE126@Notebook>

Solar Plant in Space Gets Go-Ahead
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/solar-plant-in-space-gets-go-ahead/






From painlord2k at libero.it  Fri Dec  4 19:44:16 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:44:16 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Shale as a renewed source of energy
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912031428n62ac693fjc25db2c024cca2f0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912031441.nB3EfNrK007887@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<f21c22e30912031428n62ac693fjc25db2c024cca2f0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B196690.4070705@libero.it>

Il 03/12/2009 23.28, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto:
> 2009/12/4 Max More<max at maxmore.com>:
>> I haven't looked into shale in years, so I'm posting this link with an
>> invitation to comment. The piece makes it sound promising as a medium-term
>> energy source.
>>
>> Is shale an answer to the energy question?
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34253199/ns/business-oil_and_energy/
>>
>> Excerpt:
>> "The United States is sitting on over 100 years of gas supply at the current
>> rates of consumption," he said. Because natural gas emits half the
>> greenhouse gases of coal, he added, that "provides the United States with a
>> unique opportunity to address concerns about energy security and climate
>> change."
>>
>> Recoverable U.S. gas reserves could now be bigger than the immense gas
>> reserves of Russia, some experts say.
>
> In addition to shale gas there is coal seam gas and the possibility
> (economic at higher oil prices) of converting coal to gas.

CTL is economic at the current price level (>50-60$).
The Air Force financed the development of a pilot plant.
The question is how the price level will move.

Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.93/2544 -  Data di rilascio: 12/04/09 08:32:00

From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 19:55:24 2009
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:55:24 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Spirited molecules
In-Reply-To: <20091202124822.8c68a152@secure.ericade.net>
References: <20091202124822.8c68a152@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <deaa866a0912041155w300401c2m690d457285fbe21e@mail.gmail.com>

Well, I had some difficulty reading this post as I do not read the ExICh
list frequently (due to its gestapo policies).

But this topic attracted my attention.

Thel unbonded "azide" molecule (with the formula CN4) does not exist (to the
best of my knowledge to assay it).  The best using Wikipedia that I have
been able to find is possibly N3- and therefore molecules such as NaN3
(sodium azide). The statement by Derek with respect to a "Cyanogen azide"
suggests a C2N2 bonded to a N4 molecule -- which I fail to understand (I can
posit plausible explanations for the distribution of the electrons (around
many molecules) -- but I cannot posit how it is created or its actual normal
chemical makeup.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091204/188e240e/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 20:16:17 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 20:16:17 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Is Mr. Henson somehow involved in this?
In-Reply-To: <A574F9B2F574435B9C8B6163EAEDE126@Notebook>
References: <A574F9B2F574435B9C8B6163EAEDE126@Notebook>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0912041216g6709371fre4640e298e79a8e@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/4/09, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote:
> Solar Plant in Space Gets Go-Ahead
> http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/solar-plant-in-space-gets-go-ahead/
>
>

I very much doubt that Keith is involved.
He's a very practical engineer type.

Quote from the article:
Still, Mr. Spirnak, who previously ran space shuttle flights for the
United States Air Force, acknowledged that putting a solar power plant
in space would cost a few billion dollars more than a terrestrial
photovoltaic farm generating the equivalent amount of electricity.
----------

Terrestrial solar power farms are already running and more are being
built - for a fraction of the cost of this plan.

This is California politics snatching at anything that might help it
meet its renewable energy mandates. It won't cost California anything
if it fails.
It will be the investors that lose their money.

BillK


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  4 19:50:43 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 11:50:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <mailman.736.1259881953.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <11077.38275.qm@web32006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Andrii Zvorygin <andrii.z at gmail.com> wrote:

> he seems like an angry confused person.

I very much doubt that he's confused.  

But angry? About the greatest evil that has ever existed?
Yes, I should think so.

Ben Zaiboc


      


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 21:20:11 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:20:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Assassination tango
In-Reply-To: <50300.12.77.168.224.1259925099.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>
References: <976799.19921.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<50300.12.77.168.224.1259925099.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <2d6187670912041320w402c67ccj55174fa8a88f82e7@mail.gmail.com>

"Is there a doctor in the house (errr..., the list!)?"  LOL

John  : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091204/bf48ba82/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 21:26:43 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:26:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Me and Poe
In-Reply-To: <CFCAEA68C3154E7BB7190B21F3C42CCC@3DBOXXW4850>
References: <30255.90755.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<4B18425C.1060109@satx.rr.com> <4B187214.9090903@rawbw.com>
	<ee50357e0912040320k31e6a643y4e2f74ea0640265@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1929F9.8050407@satx.rr.com>
	<D30E7F5E2CF848FCBAAFB5E6EE753E55@spike>
	<CFCAEA68C3154E7BB7190B21F3C42CCC@3DBOXXW4850>
Message-ID: <2d6187670912041326j5e92607dw6523971c980f072@mail.gmail.com>

Once again Gina has created an impressive work.

Around the Phoenix, Arizona area we have at least two different really
great Poe events every year.  And so between the annual Poe Festival
(various mini plays, songs, interpretive dance, you name it) and the
annual Poe Halloween Reading (sort of like an old time radio show) I am kept
in thrall to the "poe-etic!"  : )

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091204/0e481542/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Fri Dec  4 21:37:06 2009
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:37:06 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Thinkers we know
Message-ID: <20091204213706.0880bb71@secure.ericade.net>

Foreign Policy recently announced their list of top 100 global thinkers. A lot of the usual suspects, but the list gets fun at #71 with Ray Kurzweil, followed by #72 Jamais Cascio, and #73 Nick Bostrom. 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,30

The Swedish newspapers made it a big story that professor Rosling at #96 was the only swede - they completely missed Nick :-) 


Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University 


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 22:10:26 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:10:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Who is Ayn Rand?
In-Reply-To: <9031C3E58CA24514AB0A16C17C000795@spike>
References: <462361.30206.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<1E888355-2574-4379-B99D-DE1AA9BCE673@GMAIL.COM>
	<9031C3E58CA24514AB0A16C17C000795@spike>
Message-ID: <2d6187670912041410k5a984fei6504dfaea136fd35@mail.gmail.com>

 Spike wrote:

> I disagree!  Ayn Rand WAS perfect, you depraved and iniquitous philistine,
> you debauched barbarian!
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, maybe a little imperfect.
>
>
>
> {8^D
> >>>


Just imagine if L. Ron Hubbard and Ayn Rand had had a child together?

John  : 0
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091204/74ee8c06/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 22:15:37 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:15:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Top 5 biggest advances this year in anti-aging medicine...
Message-ID: <2d6187670912041415k26735196ka31c49c9c1e58602@mail.gmail.com>

The top 5 greatest advances this year in longevity medicine, according to
the Methuselah Foundation & Dave Gobel.

http://methuselahfoundation.org/new_newsletter/NovNL_Bestof09.html

Would everyone agree with the five list items?

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091204/5e817a0d/attachment.html>

From brentn at freeshell.org  Fri Dec  4 22:02:16 2009
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:02:16 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Spirited molecules
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0912041155w300401c2m690d457285fbe21e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091202124822.8c68a152@secure.ericade.net>
	<deaa866a0912041155w300401c2m690d457285fbe21e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C42AD33-3243-4812-B140-9EA55C8E1B6E@freeshell.org>


On 4 Dec, 2009, at 14:55, Robert Bradbury wrote:

> Well, I had some difficulty reading this post as I do not read the  
> ExICh list frequently (due to its gestapo policies).
>
> But this topic attracted my attention.
>
> Thel unbonded "azide" molecule (with the formula CN4) does not exist  
> (to the best of my knowledge to assay it).  The best using Wikipedia  
> that I have been able to find is possibly N3- and therefore  
> molecules such as NaN3 (sodium azide). The statement by Derek with  
> respect to a "Cyanogen azide" suggests a C2N2 bonded to a N4  
> molecule -- which I fail to understand (I can posit plausible  
> explanations for the distribution of the electrons (around many  
> molecules) -- but I cannot posit how it is created or its actual  
> normal chemical makeup.
>
> Robert



Robert -
I think you've misunderstood the formula from the name. Cyanogen azide  
has the empirical formula CN4.  Structurally, its N?C-N=N=N. (That's  
a triple bond between the first N and the C, in case your mailreader  
isn't Unicode savvy.) The azide functional group is delta+ on the  
middle N, and delta- on the outer N. Its just not that terribly  
stable, alas, and as Derek points out, it wants to become mostly  
nitrogen gas in the worst kind of way.

(NB: I have been known to use the sulfonyl azides to do insertions on  
polyolefins.

B

--
Brent Neal, Ph.D.
http://brentn.freeshell.org
<brentn at freeshell.org>







From spike66 at att.net  Fri Dec  4 22:17:23 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:17:23 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Is Mr. Henson somehow involved in this?
In-Reply-To: <A574F9B2F574435B9C8B6163EAEDE126@Notebook>
References: <A574F9B2F574435B9C8B6163EAEDE126@Notebook>
Message-ID: <8A2153BAC52E478AA40B50E24EB8F197@spike>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Henrique Moraes Machado
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 11:41 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [ExI] Is Mr. Henson somehow involved in this?
> 
> Solar Plant in Space Gets Go-Ahead
> http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/solar-plant-in-sp
ace-gets-go-ahead/
> 

Henrique, it isn't clear to me why the California Public Utilities
Commission needs to have any input into this.  Any ideas?  If it means the
commish is putting up some of the money, well, don't count on that:
Taxifornia is broke, and it isn't going to get any better any time soon.
Hint: it will get worse sometime soon.  If the Cal PUC is not putting up
money, I don't see why they have any say in the matter.  It would be between
Solaren and Pacific Gas & Electric, ja?

I see other things in this article that raise red flags.  If they are using
an inflatable mirror and concentrating solar energy on PVs, that looks to me
right up front to be a loser: the PV life would surely be shortened by a
concentrator, which is not what you want to do with anything you have paid
to loft into space.  

I could imagine on the other hand using a huge inflatable mirror to create
one hell of a Carnot cycle generator, and oh what fun we could have
designing something like that: plenty of cold space to exhaust the waste
heat, noooo restrictions at aaaallll on what we could use for working
fluids, haaa that would be a fun project on which to be a design engineer.

spike





From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Dec  4 22:48:45 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:48:45 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Top 5 biggest advances this year in anti-aging medicine...
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670912041415k26735196ka31c49c9c1e58602@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670912041415k26735196ka31c49c9c1e58602@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B1991CD.5030800@satx.rr.com>

If only there was a link to this, or even a name:

<6. Tooth implants in one day - replacing surgery and long waiting and 
recovery times, new procedures allow dental surgeons to do virtual 
surgery to get an accurate picture of bone density and nerve position. 
The replacement tooth is made from the virtual plans allowing for a 
precise and permanent fit.>

Damien Broderick


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Fri Dec  4 22:58:24 2009
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:58:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Me and Poe
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670912041326j5e92607dw6523971c980f072@mail.gmail.com>
References: <30255.90755.qm@web58305.mail.re3.yahoo.com><4B18425C.1060109@satx.rr.com>
	<4B187214.9090903@rawbw.com><ee50357e0912040320k31e6a643y4e2f74ea0640265@mail.gmail.com><4B1929F9.8050407@satx.rr.com><D30E7F5E2CF848FCBAAFB5E6EE753E55@spike><CFCAEA68C3154E7BB7190B21F3C42CCC@3DBOXXW4850>
	<2d6187670912041326j5e92607dw6523971c980f072@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <69BFE9AD258D49708E19D209EDBE0AF2@3DBOXXW4850>

Thank you John. Sounds like there are some very interesting events in your area!

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
www.nanogirl.com 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Grigg 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 2:26 PM
  Subject: Re: [ExI] Me and Poe


  Once again Gina has created an impressive work.  

  Around the Phoenix, Arizona area we have at least two different really great Poe events every year.  And so between the annual Poe Festival (various mini plays, songs, interpretive dance, you name it) and the annual Poe Halloween Reading (sort of like an old time radio show) I am kept in thrall to the "poe-etic!"  : )

  John




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091204/e169da7c/attachment.html>

From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com  Fri Dec  4 23:13:19 2009
From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 21:13:19 -0200
Subject: [ExI] Is Mr. Henson somehow involved in this?
References: <A574F9B2F574435B9C8B6163EAEDE126@Notebook>
	<8A2153BAC52E478AA40B50E24EB8F197@spike>
Message-ID: <58D0CF6FD24B4B4C83259A74838AFF3D@Notebook>

Spikey> Henrique, it isn't clear to me why the California Public Utilities
> Commission needs to have any input into this.  Any ideas?  If it means the
> commish is putting up some of the money, well, don't count on that:
> Taxifornia is broke, and it isn't going to get any better any time soon.
> Hint: it will get worse sometime soon.  If the Cal PUC is not putting up
> money, I don't see why they have any say in the matter.  It would be 
> between
> Solaren and Pacific Gas & Electric, ja?

No ideas. Maybe it's some legislation issue but I don't live in the 
Taxifornia (or any part of the US of A) and have no idea on how their 
legislation works. The article doesn't say much either. They could be 
fishing for investors, you know -- Hey we have the blessing from Schwarzie, 
now give us some money --

Spike> I see other things in this article that raise red flags.  If they are 
using
> an inflatable mirror and concentrating solar energy on PVs, that looks to 
> me
> right up front to be a loser: the PV life would surely be shortened by a
> concentrator, which is not what you want to do with anything you have paid
> to loft into space.

Indeed. But being the first attempt, this would be more of a proof of 
concept thingy than a commercial one, right? Therefore they can experiment.

Spike> I could imagine on the other hand using a huge inflatable mirror to 
create
> one hell of a Carnot cycle generator, and oh what fun we could have
> designing something like that: plenty of cold space to exhaust the waste
> heat, noooo restrictions at aaaallll on what we could use for working
> fluids, haaa that would be a fun project on which to be a design engineer.

Not being an engineer myself, I had to go to wikipedia to try and have any 
idea of what you're talking about... Ok. It's a Stirling engine. Interesting 
idea. However, correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am) but isn't heat 
dissipation a big problem in a vacuum? 



From spike66 at att.net  Fri Dec  4 23:15:30 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:15:30 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Spirited molecules
In-Reply-To: <4C42AD33-3243-4812-B140-9EA55C8E1B6E@freeshell.org>
References: <20091202124822.8c68a152@secure.ericade.net><deaa866a0912041155w300401c2m690d457285fbe21e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C42AD33-3243-4812-B140-9EA55C8E1B6E@freeshell.org>
Message-ID: <E9E01D2EAE294FC6917ECC8C1B43EBBC@spike>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Brent Neal
> ...
> 
> 
> Robert -
> I think you've misunderstood the formula from the name. 
> Cyanogen azide  
> has the empirical formula CN4.  Structurally, its N?C-N=N=N...

Cool Brent thanks, I wondered about this, but hadn't looked it upwardly.  Or
looked up it.  I would never have guessed this because one of the Ns has
four bonds and one has only two.  Didn't know they could do that.


> ...it wants to become mostly  
> nitrogen gas in the worst kind of way... Brent Neal, Ph.D.

Ja and it often becomes nitrogen gas in the worst kind of way.  

{8-]

...Which reminds me of a question I have wondered about for a long time,
speaking of nitrogen compounds.  Words that are often used to describe an
explosion are, for instance, kaBOOM and kerBLOOEY and kaBANG and such.
Please those who speak European languages, do those anamonapoetic terms have
equivalents in your language?  If so, does it have the ka?  What is the ka?
Why isn't it merely BOOM and BANG?  Is there some actual compressible fluid
effect that causes some kind of sensation of ka before the sound wave
arrives?  I have a notion of what that might be, but will only propose it if
I know it isn't a meaningless Yankeeism.

spike


  




From spike66 at att.net  Sat Dec  5 00:46:27 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 16:46:27 -0800
Subject: [ExI] is our friend somehow involved in this?
In-Reply-To: <58D0CF6FD24B4B4C83259A74838AFF3D@Notebook>
References: <A574F9B2F574435B9C8B6163EAEDE126@Notebook><8A2153BAC52E478AA40B50E24EB8F197@spike>
	<58D0CF6FD24B4B4C83259A74838AFF3D@Notebook>
Message-ID: <DE61C6DDA5C245199856ED6444227CE9@spike>

 


Hi friends, note the change in subject line.  If someone puts their own name
in a subject line, that is fine.  For privacy reasons and established
protocol, unless you have specific permission from that person, do eschew
putting anyone's name in a subject line thanks.

> ...On Behalf Of Henrique Moraes Machado
> ...
> 
> Not being an engineer myself, I had to go to wikipedia to try 
> and have any idea of what you're talking about... Ok. It's a 
> Stirling engine...

Well it can be a Stirling engine, but that isn't exactly what I have in
mind.  I was thinking something analogous to a steam turbine cycle, except
instead of water, we might use a higher temperature working fluid such as
mercury or some other metal.  With that big a concentrator, we have really
high temperatures at our disposal, and recall that we need to actually boil
the stuff and recondense it.  

Likely water wouldn't do for this application, because it cannot be
condensed at temperatures below about 650K (if I recall correctly, somewhere
in the 600s I am pretty sure).  Mercury is up in the 1700s, so I could
imagine the heat source at a couple thousand K and the radiator exit at
about 700 to 800-ish, allowing a theoretical efficiency higher than you can
get with PVs.

> ...but isn't heat dissipation a big 
> problem in a vacuum? 

We get rid of the heat via radiation to cold space.  It is a big problem,
but there is a big solution to go with it.  If we are talking about a km
diameter mirror, then we are also talking about a biiig radiator.  If we can
run at high temperatures as we likely would for this application.  Heat is
radiated out into space as a function of temperature to the fourth, so
depending on how it is scaled, dumping heat in space is easier than it is
down here on the deck.  Down here of course we use the heat of vaporization
of water with the big cooling towers.  But in space, if sufficiently scaled,
a radiative condenser would be great.  It is a space engineer's playground!

Of course none of this will generate energy as cheaply as burning coal down
here, I am not claiming it is, unless it is scaled to a really remarkably
big station.  I don't think our friends at Solaren can do it either, but if
they manage to pull it off, I am cheering wildly for them, and will gladly
tell the whole world I was wrong.

spike






From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Dec  5 03:41:50 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:41:50 -0800
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <11077.38275.qm@web32006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <11077.38275.qm@web32006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B19D67E.4010101@rawbw.com>

Ben Zaiboc wrote:

> Andrii Zvorygin <andrii.z at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> he seems like an angry confused person.
> 
> I very much doubt that he's confused.  

I didn't see any signs of confusion either.

> But angry? About the greatest evil that has ever existed?
> Yes, I should think so.

It doesn't take too much dwelling on what religion
tries to do to modern minds (and succeeds very often)
in order to make a thoughtful, skeptical person angry.

"The greatest evil that has ever existed"?  I'm at a
loss here to think about what other candidates you
may have in mind, and how religion finally beats them
out in the evilness department.

The noticeable thread to me that links all the recent
atheist books, and claims like Pat Condell's, is this:
we can hardly imagine history without religion. So we
can hardly imagine the outcome of any controlled
experiment.

We know that the Aztecs and Mayas before them did
terrible things pretty high up on the scale of evil.
But it's highly significant, I think, that we *only*
know these things because a literate civilization
made contact with them and wrote it all down. It
seems likely to me that atrocities scarcely thinkable
to us were commonplace among *all* our ancestors if
we go back far enough.

Reading a sympathetic biography of Genghis Khan left
me with the impression that the incredible holocausts
would have happened anyway, even without the worship
of the Tangri, the great blue sky.

So, since atrocities and religion have always been
with us, how is it that so many people always manage
to suppose that the latter is truly responsible for
the former? I'm not convinced.


I do wish to say that I did not merely agree with almost
all of Pat Condell's rant, but that it echoed many of
my own thoughts and feelings over the years. How this
Eastern mystical cult came to dominate all of western
civilization is a sad tale. I'd love to know about an
alternate history (who among us would not) in which
the Greeks and Romans---who had successfully fought off
physical conquest---had managed also to fight off
memetic conquest.

Lee



From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Dec  5 04:09:39 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 23:09:39 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Spirited molecules
In-Reply-To: <E9E01D2EAE294FC6917ECC8C1B43EBBC@spike>
References: <20091202124822.8c68a152@secure.ericade.net>
	<deaa866a0912041155w300401c2m690d457285fbe21e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C42AD33-3243-4812-B140-9EA55C8E1B6E@freeshell.org>
	<E9E01D2EAE294FC6917ECC8C1B43EBBC@spike>
Message-ID: <62c14240912042009k476798a1h1fcae4aa78ba652@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/4 spike <spike66 at att.net>

> ...Which reminds me of a question I have wondered about for a long time,
> speaking of nitrogen compounds.  Words that are often used to describe an
> explosion are, for instance, kaBOOM and kerBLOOEY and kaBANG and such.
> Please those who speak European languages, do those anamonapoetic terms
> have
> equivalents in your language?  If so, does it have the ka?  What is the ka?
> Why isn't it merely BOOM and BANG?  Is there some actual compressible fluid
> effect that causes some kind of sensation of ka before the sound wave
> arrives?  I have a notion of what that might be, but will only propose it
> if
> I know it isn't a meaningless Yankeeism.
>
>
Isn't the audible pop of a balloon caused by air collapsing inwards?

In an explosion, it probably is the outward rush that generates the "ka"
followed by the collapse that makes the "boom"

I think the air rushing into the space recently vacated by an expanse of the
charcoal lighter fluid 'going up' that makes the "woof" sound too.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091204/0179b116/attachment.html>

From max at maxmore.com  Sat Dec  5 04:20:13 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:20:13 -0600
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
Message-ID: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Regarding:
Aggressive Atheism, by Pat Condell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk

I tried to watch this twice before, but stopped the video due to 
being put off by Condell's manner.

Tonight, I finally watched the whole thing. It made me feel like I 
was 18 years old again. An aggressive atheist. A guy who went to 
classes wearing badges (US: buttons) saying things like "legalize 
heroin", "taxation is theft", and "God is dead". It reminded me of 
confidently -- nay, arrogantly -- telling the religious buffoons 
what's what. And you know what? Every thing Condell says is basically right.

Yet, his attitude and approach, while refreshing, leaving me feeling 
that his message is purely and pointlessly a preaching-to-the-choir 
approach. Its value is completely one of entertainment. No, okay, it 
may also kick some atheists in the ass and inspire them to do 
something more active to combat the major problems that come with 
religious thinking.

While Condell's aggressive approach definitely has a degree of wisdom 
(and a load of intellectual good sense), is it really appropriate to, 
or useful for, or humanistic in, dealing with all situations?

For instance: My half-brother, who I just learned has been diagnosed 
with serious cancer, has asked me to read a novel that I see is 
extremely popular among the religious (Christian in particular): The Shack.

Relevant background: This is a (considerably older) half-brother -- 
simply "brother" as far as I knew until a few years ago -- who, when 
I was in my teens and had recently lost his beliefs... or rather, had 
thrown off the shackles of... religion, insisted (at a Christmas 
family gathering), that I would certainly go to Hell forever because 
I didn't believe that Jesus was the son of God.

A Pat Condell-style atheist might tell simply tell my brother that he 
is an idiot to believe this crap. I agreed to actually read this book 
and -- unless it really is *monumentally* stupid -- I intend to 
discuss it with my brother exploratively rather than explaining 
abruptly to him why his decades-long religious beliefs are moronic.

Am I a just a weak fool to do this? Is Condell's attitude and 
approach always useful/appropriate/effective/wise?

Max


-------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
Extropy Institute Founder
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com
------------------------------------- 



From max at maxmore.com  Sat Dec  5 05:15:31 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:15:31 -0600
Subject: [ExI] HUMOR: How do you satisfy an economist chick (guy)?
Message-ID: <200912050515.nB55FdgP014521@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

It's Friday night (CST). It's time for some puerile humor. If you're 
looking for serious thought... move along. There's nothing to see here.

On Facebook, Roko Mijic asked: How do you hook up with an economist chick?

His answer: ... ask her to internalize your externality.

I didn't see any good responses in the first 20, so I suggested:

Tell her that you want to smooth her demand curve.

You want to satisfice her desires. But she has only limited resources 
to satisfy your unlimited wants.

You can never reach equilibrium without injecting demand into her system.

You can't "push on a string", but you can prime my pump!

That's the Invisible Hand you feel.

If I press my comparative advantage, how will that affect your yield curve?

Any additions? (Feel free to change the "chick" to a male or 
multisexual or alien species or whatever).

Come on extropians -- this is a vital issue for a Friday night!

Max

  



From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Sat Dec  5 05:59:11 2009
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 00:59:11 -0500
Subject: [ExI] HUMOR: How do you satisfy an economist chick (guy)?
In-Reply-To: <200912050515.nB55FdgP014521@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912050515.nB55FdgP014521@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <D040644A-6E0C-42BF-BE8A-E3DADC089019@GMAIL.COM>


> Any additions? (Feel free to change the "chick" to a male or  
> multisexual or alien species or whatever).
>
> Come on extropians -- this is a vital issue for a Friday night!
>
> Max
The best one I could come up with:
"The only way to bring down my massive inflation is for you to issue  
me a flood of bonds."

Eh? Eh? A little funny? Lol



Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From spike66 at att.net  Sat Dec  5 05:46:23 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 21:46:23 -0800
Subject: [ExI] HUMOR: How do you satisfy an economist chick (guy)?
In-Reply-To: <200912050515.nB55FdgP014521@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912050515.nB55FdgP014521@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <2EB4FBE504F24C8AA5A68F72092208A0@spike>

 
> ...On Behalf Of Max More
...
> Subject: [ExI] HUMOR: How do you satisfy an economist chick (guy)?
> ...
> On Facebook, Roko Mijic asked: How do you hook up with an 
> economist chick? Max


I would opine thus, "Keynesian economic theory is outdated, disproven and
harmful."  If that comment turns her on, she is the kind I would want to
turn on.  If not, she's not.

But if it works, perhaps attempt the somewhat more suggestive, "Ups and
downs are beneficial; they should never be suppressed."

If that gets a sincere-sounding laugh, then go for something like,
"Inflation is not to be feared, but rather facilitated often and fully
utilized!"

spike


 



From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Sat Dec  5 06:30:10 2009
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 01:30:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <22F78D00-15AE-4F80-A63A-52B0B424610A@GMAIL.COM>

> Tonight, I finally watched the whole thing. It made me feel like I  
> was 18 years old again. An aggressive atheist. A guy who went to  
> classes wearing badges (US: buttons) saying things like "legalize  
> heroin", "taxation is theft", and "God is dead". It reminded me of  
> confidently -- nay, arrogantly -- telling the religious buffoons  
> what's what. And you know what? Every thing Condell says is  
> basically right.
Well, I don't where badges/buttons but I do speak my mind a good deal  
(a short conversation on anything related to politics/religion will  
make it quite clear where I stand). I imagine that my confidence in my  
own ideas can at times come across as arrogance. Often, even, it isn't  
merely an appearance, I often am arrogant consciously. I generally  
prefer arrogance (of a certain kind) to being wishy-washy in the realm  
of ideas, so perhaps that is one of the reasons I love Condell.

Older people (parents for example) often tell me I'll moderate as grow  
older. I sure hope not, that would be sorely disappointing. haha
> Yet, his attitude and approach, while refreshing, leaving me feeling  
> that his message is purely and pointlessly a preaching-to-the-choir  
> approach. Its value is completely one of entertainment. No, okay, it  
> may also kick some atheists in the ass and inspire them to do  
> something more active to combat the major problems that come with  
> religious thinking.
>
> While Condell's aggressive approach definitely has a degree of  
> wisdom (and a load of intellectual good sense), is it really  
> appropriate to, or useful for, or humanistic in, dealing with all  
> situations?
Depends on your aim. Other atheists/agnostics/non-religious folks I've  
talked to often criticize Dawkins for giving atheism a bad reputation,  
for being counter-productive, etc. I think he does an excellent job. I  
think really really religious people are sort of hopeless cases to an  
extent, and  I think Dawkins/Condell style atheists generally can  
serve the function of helping moderates and quasi-religious folks to  
re-examine their ideas. And the good kick in the pants of course.
> A Pat Condell-style atheist might tell simply tell my brother that  
> he is an idiot to believe this crap. I agreed to actually read this  
> book and -- unless it really is *monumentally* stupid -- I intend to  
> discuss it with my brother exploratively rather than explaining  
> abruptly to him why his decades-long religious beliefs are moronic.
>
> Am I a just a weak fool to do this? Is Condell's attitude and  
> approach always useful/appropriate/effective/wise?
>
> Max
Well, since he's your brother, I would be a bit more diplomatic. If I  
were in your position, I would have been having this sort of  
conversation for a long time with my brother, and so I doubt that he  
would ask me to read such a book. And, honestly, if he did, I would  
refuse (unless it seemed to be genuinely interesting on non-religious  
grounds; I am interested in the Left Behind novels, but for the evil  
dictator/tyranny part, not the God parts).

I actually had a similar situation with my ex-girlfriend who was  
pretty religious (in retrospect, big mistake, and I won't be repeating  
it). She asked me to watch "The Case for Christ" I think its called.  
It was terrible, and had massive flaws in logic and evidence. The  
journalist who made had his wife convert, which caused major marital  
and emotional strain, which to me is a much better explanation for his  
conversion than any "evidence-based" decision (the evidence wasn't  
good either, btw). I told her as much, and she kept trying, and  
eventually I said I would never believe in God, and certainly never  
one religion's version, because in order to do so I would have to be a  
completely different person from the core out. We broke up the next  
day. :p

My point in relating that story is that I have basically given up on  
the idea that I can convince hard-core religious people that they're  
wrong, and so while I might talk with them as an exercise in hilarity,  
I wouldn't put any weight on it at all. So while Condell/Dawkins style  
atheism might not be diplomatic or bring people who are quite  
religious over to "the dark side", I don't see that as a drawback  
really. I think the radicals often accomplish more than the moderates  
in these sorts of things.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From spike66 at att.net  Sat Dec  5 06:38:10 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:38:10 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EE553B4DC5A14441B11617E5B5E34207@spike>

Hi Robert, I want to answer this in greater detail later as family
obligations allow.
 
I too am a freedom of speech advocate, when it comes to governments.  We
promise to not arrest you.  That is what the US government is granting us
with that amendment, a promise to not arrest us for what we say or write.
But on the other hand circumspection is always wise, and in some cases
actual decorum.  Freedom of speech is about what governments can do to its
citizens.  I don't see how it applies in this case.  
 
The ExI moderators are not governors, but rather more like advisors, with
passwords.
 
Back when I was moderating, I used to get three to five times more offlist
complaints about under-moderating than about over-moderating.  I thought it
a good ratio and tried to maintain that ratio.  Last spring when I was on
the road a lot, I had to give it up because I was at the point where I
wasn't really moderating at all, but rather dealing with plenty of offlist
complaints about under-moderating.  {8^D
 
Later! 
 
spike
 


  _____  

From: Robert Bradbury [mailto:robert.bradbury at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:56 PM
To: Max More; spike
Cc: ExICh
Subject: Moderation on the ExiCh list


Max has asked me to explain my recent comment comment comparing the ExiCh
moderation policies to gestapo policies. 

First of all, let me suggest that was a little bit far even for me.  But it
is my nature to be very passionate (with respect to my convictions) -- and I
will tend to stretch analogies in order to make a point.  First of all my
comment was related to the moderation of a very heated debate which I think
took place circa 2006-2007 time-frame and it was the primary reason that I
discontinued any significant contribution to the ExICh list.  I believe the
moderators at that time were Eugen and Spike (and Max was to my knowledge
was not involved).  And I do agree that the moderation then, as now, is very
mild (bordering on not even present).

But as a person of conviction, I happen to believe in the first article of
the Bill of Rights, e.g. "Congress shall make no law respecting an an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof [1]; OR
ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH [2], .." should be taken very seriously.
And as I happen to have grown up in Massachusetts and happen to have walked
along the trail of the Minitueman and happen to have ancestors who came into
MA circa 1634  -- and presumably some of my ancestors fought in the
Revolutionary War.-- I happen to take the matters for which they fought, and
perhaps died for, VERY SERIOUSLY.

Now obviously an email list can adopt whatever policies it likes -- so in
that respect it does not have the limits or guidelines placed on it that the
U.S. Congress has (an email list, perhaps in contrast to a blog, is
effectively a dictatorship)..  At the other end of the spectrum one could go
into posts to social networking, blogs or news commentary pages that allow
anonymous posts that possibly allow defamatory and/or personally damaging
posts (which given the fact that unsubstantiated claims propagate is
presumably not a good thing).  And the ExICh list is notable in that it
allows "outside of the box" or "off the cuff" thinking.  (For example, I
recently gave up participating in the GRG list due to the fact that  one or
more individuals objected to the colorful language that I may have used in
regard to one or more posts -- I believe with respect to something which was
NOT worthy of consideration -- something those of you who know me know I
have a very low tolerance of).  And thus I became disinvolved with
contributing to the GRG list.  For similar reasons (with regard to unclear
moderation policies) I became disinvolved with the ExICh list several years
ago.

The point of a moderated list would presumably be to minimize the exposure
of the list to defamation lawsuits, and in some cases "accuracy" statements
(say the Raelians were to start auto-cross-posting their fluff. [2]).  But I
am unaware of such a policy being explicitly cast in bronze.  In other cases
I should view any moderation policy needing to be clearly stated (so one
clearly understands what restrictions one has that are less than the U.S.
Congress.)  And there should be a "board of appeals" -- in that if ones
moderated post is rejected one can subject it to independent scrutiny (and
where extremely necessary censorship).  (This is common behavior in the film
industry which IMO is not a good model for distribution restrictions but may
be a good model for self-imposed censorship).


But I do remain resolute in that undefined moderation policies border on
gestapo policies (though the intent in the analogy is problematic) is not to
detract from ExICh policies but to perhaps encourage their gradual
solutions. For the first thing one wants to kill in a free society is
Freedom of Speech -- precisely because that represents a threat (China, and
to a lesser extent Iran, being the current primary examples).  And the
moderators [at least to my knowledge] have not published which specific
censorship rules they use. And so what is viewed as a "threat" or even
"defamatory" is unclear. There is of course "Common Informed Censorship" but
unlike other authorities we do not know what this is (it may shift from
individual to individual as the moderation shifts ( So I may (or may not)
view the ExICh llist as little different from a CIA chat list.

I would strongly suspect that a topic entitled "Strategies to assassinate
the President" would be unacceptable to the moderators.   And yet why?  Is
it not the exercise of Free Speech?  The ExICh list really needs to break
down in detail acceptable vs. unacceptable list policies (that presumably
the moderators are attempting to mediate).  (Because I know that there are
list members who could come up with creative solutions to this question --
which means I should ask them in personal communications and not on the
list).  But merely stating this probably puts ExICh on the "watch list" even
if it isn't already there.

Max & Spike, I apologize for opening the debate but I believe you both know
me well enough that I will not draw back from engaging discussion.  And it
prompts the topic of things which seriously need to be thought about.

Robert

1. Which considering the extent to which religions go about in brain-washing
individuals who are incapable of reasoned or informed thought (i.e.
children) is unconscioncable.
2. Note that I do not consider to be the Raelians perspective of the
colonization of Earth impossible.  I consider it to be one of a number of
probable realities which must be thought about.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091204/83da39e4/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Dec  5 06:11:34 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:11:34 -0800
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <3282289873444740B3B0A4F77CBC3874@spike>

 

>...On Behalf Of Max More
> Subject: Re: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
> 
> Regarding:
> Aggressive Atheism, by Pat Condell
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk
> 
> ...
> 
> For instance: My half-brother, who I just learned has been 
> diagnosed with serious cancer...

Owww, so sorry to hear that Max, do pass along our best wishes for success
to him in the struggle he has coming.

> has asked me to read a novel 
> that I see is extremely popular among the religious 
> (Christian in particular): The Shack.
...
> Am I a just a weak fool to do this?...

No.  Take care of your family first.  That task is more important than being
right, sir.  Let your pride take the hit, read the book, discuss it with
your brother, let him know you are cheering for him and hoping for his full
recovery, do all you can to lend aid and comfort to him.  No one will think
less of you, and in the long run you will not think less of you.

> Is Condell's attitude and 
> approach always useful/appropriate/effective/wise? Max

Wrong question.  Pat Condell is a comedian.  Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Jon
Stewart, Michael Moore, all these guys are comedians, all playing a role.
They have a message, but their job is to entertain, and their act is to
sort-of pretend to be serious, a little like our WWE rassling shows.  If one
doesn't find one brand of political humor funny, there are plenty of other
clowns in this well-connected world, all across the political spectrum.  

If I am in the mood for it, I find Condell very funny, and Michael Moore's
first movie "Roger and Me" is hilarious.

Check out Time magazine running a quasi-serious cover story on Glenn Beck.
Or were they playing along with his act?  I wonder if the Time magazine
people think rassling is real?

spike





From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Dec  5 06:41:06 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:41:06 -0800
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <4B1A0082.3060007@rawbw.com>

Max ends up asking

 > Am I a just a weak fool to do this? Is Condell's attitude and approach
 > always useful/appropriate/effective/wise?

Condell's message WAS to the choir; of course.

Yes, it was just for us, and many of those things he
said would be in extremely poor taste to deploy in
a discussion with a believer. Not to mention ineffective.
Not to mention the whole acerbic manner that you
describe well.

However, I believe that what he spoke was more than
mere entertainment and more than (as you put it) giving
some of us a kick in the pants. What he said he did believe
to be the truth, and it gives every one of us (in the
choir) a chance to calibrate our own beliefs against his,
while listening to such a screed.

For example, I got to think about what "righteous" meant
(and to incidentally conclude that Pat hasn't looked up
the meaning lately, or thinks that everyone is going to
knee-jerk take the Christian/Jewish religious meaning).

 > I intend to discuss [the book recommended]
 > with my brother exploratively rather than
 > explaining abruptly to him why his decades-
 > long religious beliefs are moronic.

Of course.

Kindness, civility, and even honesty demand
this approach. I don't have such a high opinion
of people who enter into every discussion with
an interlocutor 100% convinced that their own
position is 100% true, and that the other's is
necessarily nonsense or worse.

Lee



Max More wrote:
> Regarding:
> Aggressive Atheism, by Pat Condell
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk
> 
> I tried to watch this twice before, but stopped the video due to being 
> put off by Condell's manner.
> 
> Tonight, I finally watched the whole thing. It made me feel like I was 
> 18 years old again. An aggressive atheist. A guy who went to classes 
> wearing badges (US: buttons) saying things like "legalize heroin", 
> "taxation is theft", and "God is dead". It reminded me of confidently -- 
> nay, arrogantly -- telling the religious buffoons what's what. And you 
> know what? Every thing Condell says is basically right.
> 
> Yet, his attitude and approach, while refreshing, leaving me feeling 
> that his message is purely and pointlessly a preaching-to-the-choir 
> approach. Its value is completely one of entertainment. No, okay, it may 
> also kick some atheists in the ass and inspire them to do something more 
> active to combat the major problems that come with religious thinking.
> 
> While Condell's aggressive approach definitely has a degree of wisdom 
> (and a load of intellectual good sense), is it really appropriate to, or 
> useful for, or humanistic in, dealing with all situations?
> 
> For instance: My half-brother, who I just learned has been diagnosed 
> with serious cancer, has asked me to read a novel that I see is 
> extremely popular among the religious (Christian in particular): The Shack.
> 
> Relevant background: This is a (considerably older) half-brother -- 
> simply "brother" as far as I knew until a few years ago -- who, when I 
> was in my teens and had recently lost his beliefs... or rather, had 
> thrown off the shackles of... religion, insisted (at a Christmas family 
> gathering), that I would certainly go to Hell forever because I didn't 
> believe that Jesus was the son of God.
> 
> A Pat Condell-style atheist might tell simply tell my brother that he is 
> an idiot to believe this crap. I agreed to actually read this book and 
> -- unless it really is *monumentally* stupid -- I intend to discuss it 
> with my brother exploratively rather than explaining abruptly to him why 
> his decades-long religious beliefs are moronic.
> 
> Am I a just a weak fool to do this? Is Condell's attitude and approach 
> always useful/appropriate/effective/wise?
> 
> Max
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> Max More, Ph.D.
> Strategic Philosopher
> Extropy Institute Founder
> www.maxmore.com
> max at maxmore.com
> -------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 
> 


From robert.bradbury at gmail.com  Sat Dec  5 05:55:33 2009
From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 00:55:33 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
Message-ID: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>

Max has asked me to explain my recent comment comment comparing the ExiCh
moderation policies to gestapo policies.

First of all, let me suggest that was a little bit far even for me.  But it
is my nature to be very passionate (with respect to my convictions) -- and I
will tend to stretch analogies in order to make a point.  First of all my
comment was related to the moderation of a very heated debate which I think
took place circa 2006-2007 time-frame and it was the primary reason that I
discontinued any significant contribution to the ExICh list.  I believe the
moderators at that time were Eugen and Spike (and Max was to my knowledge
was not involved).  And I do agree that the moderation then, as now, is very
mild (bordering on not even present).

But as a person of conviction, I happen to believe in the first article of
the Bill of Rights, e.g. "Congress shall make no law respecting an an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof [1]; OR
ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH [2], .." should be taken very seriously.
 And as I happen to have grown up in Massachusetts and happen to have walked
along the trail of the Minitueman and happen to have ancestors who came into
MA circa 1634  -- and presumably some of my ancestors fought in the
Revolutionary War.-- I happen to take the matters for which they fought, and
perhaps died for, VERY SERIOUSLY.

Now obviously an email list can adopt whatever policies it likes -- so in
that respect it does not have the limits or guidelines placed on it that the
U.S. Congress has (an email list, perhaps in contrast to a blog, is
effectively a dictatorship)..  At the other end of the spectrum one could go
into posts to social networking, blogs or news commentary pages that allow
anonymous posts that possibly allow defamatory and/or personally damaging
posts (which given the fact that unsubstantiated claims propagate is
presumably not a good thing).  And the ExICh list is notable in that it
allows "outside of the box" or "off the cuff" thinking.  (For example, I
recently gave up participating in the GRG list due to the fact that  one or
more individuals objected to the colorful language that I may have used in
regard to one or more posts -- I believe with respect to something which was
NOT worthy of consideration -- something those of you who know me know I
have a very low tolerance of).  And thus I became disinvolved with
contributing to the GRG list.  For similar reasons (with regard to unclear
moderation policies) I became disinvolved with the ExICh list several years
ago.

The point of a moderated list would presumably be to minimize the exposure
of the list to defamation lawsuits, and in some cases "accuracy" statements
(say the Raelians were to start auto-cross-posting their fluff. [2]).  But I
am unaware of such a policy being explicitly cast in bronze.  In other cases
I should view any moderation policy needing to be clearly stated (so one
clearly understands what restrictions one has that are less than the U.S.
Congress.)  And there should be a "board of appeals" -- in that if ones
moderated post is rejected one can subject it to independent scrutiny (and
where extremely necessary censorship).  (This is common behavior in the film
industry which IMO is not a good model for distribution restrictions but may
be a good model for self-imposed censorship).


But I do remain resolute in that undefined moderation policies border on
gestapo policies (though the intent in the analogy is problematic) is not to
detract from ExICh policies but to perhaps encourage their gradual
solutions. For the first thing one wants to kill in a free society is
Freedom of Speech -- precisely because that represents a threat (China, and
to a lesser extent Iran, being the current primary examples).  And the
moderators [at least to my knowledge] have not published which specific
censorship rules they use. And so what is viewed as a "threat" or even
"defamatory" is unclear. There is of course "Common Informed Censorship" but
unlike other authorities we do not know what this is (it may shift from
individual to individual as the moderation shifts ( So I may (or may not)
view the ExICh llist as little different from a CIA chat list.

I would strongly suspect that a topic entitled "Strategies to assassinate
the President" would be unacceptable to the moderators.   And yet why?  Is
it not the exercise of Free Speech?  The ExICh list really needs to break
down in detail acceptable vs. unacceptable list policies (that presumably
the moderators are attempting to mediate).  (Because I know that there are
list members who could come up with creative solutions to this question --
which means I should ask them in personal communications and not on the
list).  But merely stating this probably puts ExICh on the "watch list" even
if it isn't already there.

Max & Spike, I apologize for opening the debate but I believe you both know
me well enough that I will not draw back from engaging discussion.  And it
prompts the topic of things which seriously need to be thought about.

Robert

1. Which considering the extent to which religions go about in brain-washing
individuals who are incapable of reasoned or informed thought (i.e.
children) is unconscioncable.
2. Note that I do not consider to be the Raelians perspective of the
colonization of Earth impossible.  I consider it to be one of a number of
probable realities which must be thought about.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091205/7fc9b9b3/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Dec  5 09:32:41 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 09:32:41 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
In-Reply-To: <EE553B4DC5A14441B11617E5B5E34207@spike>
References: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>
	<EE553B4DC5A14441B11617E5B5E34207@spike>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0912050132i3a1f3aebh9b7abc2e71a02afe@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/5/09, spike wrote:
>
> I too am a freedom of speech advocate, when it comes to governments.  We
> promise to not arrest you.  That is what the US government is granting us
> with that amendment, a promise to not arrest us for what we say or write.
> But on the other hand circumspection is always wise, and in some cases
> actual decorum.  Freedom of speech is about what governments can do to its
> citizens.  I don't see how it applies in this case.
>
> The ExI moderators are not governors, but rather more like advisors, with
> passwords.
>
>

It is not possible to specify an exact list of what subjects should
not be discussed on the Exi-chat list.  Who knows what some new
visitor might want to write about?

There are dark places on the internet where literally anything can be
discussed or images exchanged, some of which are against the law in
some countries. If cannibalism rocks your boat then you can find a
place to discuss it with fellow deviants.

But Exi-chat does not have the primary objective of being a
free-for-all anything-goes dungeon.  The main objective of the public
Exi-chat is to discuss transhumanism of the extropian variety.
The test of a discussion is --
1) - Does it involve transhumanism at all?
2) - Does it help the transhumanism movement to make progress either
by interesting discussion of technology, etc. or by spreading
knowledge and becoming more well-known and accepted by the general
public.
3) - Does it help bonding within the tranhumanist group?


As Spike says, you can't have a 99 bullet point list of forbidden
subjects. You have to look at the intent and whether it is helpful to
transhumanism as the case arises. Some trolls enjoy raising problems
just to disrupt the list and when they appear, then they have to be
dealt with.   As Spike said, some people complained that his
moderation was too light.
(There were no public hangings or floggings, even).

BillK


From anders at aleph.se  Sat Dec  5 11:05:25 2009
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:05:25 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Spirited molecules
In-Reply-To: E9E01D2EAE294FC6917ECC8C1B43EBBC@spike
Message-ID: <20091205110525.636c550c@secure.ericade.net>

Spike:
> ...Which reminds me of a question I have wondered about for a long time,
> speaking of nitrogen compounds.  Words that are often used to describe an
> explosion are, for instance, kaBOOM and kerBLOOEY and kaBANG and such.
> Please those who speak European languages, do those anamonapoetic terms have
> equivalents in your language?

In Swedish, the typical cartoon explosion goes 'bang', 'pang', 'bom' or 'boom' - I think the 'k' prefix is language-specific (onomatopoeia tends to follow the language system of the host language). When a car crashes, the sound is however described as 'krasch'. Clearly a sound with sudden attack tends to be represented by a word with sudden attack, but there are many choices in each language. 

Some more in English: http://www.writtensound.com/explosions.htm

Could the ka- in kaboom be a phonestheme? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonestheme


Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University 


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sat Dec  5 11:32:04 2009
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 06:32:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <50763.12.77.168.244.1260012724.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>


> For instance: My half-brother, who I just learned has been diagnosed
> with serious cancer, has asked me to read a novel that I see is
> extremely popular among the religious (Christian in particular): The Shack.
> [snip]
>
> A Pat Condell-style atheist might tell simply tell my brother that he
> is an idiot to believe this crap. I agreed to actually read this book
> and -- unless it really is *monumentally* stupid -- I intend to
> discuss it with my brother exploratively rather than explaining
> abruptly to him why his decades-long religious beliefs are moronic.
>
> Am I a just a weak fool to do this?

No, you are a kind, gentle man who will care for his brother in this time of great
trial. Were you to refuse to even read the book, that would simply be a slap in the
face... and you'd know that. Forever. A meanness. A shameful thing. IMHO.

Best wishes for your brother and family.  It can be a very rough road.

Regards,
MB





From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Dec  5 11:58:46 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 12:58:46 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912050358s76382d20sded35f1eb407ae96@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/5 Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com>:
> But as a person of conviction, I happen to believe in the first article of
> the Bill of Rights, e.g. "Congress shall make no law respecting an an
> establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof [1]; OR
> ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH [2], .." should be taken very seriously.

Interesting. I am myself a moderator of a few lists, and in turn
happened at least once to be the victim of the moderation (or rather
the owner) of a list at that time managed by one of my couple of
personal trolls/poltergeists, who interpreted such role as the ability
to engage in, by no means "moderate", attacks and flames where the
ability of the other party to reply is by definition restricted.
Unsurprisingly, the list members eventually migrated elsewhere,
including those who had not directly suffered such behaviours...

I think that both the moderation when in doubt should err on the side
of the freedom of speech (and be very vigilant with regard to its own
personal and ideological biases) AND that a moderation should exist.
This not only as a matter of ideological or aesthetical taste, but for
very practical reasons which have to do with its continuing viability
and success.

> The point of a moderated list would presumably be to minimize the exposure
> of the list to defamation lawsuits, and in some cases "accuracy" statements
> (say the Raelians were to start auto-cross-posting their fluff.

No. The real point of moderation and the real (and only) cardinal sin
in mailing lists is IMHO Off-Topic. Flames are off-topic. Spam is
off-topic. Ad hominem are off-topic. Tireless single-issue evangelism
is off-topic. Bilateral chit-chat is off-topic. Off-topic is what
reduce the signal-to-noise ratio, annoys and ultimately keep away
other participants. Cut the OT, but only the OT, and you have nothing
else that you need (or should) do.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From dharris at livelib.com  Sat Dec  5 11:48:38 2009
From: dharris at livelib.com (David C. Harris)
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:48:38 -0800
Subject: [ExI] HUMOR: How do you satisfy an economist chick (guy)?
In-Reply-To: <200912050515.nB55FdgP014521@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912050515.nB55FdgP014521@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <4B1A4896.2020601@livelib.com>

Getting contemporary after too many drinks, "At the risk of reaching 
diminishing marginal returns, but in the interest of transparency, you 
should know, I'm too big to fail".


Max More wrote:
> It's Friday night (CST). It's time for some puerile humor. If you're 
> looking for serious thought... move along. There's nothing to see here.
>
> On Facebook, Roko Mijic asked: How do you hook up with an economist 
> chick?
> ,,,
> Come on extropians -- this is a vital issue for a Friday night!
>
> Max
>



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Dec  5 12:21:35 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 13:21:35 +0100
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912050421x5abcd37q310cbd7f72103f83@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/1 Max More <max at maxmore.com>:
> I'm feeling pretty lonely on this issue. Just about everyone on all sides of
> the issue seem to be very certain of what's going on. Despite considerable
> reading of clashing sources (or because of it), I remain highly unsure.

Why, there are at least two of us.

But while I remain very perplexed on the merits, I feel much better
equipped to form opinions on the psychological, political, ideological
and cultural angles and motives of the debate. Something which of
course tells as nothing about the facts, but speak volumes on the
players...

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From dharris at livelib.com  Sat Dec  5 12:09:28 2009
From: dharris at livelib.com (David C. Harris)
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:09:28 -0800
Subject: [ExI] we die alone while ogling the divers
In-Reply-To: <00A4F8668B384C2584840D149DD22DCE@spike>
References: <182452.64981.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<00A4F8668B384C2584840D149DD22DCE@spike>
Message-ID: <4B1A4D78.2080709@livelib.com>

spike wrote:
> ...
> If you have drowning dreams very often it might indicate sleep apnea, so you
> need to see the medics about that.  
>
>   
For over a decade I was acting out dream material, like hitting the 
bedside telephone, kicking, or making distressed sounds.  The worst was 
grabbing my girlfriend's neck as she slept -- a serious faux pas in 
dating etiquette!  She was also bothered by my serious snoring and 
eventually noticed that I stopped breathing frequently.  I got a medical 
referral to a sleep clinic where they diagnosed severe obstructive sleep 
apnea, going as low as 75% oxygen saturation.  Apparently I wasn't 
taking enough time to establish deep sleep with the normal paralysis of 
the voluntary muscles during dreams.  Now I have a CPAP (constant 
pressure airway passage) machine that blows my throat open when I relax 
and I am catching up on long dreams.  Life is better with adequate deep 
sleep.   :-)


From deimtee at optusnet.com.au  Sat Dec  5 12:57:49 2009
From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 23:57:49 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091205235749.23c4986b@optusnet.com.au>

On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 00:55:33 -0500
Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

snip: everything. :)

Hi All,
I am a longtime reader, but rare poster to this list.   
In regards to this whole moderation debate, if making the moderation
rules explicit is what it takes to keep Mr Bradbury on the exilist,
then I am very much in favour of doing so.  The recent return of the
"heavyweight" thinkers and posters is, from my point of view very
welcome.
I read this list because it is one of the few places where ideas are
promulgated and discussed based on science and reality rather than
politics and personality.

Welcome back Robert, I hope you stay.

-David








From deimtee at optusnet.com.au  Sat Dec  5 13:08:21 2009
From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 00:08:21 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Spirited molecules
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0912041155w300401c2m690d457285fbe21e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091202124822.8c68a152@secure.ericade.net>
	<deaa866a0912041155w300401c2m690d457285fbe21e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091206000821.48b07763@optusnet.com.au>

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:55:24 -0500
Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I had some difficulty reading this post as I do not read the
> ExICh list frequently (due to its gestapo policies).
> 
> But this topic attracted my attention.
> 
> Thel unbonded "azide" molecule (with the formula CN4) does not exist
> (to the best of my knowledge to assay it).  The best using Wikipedia
> that I have been able to find is possibly N3- and therefore molecules
> such as NaN3 (sodium azide). The statement by Derek with respect to a
> "Cyanogen azide" suggests a C2N2 bonded to a N4 molecule -- which I
> fail to understand (I can posit plausible explanations for the
> distribution of the electrons (around many molecules) -- but I cannot
> posit how it is created or its actual normal chemical makeup.
> 
> Robert


How about a ring structure :

N=C=N-N=N- (back to the first N) 

bonds add up, and it looks damn unstable to me.

-David


From anders at aleph.se  Sat Dec  5 14:35:39 2009
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:35:39 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Spirited molecules
In-Reply-To: 20091206000821.48b07763@optusnet.com.au
Message-ID: <20091205143539.2fa97247@secure.ericade.net>

David:
> How about a ring structure :
> 
> N=C=N-N=N- (back to the first N) 

I doubt it, since the azide group is linear and the cyanide group is also linear. Only one angle that can bend. 

Ah, "Structurally, cyanogen azide is a V-shaped molecule and it was determined that the angle at the middle N atom is 120?" (D.C. Frost, H.W. Kroto, C.A. McDowell, N.P.C. Westwood, The helium (He I) photoelectron spectra of the isoelectronic molecules, cyanogen azide, NCN3, and cyanogen isocyanate, NCNCO, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 11 (2) (1977) 147?156.) If the molecule gets charged there is further buckling (Lemi T?rker and Taner Atalar, Quantum chemical treatment of cyanogen azide and its univalent and divalent ionic forms, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volume 153, Issue 3, 30 May 2008, Pages 966-974)

Perhaps it can polymerize into chains.


To steer this to transhuman issues: compounds like this clearly represents the outer envelope of what can be made using any process. With advanced mechanosynthesis we will likely be able to make some pretty bizarre chemicals, but there are limits on what will hold together. Maybe the great sport of nanochemists next century will be to push this extremely unstable envelope, trying to make absurdly unstable molecules.


Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University 


From brentn at freeshell.org  Sat Dec  5 15:39:25 2009
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 10:39:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Spirited molecules
In-Reply-To: <20091205143539.2fa97247@secure.ericade.net>
References: <20091205143539.2fa97247@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <B66C1395-B48C-43BC-9DC6-627B7DA5E2E1@freeshell.org>


On 5 Dec, 2009, at 9:35, Anders Sandberg wrote:

> David:
>> How about a ring structure :
>>
>> N=C=N-N=N- (back to the first N)
>
> I doubt it, since the azide group is linear and the cyanide group is  
> also linear. Only one angle that can bend.
>


Actually, that molecule is ok. Its tetrazole. If you cyclize those 3  
nitrogens, they no longer need to be linear (check the  
hybridization.)  Not like those molecules are that stable, either.  
Most tetrazoles have commercial uses as chemical blowing agents -  
i.e., you compound them into plastics, and at a certain temperature  
that is higher than the polymer melt temperature, they decompose (NOT  
explosively, and the resulting nitrogen gases foam the plastic.  My  
personal favorite, 5-phenyl-1H-tetrazole, has an aromatic ring hanging  
off the lone carbon in the tetrazole ring. That stabilizes the  
structure a bit, pushing the decomposition temperature up to around  
230 C. Things like n-butyl tetrazoles decomp at much lower temperatures.

Cheers,

B



--
Brent Neal, Ph.D.
http://brentn.freeshell.org
<brentn at freeshell.org>







From ddraig at gmail.com  Sat Dec  5 08:21:39 2009
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 19:21:39 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Who is Ayn Rand?
In-Reply-To: <462361.30206.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <462361.30206.qm@web58308.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f430d9be0912050021y65bd2b33u3bf94e6408d5979a@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/4 Robert Masters <rob4332000 at yahoo.com>:

>  Alice really went a long way from that day she told her philosophy professor
>  she would rank among Aristotle and Plato. ?She actually became AYN. ?But
>  the crucial question is EXACTLY what went on in that incestuous Jewish ritual.
>  Did it include anal penetration? Sub/dom? Rape? ?Pissing? ?Shitting?
> The public has a right to know.

No it does not, this is just voyeurism, and it's disgusting.

> Nathaniel Branden has admitted that they had sex, but stopped
> short of a full confession. ?That won't do. ?After all, he was the one
> who chose to reveal the "affair" as a justification for his own actions.
>?What were the DETAILS of the affair?


Why do you care? How on earth is it relevant?

Dwayne
-- 
   ddraig at pobox.com irc.deoxy.org #chat
   ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e...
  http://www.barrelfullofmonkeys.org/Data/3-death.jpg
our aim is wakefulness,  our enemy is dreamless sleep


From spike66 at att.net  Sat Dec  5 17:14:29 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 09:14:29 -0800
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <50763.12.77.168.244.1260012724.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>
References: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<50763.12.77.168.244.1260012724.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <93F5B83C0B034CF48AA8BB5E4C7C836E@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of MB
> ...
> >
> > Am I a just a weak fool to do this?  Max
> 
> No, you are a kind, gentle man who will care for his brother 
> in this time of great trial... MB


Max do let me assure you sir, no one will EVER mistake you for a weak fool.
Anyone who reads the extropian principles

http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm

will see that this was written by an kick-ass smart guy.

Newer posters, do read over the extropian principles, thanks.

spike



From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Dec  5 17:17:40 2009
From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 17:17:40 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1260014402.8876.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <310309.82472.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Robert wrote :"But I do remain resolute in that undefined moderation policies border on gestapo policies"

I would beg to differ. In my experience, the people who cry out loud for lists of rules on accepted standards are either people who work in management for large corporations (and insist on issuing lists of soul-crushing instructions on how employees must not goof off in a lengthy "employee handbook") or lawyers who insist that the letter of the law is all that matters regardless of the spirit. Both of these types profoundly offend me.

I much prefer places where the gentle hand of moderation seems to follow an agreement that by and large goes unspoken because there is no need to speak it. Maybe that's just me being terribly British about things, and believing the instruction "do not take the piss" covers 99% of all eventualities.

(Thinking of unspoken agreements reminds me of a conversation I had with Anders Sandberg after an ExtroBritannia meeting, where he mentioned the trouble for a foreigner to understand British pub culture and  how he could fit in and make small talk in this social environment. Perhaps it is too much to ask people to operate with minimal rules, but I still feel the effort is worth it).

Tom


      


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Dec  5 18:00:52 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 10:00:52 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
In-Reply-To: <580930c20912050358s76382d20sded35f1eb407ae96@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20912050358s76382d20sded35f1eb407ae96@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B1A9FD4.6090807@rawbw.com>

BillK, Stefano, and David make some good points

BillK first:

 > It is not possible to specify an exact list of what subjects should
 > not be discussed on the Exi-chat list.  Who knows what some new
 > visitor might want to write about?

Yes, and obviously an exact list of what should not be discussed
isn't possible (if we want to be reasonable), and likewise, I claim
neither can there be a list of what reasonably *should* be discussed.

Therefore I have a problem with BillK's suggestion that we
try to limit what is said by the making of some list which
might include

 >  1) - Does it involve transhumanism at all?
 >  2) - Does it help the transhumanism movement to make progress either
 >       by interesting discussion of technology, etc. or by spreading
 >       knowledge and becoming more well-known and accepted by the general
 >       public.
 >  3) - Does it help bonding within the tranhumanist group?

Think of the countless times weird things that seem to come
out of nowhere are simply striking, or informative in some
unexpected way. Should we never mention Scientology?  Math?


Stefano writes

 > I think that both the moderation when in doubt should err on the side
 > of the freedom of speech (and be very vigilant with regard to its own
 > personal and ideological biases) AND that a moderation should exist.

I think that that's very wise. Each single one of Stefano's phrases
right here deserves commendation.

 > This not only as a matter of ideological or aesthetical taste, but for
 > very practical reasons which have to do with its continuing viability
 > and success.

You said it!!

Now Stefano then takes what is to me a very different tack
when he tries by example what "off-topic" to him is:

 > The real point of moderation and the real (and only) cardinal sin
 > in mailing lists is IMHO Off-Topic. Flames are off-topic. Spam is
 > off-topic. Ad hominem are off-topic. Tireless single-issue evangelism
 > is off-topic. Bilateral chit-chat is off-topic.

Right: those items (and doubtless more) make moderation
necessary. But describing them as "off-topic" doesn't
seem quite accurate! How are wanderings into atheism vs.
religion exactly germane to supposed functioning of the
list? How indeed are technical arguments about global
warming germane? Some may think these "off-topic", and
that's why I claim that the whole concept of *off-topic*
ought to be avoided.

The spam, flames, ad hominem, ceaseless evangelism, etc.,
are merely... unwanted.

And the most important word there is "etc.".


David, long time reader, writes

 > In regards to this whole moderation debate, if making the moderation
 > rules explicit is what it takes to keep Mr Bradbury on the exilist,
 > then I am very much in favour of doing so.

But making moderation rules totally explicit seems impossible, (as I argued above).

 > The recent return of the "heavyweight" thinkers and posters is,
 > from my point of view very welcome.

Absolutely! Lists die when you discourage your best contributors.
As Stefano said, moderation should err on the side of freedom
of speech.

 > I read this list because it is one of the few places where ideas are
 > promulgated and discussed based on science and reality rather than
 > politics and personality... Welcome back Robert, I hope you stay.

And David is doubtless speaking for countless others!

For all of you who are always sending Spike emails denouncing
certain posters and wanting to suppress them, please inhale
deeply and try to remember the often unseen and totally unanticipated
benefits of liberty and freedom of speech. Why does it just kill you
to hear someone say something totally outrageous once in a while??

Lee


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Dec  5 18:14:54 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 19:14:54 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
In-Reply-To: <4B1A9FD4.6090807@rawbw.com>
References: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20912050358s76382d20sded35f1eb407ae96@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1A9FD4.6090807@rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912051014l31f84386r72c83a1bb0d9436@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/5 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:
> Now Stefano then takes what is to me a very different tack
> when he tries by example what "off-topic" to him is:
>
>> The real point of moderation and the real (and only) cardinal sin
>> in mailing lists is IMHO Off-Topic. Flames are off-topic. Spam is
>> off-topic. Ad hominem are off-topic. Tireless single-issue evangelism
>> is off-topic. Bilateral chit-chat is off-topic.
>
> Right: those items (and doubtless more) make moderation
> necessary. But describing them as "off-topic" doesn't
> seem quite accurate! How are wanderings into atheism vs.
> religion exactly germane to supposed functioning of the
> list? How indeed are technical arguments about global
> warming germane? Some may think these "off-topic", and
> that's why I claim that the whole concept of *off-topic*
> ought to be avoided.

Why, ExI-chat is very peculiar in that it does not really have a topic
in any traditional sense, or rather the topic can probably be
described as: "theoretical and other discussions on whatever which may
be of interest of polite, intelligent transhumanists at the moment".

Under such description, I think that the examples I made before would
stand, as well as perhaps long single-issue agenda rants, but one
would not include the interesting, albeit sometimes perplexingly
disparate or over-technical, discussions which keep popping up. ;-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Dec  5 18:15:10 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 19:15:10 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
In-Reply-To: <4B1A9FD4.6090807@rawbw.com>
References: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20912050358s76382d20sded35f1eb407ae96@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1A9FD4.6090807@rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912051015l21213dbbm3ecd9babfe21f9f4@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/5 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:
> Now Stefano then takes what is to me a very different tack
> when he tries by example what "off-topic" to him is:
>
>> The real point of moderation and the real (and only) cardinal sin
>> in mailing lists is IMHO Off-Topic. Flames are off-topic. Spam is
>> off-topic. Ad hominem are off-topic. Tireless single-issue evangelism
>> is off-topic. Bilateral chit-chat is off-topic.
>
> Right: those items (and doubtless more) make moderation
> necessary. But describing them as "off-topic" doesn't
> seem quite accurate! How are wanderings into atheism vs.
> religion exactly germane to supposed functioning of the
> list? How indeed are technical arguments about global
> warming germane? Some may think these "off-topic", and
> that's why I claim that the whole concept of *off-topic*
> ought to be avoided.

Why, ExI-chat is very peculiar in that it does not really have a topic
in any traditional sense, or rather the topic can probably be
described as: "theoretical and other discussions on whatever which may
be of interest of polite, intelligent transhumanists at the moment".

Under such description, I think that the examples I made before would
stand, as well as perhaps long single-issue agenda rants, but one
would not include in an OT category the interesting, albeit sometimes
perplexingly disparate or over-technical, discussions which keep
popping up. ;-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From spike66 at att.net  Sat Dec  5 18:16:15 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 10:16:15 -0800
Subject: [ExI] we die alone while ogling the divers
In-Reply-To: <4B1A4D78.2080709@livelib.com>
References: <182452.64981.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com><00A4F8668B384C2584840D149DD22DCE@spike>
	<4B1A4D78.2080709@livelib.com>
Message-ID: <48C0CC05520447BE819381E282CA279E@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of David C. Harris
...
> Subject: Re: [ExI] we die alone while ogling the divers
> 
> spike wrote:
> > ...
> > If you have drowning dreams very often it might indicate 
> > sleep apnea, so you need to see the medics about that.
> >   
> ...Now I have a CPAP (constant 
> pressure airway passage) machine that blows my throat open 
> when I relax...  :-)

Hey cool, I wonder if that machine can be modified.

spike







From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Dec  5 18:23:11 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:23:11 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
In-Reply-To: <4B1A9FD4.6090807@rawbw.com>
References: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>	<580930c20912050358s76382d20sded35f1eb407ae96@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1A9FD4.6090807@rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <4B1AA50F.6030901@satx.rr.com>

On 12/5/2009 12:00 PM, Lee Corbin wrote:

> Why does it just kill you
> to hear someone say something totally outrageous once in a while??

There might be a clue in that word "outrageous" and more exactly the 
"rage" part, since outrage can enrage, and bringing rage down upon one's 
head is not a great idea. Yes, the difficulty is that some people are 
all too easily enraged and eager to lose control, so arguably they are 
the ones who need (self)moderation. But to rehearse the obvious, this 
list is not a public square, yet anything posted here can be read by 
anyone on the planet now or in the future. Since the list owners and 
most other transhumanists don't wish to be associated with outrageous 
proposals to (say) nuke or poison all the Muslims in the world or even 
in a given country, or to forcibly banish blacks and other "non-white" 
people "back to their own countries", it is very reasonable to step in 
and remove or block posts making such suggestions--even as thought 
experiments. If only on the same grounds that one is well advised not to 
make bomb jokes while boarding a plane.

Damien Broderick


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Dec  5 18:25:08 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:25:08 -0600
Subject: [ExI] we die alone while ogling the divers
In-Reply-To: <48C0CC05520447BE819381E282CA279E@spike>
References: <182452.64981.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com><00A4F8668B384C2584840D149DD22DCE@spike>	<4B1A4D78.2080709@livelib.com>
	<48C0CC05520447BE819381E282CA279E@spike>
Message-ID: <4B1AA584.3050407@satx.rr.com>

On 12/5/2009 12:16 PM, spike wrote:

>> ...Now I have a CPAP (constant
>> >  pressure airway passage) machine that blows my throat open
>> >  when I relax...  :-)
>
> Hey cool, I wonder if that machine can be modified.

They have machines for that already, Spike.


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Dec  5 19:07:59 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:07:59 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
In-Reply-To: <4B1AA50F.6030901@satx.rr.com>
References: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>	<580930c20912050358s76382d20sded35f1eb407ae96@mail.gmail.com>	<4B1A9FD4.6090807@rawbw.com>
	<4B1AA50F.6030901@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4B1AAF8F.9090505@rawbw.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:

> Lee Corbin wrote:
> 
>> Why does it just kill you
>> to hear someone say something totally outrageous once in a while??
> 
> There might be a clue in that word "outrageous" and more exactly the 
> "rage" part, since outrage can enrage, and bringing rage down upon one's 
> head is not a great idea.

Why so afraid?  Surely no lawsuits. Calumny?  Guilt by association? (Yes,
that latter is it, I guess.)

> Yes, the difficulty is that some people are all too easily
 > enraged and eager to lose control, so arguably they are
> the ones who need (self)moderation.

Yes, quite.  Now the "being enraged" part I understand.

The part I don't get is the tyrannical temperament of
needing to denounce (usually secretly) to the authorities
that power be used to turn off these "abhorrent" ideas.
I myself have just *never* had the urge to contact the
moderators offlist and demand the suppression of this or that.

> But to rehearse the obvious, this list is not a public
 > square, yet anything posted here can be read by anyone
 > on the planet now or in the future. Since the list owners and
> most other transhumanists don't wish to be associated with outrageous 
> proposals...

How can the vast multitudes out there not see that what
is said here is *never* official policy? "To be associated"??
I really would think that---ESPECIALLY FROM THE CONDEMNATIONS
FROM THE OTHERS ON THE LIST---that everyone perusing the list
could see what is going on: Some people believe things not
widely believed by others.

Do you really want to be afraid because it may become known
that someone you may know is a Communist? Do we want to give
into fear of things like that?

"Oh my God. Damien B. once posted on the *same* list where
someone once said terrible things!"

"Oh my God. I started a list, and someone (a single lone
voice) had the temerity to say that it would be a good
thing for China to sink beneath the waves, and even though
this was clearly not a popular view on my list, still
someone somewhere will do me or my movement great harm..."

> to (say) nuke or poison all the Muslims in the world or even 
> in a given country, or to forcibly banish blacks and other "non-white" 
> people "back to their own countries", it is very reasonable to step in 
> and remove or block posts making such suggestions--even as thought 
> experiments. If only on the same grounds that one is well advised not to 
> make bomb jokes while boarding a plane.

One cannot make bomb-jokes while boarding a plane because
of the hysterical temperament resulting from 9/11. So you
think it follows that we here must imitate such mindless
idiocy?

If a lone poster says that all Muslims should be slowly
lowered down into vats of hot Caro's acid, starting with
the toes, and a half-dozen people jump on him and say
he's wrong & he's crazy... what exactly are you afraid
of will happen? That a fatwa against *all* Extropians
will be announced?

Lee


From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Dec  5 19:39:31 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 19:39:31 +0000
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0912051139q7e4cb71ew408644979fd6a2cd@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/1/09, Max More wrote:
<snip>
>  I'm feeling pretty lonely on this issue. Just about everyone on all sides
> of the issue seem to be very certain of what's going on. Despite
> considerable reading of clashing sources (or because of it), I remain highly
> unsure.
>
>

That's the point of the PR campaign backed by Exxon, GM, etc.
Make people unsure so that no legislation gets passed to control the
industries despoiling the world.  They don't have to prove anything -
just create a cloud of confusion.  Exactly the same as the tobacco
industry did for years to avoid restrictive legislation.

<http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854>

<http://blog.cleantechies.com/2009/11/17/book-review-climate-cover-up-crusade-deny-global-warming/>

Book Review:
?This is a story of betrayal, a story of selfishness, greed, and
irresponsibility on an epic scale.? That?s how James Hoggan opens his
newly published book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global
Warming.

Hoggan initially thought there was a fierce  scientific controversy
about climate change. Sensibly he did a lot of reading, only to find
to his surprise that there was no such controversy. How did the public
confusion arise?  There was nothing accidental about it. As a public
relations specialist, Hoggan observed with gathering horror a campaign
at work.

?To a trained eye the unsavoury public relations tactics and
techniques and the strategic media manipulation became obvious. The
more I thought about it, the more deeply offended I became.?

As far back as 1991 a group of coal-related organisations set out, in
their own words, ?to reposition global warming as a theory (not fact)?
and ?supply alternative facts to support the suggestion that global
warming will be good.? This was the pattern of the work done in
succeeding years by a variety of corporations and industry
associations who devoted considerable financial resources to influence
the public conversation.

They used slogans and messages they had tested for effectiveness but
not accuracy.  They hired scientists prepared to say in public things
they could not get printed in the peer-reviewed scientific press.

They took advantage of mainstream journalists? interest in featuring
contrarian and controversial science stories. They planned
?grassroots? groups to give the  impression that they were not an
industry-driven lobby. New Zealand?s Climate ?Science? Coalition and
the International Coalition it helped to found fit this purpose
nicely.

He urges his readers not to take him at face value but to do some
checking of his material and satisfy themselves that it is reliable.
Nevertheless the activity he describes is rightly characterised as
betrayal, selfishness, greed and irresponsibility. The people who have
launched the highly successful campaign of denial and delay are not
attending to the work of a body of outstanding scientists although
that work is of utmost import for human life.

They have turned what should have been a public policy dialogue driven
by science into a theatre for a cynical public relations exercise of
the most dishonest kind. Instead of looking at the seriousness of the
warnings they have sensed a threat to their business profitability and
made that their motivating factor. They have spread a false
complacency and the result has been a twenty year delay in addressing
an issue of high urgency.
-------------------


BillK


From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Dec  5 20:07:04 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 20:07:04 +0000
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0912051139q7e4cb71ew408644979fd6a2cd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<ee50357e0912051139q7e4cb71ew408644979fd6a2cd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0912051207o12a5d916u29b10df577490372@mail.gmail.com>

Also:
<http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Their-Product-Industrys-Threatens/dp/019530067X>

Book Review:
"In Doubt Is Their Product, David Michaels gives a lively and
convincing history of how clever public relations has blocked one
public health protection after another. The techniques first used to
reassure us about tobacco were adapted to reassure us about asbestos,
lead, vinyl chloride-and risks to nuclear facilities workers, where
Dr. Michaels' experience as the relevant Assistant Secretary of Energy
gave him an inside view. And if you're worried about climate change,
keep worrying, because the same program is underway there."--Donald
Kennedy, Editor-in-Chief, Science
"We live in an age of unprecedented disinformation, misinformation,
and outright lying by those in power. This important book shows who
profits by misleading the public-and who ultimately pays with their
health."--Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation

"Doubt is our product," a cigarette executive once observed, "since it
is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in
the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing
a controversy."
In this eye-opening expose, David Michaels reveals how the tobacco
industry's duplicitous tactics spawned a multimillion dollar industry
that is dismantling public health safeguards. Product defense
consultants, he argues, have increasingly skewed the scientific
literature, manufactured and magnified scientific uncertainty, and
influenced policy decisions to the advantage of polluters and the
manufacturers of dangerous products. To keep the public confused about
the hazards posed by global warming, second-hand smoke, asbestos,
lead, plastics, and many other toxic materials, industry executives
have hired unscrupulous scientists and lobbyists to dispute scientific
evidence about health risks. In doing so, they have not only delayed
action on specific hazards, but they have constructed barriers to make
it harder for lawmakers, government agencies, and courts to respond to
future threats. The Orwellian strategy of dismissing research
conducted by the scientific community as "junk science" and elevating
science conducted by product defense specialists to "sound science"
status also creates confusion about the very nature of scientific
inquiry and undermines the public's confidence in science's ability to
address public health and environmental concerns Such reckless
practices have long existed, but Michaels argues that the Bush
administration deepened the dysfunction by virtually handing over
regulatory agencies to the very corporate powers whose products and
behavior they are charged with overseeing.
In Doubt Is Their Product Michaels proves, beyond a doubt, that our
regulatory system has been broken. He offers concrete, workable
suggestions for how it can be restored by taking the politics out of
science and ensuring that concern for public safety, rather than
private profits, guides our regulatory policy.
--------------------------


BillK


From asyluman at gmail.com  Sat Dec  5 20:28:55 2009
From: asyluman at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:28:55 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
In-Reply-To: <4B1AAF8F.9090505@rawbw.com>
References: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20912050358s76382d20sded35f1eb407ae96@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1A9FD4.6090807@rawbw.com> <4B1AA50F.6030901@satx.rr.com>
	<4B1AAF8F.9090505@rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <a40a2a7b0912051228x6732f37ekfc85a7b05e8499b7@mail.gmail.com>

An easy enough rule to remember: if it seems (and this really is pretty easy
to ascertain) like others on the list will respond to your message with
intelligent interest in the direction of a progressive conversation--which
would be a conversation where it can be seen that, as the talking continues,
the understanding of the topic rises and so do the complexities of the ideas
within.

for example:

If I hypothesize on race relations and imagine a thought experiment that
would be considered highly immoral or illegal, the topic can still progress
towards real intelligent results.  Many, many thought experiments include
scenarios where someone is killed to illustrate consciousness, decision, and
the like.  People here are on the level to understand that these do not
suggest the writer is in favor of murder; they should be able to judge when
something is hypothesis and when something is personal opinion.

but if your message will produce a hovering, worthless conversation--an
argument, an intelligentsian circle-jerk, et cetera--you should probably not
post it.

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> Damien Broderick wrote:
>
>  Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>  Why does it just kill you
>>> to hear someone say something totally outrageous once in a while??
>>>
>>
>> There might be a clue in that word "outrageous" and more exactly the
>> "rage" part, since outrage can enrage, and bringing rage down upon one's
>> head is not a great idea.
>>
>
> Why so afraid?  Surely no lawsuits. Calumny?  Guilt by association? (Yes,
> that latter is it, I guess.)
>
>
>  Yes, the difficulty is that some people are all too easily
>>
> > enraged and eager to lose control, so arguably they are
>
>> the ones who need (self)moderation.
>>
>
> Yes, quite.  Now the "being enraged" part I understand.
>
> The part I don't get is the tyrannical temperament of
> needing to denounce (usually secretly) to the authorities
> that power be used to turn off these "abhorrent" ideas.
> I myself have just *never* had the urge to contact the
> moderators offlist and demand the suppression of this or that.
>
>
>  But to rehearse the obvious, this list is not a public
>>
> > square, yet anything posted here can be read by anyone
> > on the planet now or in the future. Since the list owners and
>
>> most other transhumanists don't wish to be associated with outrageous
>> proposals...
>>
>
> How can the vast multitudes out there not see that what
> is said here is *never* official policy? "To be associated"??
> I really would think that---ESPECIALLY FROM THE CONDEMNATIONS
> FROM THE OTHERS ON THE LIST---that everyone perusing the list
> could see what is going on: Some people believe things not
> widely believed by others.
>
> Do you really want to be afraid because it may become known
> that someone you may know is a Communist? Do we want to give
> into fear of things like that?
>
> "Oh my God. Damien B. once posted on the *same* list where
> someone once said terrible things!"
>
> "Oh my God. I started a list, and someone (a single lone
> voice) had the temerity to say that it would be a good
> thing for China to sink beneath the waves, and even though
> this was clearly not a popular view on my list, still
> someone somewhere will do me or my movement great harm..."
>
>
>  to (say) nuke or poison all the Muslims in the world or even in a given
>> country, or to forcibly banish blacks and other "non-white" people "back to
>> their own countries", it is very reasonable to step in and remove or block
>> posts making such suggestions--even as thought experiments. If only on the
>> same grounds that one is well advised not to make bomb jokes while boarding
>> a plane.
>>
>
> One cannot make bomb-jokes while boarding a plane because
> of the hysterical temperament resulting from 9/11. So you
> think it follows that we here must imitate such mindless
> idiocy?
>
> If a lone poster says that all Muslims should be slowly
> lowered down into vats of hot Caro's acid, starting with
> the toes, and a half-dozen people jump on him and say
> he's wrong & he's crazy... what exactly are you afraid
> of will happen? That a fatwa against *all* Extropians
> will be announced?
>
> Lee
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091205/490fc277/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Dec  5 20:54:18 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 12:54:18 -0800
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0912051139q7e4cb71ew408644979fd6a2cd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<ee50357e0912051139q7e4cb71ew408644979fd6a2cd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F223EE785AF94549AF6A94AA3A4BF974@spike>

> ...On Behalf Of BillK
> ...
> Book Review:
> "This is a story of betrayal, a story of selfishness, greed, 
> and irresponsibility on an epic scale." That's how James 
> Hoggan opens his newly published book Climate Cover-Up: The 
> Crusade to Deny Global Warming... BillK

Ja, BillK, I agree partially, but this would have played much better a month
ago than it will now.  It was the scientists who have been apparently caught
doing some dirty business, corrupting or influencing the peer review
process, sloppy handling of data etc.

That being said, I noticed three things: there is a huge population which
believe that global warming is a bad thing, but that crowd did not rejoice
at the possibility that the threat was exaggerated.  Our own senator (Boxer)
wants to direct the entire investigation at finding who leaked the
incriminating email, and never mind the actual contents of that leak.  Good
luck with that irrelevant task.  The AGW-is-bad crowd should be filled with
hope, happy as hell, but they seem bitter and angry.

Second, I notice the British are talking about this more than the Yanks.
Scandals are supposed to come out of the US and Nigeria, not Britain.

Third, the debate seems to be: in the light of these leaks, is AGW true or
false?  But a whole bunch of us realize AGW is probably true, but that isn't
the critical question.  The critical question is: how much?  If we try to
say the warming was not exaggerated at all by the CRU crowd, how do we know
that for sure?  And if we say it wasn't exaggerated, how do we know they
didn't underestimate it?  And if they did underestimate it, by how much?
And if they suppressed dissenting papers by a corrupted peer review process,
where are those authors now?  Where are those papers?  And if they didn't
corrupt the peer review process, why did Prof. Jones make that comment about
somehow keeping two papers out of the journal (apparently before he had seen
them) and blackballing the Climate Science journal?

BillK, I am not denying climate change, but the changers are carrying the
burden of proof, and there is a definite suspicion that scientific
misbehavior took place.  We have some work to do before we are ready to draw
conclusions.

spike




From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Sat Dec  5 22:02:51 2009
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 17:02:51 -0500
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <93F5B83C0B034CF48AA8BB5E4C7C836E@spike>
References: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<50763.12.77.168.244.1260012724.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>
	<93F5B83C0B034CF48AA8BB5E4C7C836E@spike>
Message-ID: <BB1B6988-95FE-4CE2-9088-5A73FA94AC9E@GMAIL.COM>

>>> Am I a just a weak fool to do this?  Max
>>
>> No, you are a kind, gentle man who will care for his brother
>> in this time of great trial... MB
>
> Max do let me assure you sir, no one will EVER mistake you for a  
> weak fool.
> Anyone who reads the extropian principles... will see that this was  
> written by an kick-ass smart guy.
>
> Newer posters, do read over the extropian principles, thanks.
>
> spike
Agreed, in my opinion the extropian principles are a great  
distillation of a pro-reason, pro-science, pro-LIFE worldview, and  
that alone shows me that Max is anything but a fool.

It has also occurred to me that I didn't express my sympathies with  
you, Max, and your brother. I apologize (I didn't really know if it  
was appropriate, I'm not good at that kind of thing). I hope  
everything turns out all right.

Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From shannonvyff at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  5 22:11:27 2009
From: shannonvyff at yahoo.com (Shannon)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:11:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Aggressive Atheism, by Pat Condell
In-Reply-To: <mailman.752.1259986823.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.752.1259986823.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <254885.29236.qm@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Max, 

Thank you for your illustration of empathy and the proper way to treat a religious friend or family member. One thing I've seen in the older kids I taught in Sunday School in Austin (the middle school aged kids) was that a few of them where very mad at religious kids in their schools, they wanted to debate them and basically show them how silly they were.  I had a hard time explaining (or more-so having them agree) that we can respect other peoples' beliefs while still politely explaining ours. My son in particular is taken in by Pat Condell's type of sometimes spot on treatment of theology, but I cringe at the lack of respect, the lack of empathy.  I avoid letting my highly verbal and proud atheist son watch the more rough proponents of evolution, including Dawkins (or we talk about them if he watches them, he did get to see Michael Shermer's debate in Austin this past Spring--and Shermer was respectful for the most part)-- My personal preference is for
 people like Kenneth Miller who work with religious theory (http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/B001KVZ6RU/ref=pd_sim_b_1).  Of course, not all interactions with religious friends and family are simply about evolution, they often become about ones' soul-hell, heaven and eternity.  More-so it also is about approval, or kinship between that friend or relative.  My son has a grandfather who is quite religious and fears for his grand-children's souls, he's bought them Christian camps, sends Christian books, and even paid tuition at a Christian private school for my son. (That was the school that famously my son spent less than half a year at, as he often got in fights with other kids and ended up debating the existence of God with the principal, this was at age 4 when he was in first grade-he was reading at a third grade level).  The point is, that I think some atheists feel their belief is not validated unless they get the
 religious person to drop their beliefs. I've seen this in my son-and try to show him that you can have a different understanding of how the universe works and know you are right-while respecting the other persons' take on life.


It is hard right now-and I think your note really caught my attention Max because my son is in public school in England (as you know we moved from TX over the summer) and you are from England. Here the public school is quite religious, they pray to God, the Vicar of the Church of England Calverley (our village between Leeds and Bradford) comes and gives a weekly sermon to the school.  I've told my son that he can opt out, there is a Jehovah's Witness who stays in class to read when the rest of the class goes out to do religious activities (actually one of the best friends of my youngest daughter, we've had the girl to our home a few times).  The girl however sits out parties as well, as they are seen as part of a different religious tradition, and they have a philosophy of treating every day as special--not having days that are above other days. My son today told me he felt uncomfortable during the praying (this was after we attended a school hosted
 religious Christingle earlier today)--we discussed the God language, the "be a Christian language" and the "if you were baptized you are a saint" language.  Hi is conflicted however on if he wants to go or sit out.  He has decided that he wants to go to be with his friends, its a social thing.  He had considered sitting out, but decided to just be polite and follow along.  It sort of breaks my heart as I know he wants to argue, and I don't want him saying things that he doesn't believe in, at the same time I'm glad he's going along with it all and being polite.  The kids at the school they attend are all quite religious, one of my son's friends got mad at him for saying Santa was not real (and they are all in 6th form).  Its an ongoing thing with our friends and family, read the books they give us, take the knowledge from them-gently say how you disagree-but respect their belief and appreciate them in the end.  (after you say that their higher power
 will allow cryonics to work if they have more work for them ;-) -- okthat's an aside, but we all do our own variations of how to fit transhumanist ideals into scripture ;-) ) 

 Health, Happiness, Wisdom & Longevity :-) -- best wishes from --Shannon Vyff -- Alcor Area Readiness Team Coordinator, Venturist Director, ImmInst Chair and Methuselah Foundation 300 member, An author of "The Scientific Conquest of Death":http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Conquest-Death-Immortality-Institute/dp/9875611352, Author of the children's transhumanist adventure book "21st Century Kids": http://www.amazon.com/21st-Century-Kids-Middle_english-Shannon/dp/1886057001

------------------------------

Message: 26
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:20:13 -0600
From: Max More <max at maxmore.com>
To: Extropy-Chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
Message-ID: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144 at andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Regarding:
Aggressive Atheism, by Pat Condell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk

I tried to watch this twice before, but stopped the video due to 
being put off by Condell's manner.

Tonight, I finally watched the whole thing. It made me feel like I 
was 18 years old again. An aggressive atheist. A guy who went to 
classes wearing badges (US: buttons) saying things like "legalize 
heroin", "taxation is theft", and "God is dead". It reminded me of 
confidently -- nay, arrogantly -- telling the religious buffoons 
what's what. And you know what? Every thing Condell says is basically right.

Yet, his attitude and approach, while refreshing, leaving me feeling 
that his message is purely and pointlessly a preaching-to-the-choir 
approach. Its value is completely one of entertainment. No, okay, it 
may also kick some atheists in the ass and inspire them to do 
something more active to combat the major problems that come with 
religious thinking.

While Condell's aggressive approach definitely has a degree of wisdom 
(and a load of intellectual good sense), is it really appropriate to, 
or useful for, or humanistic in, dealing with all situations?

For instance: My half-brother, who I just learned has been diagnosed 
with serious cancer, has asked me to read a novel that I see is 
extremely popular among the religious (Christian in particular): The Shack.

Relevant background: This is a (considerably older) half-brother -- 
simply "brother" as far as I knew until a few years ago -- who, when 
I was in my teens and had recently lost his beliefs... or rather, had 
thrown off the shackles of... religion, insisted (at a Christmas 
family gathering), that I would certainly go to Hell forever because 
I didn't believe that Jesus was the son of God.

A Pat Condell-style atheist might tell simply tell my brother that he 
is an idiot to believe this crap. I agreed to actually read this book 
and -- unless it really is *monumentally* stupid -- I intend to 
discuss it with my brother exploratively rather than explaining 
abruptly to him why his decades-long religious beliefs are moronic.

Am I a just a weak fool to do this? Is Condell's attitude and 
approach always useful/appropriate/effective/wise?

Max


-------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
Extropy Institute Founder
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com
------------------------------------- 



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 75, Issue 8
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091205/8123f2ad/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Dec  5 23:18:40 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 23:18:40 +0000
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <F223EE785AF94549AF6A94AA3A4BF974@spike>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<ee50357e0912051139q7e4cb71ew408644979fd6a2cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<F223EE785AF94549AF6A94AA3A4BF974@spike>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0912051518x66db86afw8cbc9b4ad602af7b@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/5/09, spike wrote:
<snip>
>  BillK, I am not denying climate change, but the changers are carrying the
>  burden of proof, and there is a definite suspicion that scientific
>  misbehavior took place.
>  We have some work to do before we are ready to draw conclusions.
>
>


As Keith (I think) pointed out, the work that the world should be
doing to alleviate global warming is work that the world should be
doing anyway.
And the work should have started 20 years ago.

Even if global warming wasn't happening, the world should be moving to
renewable energy sources anyway. Solar power, wind power, fuel cells,
nuclear power, geothermal power, etc.

The entrenched energy industries of coal and oil are fighting tooth
and nail to protect their industry and profits and delaying the
transfer to alternative fuels as long as possible. One hopeful sign is
that the oil industry appears to be diversifying as oil production
starts dropping. So they will be supporting green energy once they
become the new green energy industry and can profit from it.

The trouble is that it might be too late by then for large areas of the world.

BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Dec  5 23:29:57 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:29:57 -0600
Subject: [ExI] HM
Message-ID: <4B1AECF5.4060103@satx.rr.com>

Brain of world's best-known amnesiac mapped
By Elizabeth Landau, CNN
December 3, 2009 7:21 p.m. EST

(CNN) -- Henry Molaison, known as H.M. in scientific literature, was 
perhaps the most famous patient in all of brain science in the 20th century.

"My daddy's family came from the South and moved North, they came from 
Thibodaux Louisiana, and moved north," Molaison would say. "My mother's 
family came from the North and moved South." Within 15 minutes he might 
repeat this exact statement twice more, unable to remember that he'd 
already said it. Scientists studied him for most of his adult life.

This week, researchers are dissecting his brain to figure out exactly 
which structures contributed to his amnesia, which he suffered for more 
than 50 years.

At the Brain Observatory at the University of California, San Diego, 
researchers began slicing H.M.'s brain Wednesday afternoon and streaming 
the procedure live to the world on their Web site. Watch it live

"We're doing it, this sort of marathon through the brain," said Jacopo 
Annese, director of the Brain Observatory. By Thursday afternoon, the 
scientists were less than halfway through the brain, but the process was 
going "miraculously well," he said.

A camera is taking a picture of each individual slice, and these 
pictures will also be made available on the Web. The goals are to map 
the human brain in new ways and correlate individual structures with 
specific functions such as memory.

The exciting part comes Thursday night as scientists probe deeper into 
the part of the brain that had been removed more than 50 years ago, 
causing the patient's memory abnormalities, he said. The procedure will 
reveal more about Molaison's brain than a high-resolution MRI scan 
could, said Suzanne Corkin, professor of behavioral neuroscience at the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who studied and worked with 
Molaison since 1962.

Annese likened the exploration of Molaison's brain to the search for the 
formation of colors in an impressionistic painting. If you look at a 
very small section of the painting up close, you see that many different 
colors together form the pink streaks that are visible when you step 
back and look at the whole thing, he said.

Molaison, born in 1926, had been suffering epileptic seizures since 
childhood, and underwent an operation in 1953 remove the part of the 
brain doctors believed were causing the seizures. They took out much of 
the hippocampus, a horseshoe-shaped structure that plays a major part in 
long-term memory.

The result was that, after the surgery, the patient could not form new 
memories that lasted more than 20 or 30 seconds, Corkin said. The 
operation did, however, succeed in reducing his seizures, and "he paid a 
high price for that benefit," she said.

Corkin first encountered Molaison in 1962, when she was a graduate 
student at the Montreal Neurological Institute at McGill University. As 
part of her thesis project, she studied him and two other patients who 
had had brain surgery to treat epilepsy, with no idea that Molaison 
would become so important in scientific research.

"He's taught us a lot about how memories are formed in the brain," said 
Natalie Schenker, research scientist at the Brain Observatory. "Now that 
he has died and his brain can be looked at anatomically, we can make an 
even better association between which parts of the brain were 
responsible for memory formation."

After the operation, he went home to live with his mother and father, 
Corkin said. He continued living with his mother after his father died 
until both mother and son went to live with a relative.

"If you asked him how old he was, he always guessed younger, but he 
never said 27," which is how old he was at the time of the surgery, 
Corkin said.

Even before the operation, Molaison enjoyed doing crossword puzzles and 
believed they helped his memory, Corkin said. He could retrieve any word 
he knew before the brain surgery but could not learn any words that came 
into his vocabulary afterward. He spent a lot of time at home doing 
these puzzles and watching television, she said.

Molaison's last 28 years of his life were in a nursing home in 
Connecticut, where the woman who took care of him near the end called 
him Teddy, like a teddy bear, Corkin said.

Molaison died at age 82 of respiratory pneumonia. He also suffered from 
dementia for reasons that did not stem from his 1953 surgery, Corkin 
said. It is still unknown whether he developed Alzheimer's disease or 
vascular dementia, a question that can also be examined with the dissection.

By the time he passed away December 2 of last year, plans had already 
been set to study his brain. Corkin had long decided that it was 
imperative to examine it post-mortem, and the patient and his legal 
conservator agreed to sign a donation form in 1992. Then, in 2002, 
Corkin assembled a team of scientists to decide what they would do, 
minute by minute, upon his death.

Researchers have spent the last year preparing for the process of 
slicing Molaison's brain. Their technology allows them to cut the brain 
at a width of 70 microns, and will yield about 2,600 slices total, 
Annese said.

For the total dissection, the brain has been cooled to a temperature of 
40 degrees below zero Celsius. The entire process, streamed live on the 
lab Web site, is expected to last about 30 hours, and will probably go 
into Friday night, Annese said.

Although Annese said he's nervous when he's more than 10 minutes away 
from the brain -- there was a minor mishap with the cooling liquid 
Thursday morning -- generally everyone in the lab is calm and relaxed 
during the procedure, he said. For the past three months, the team has 
gone through "dress rehearsals" with other brains, he said.

Thursday around noon, there were 17,000 people watching the live video 
of the brain cutting, he said. The Web site has had more than 3 million 
hits.


From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Sun Dec  6 04:00:04 2009
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 20:00:04 -0800
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
Message-ID: <d1988d2d0912052000q7e1767a8g1a8669eade57a90d@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 2:38 PM,   "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

snip

> Third, the debate seems to be: in the light of these leaks, is AGW true or
> false? ?But a whole bunch of us realize AGW is probably true, but that isn't
> the critical question. ?The critical question is: how much?

No it is not.

None of the climate change models show serious effects before several
decades into the future, well beyond the point limited availability of
low cost energy will be killing people in famines and resource wars at
the 100 million a year rate.

The entire debate is a distraction from the real problem, which is to
come up with a new, low cost, primary source of energy.

The real problem is getting serious consideration by various groups of people.

It's a shame Extropians are not among them.

Keith


From dharris at livelib.com  Sun Dec  6 08:51:17 2009
From: dharris at livelib.com (David C. Harris)
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 00:51:17 -0800
Subject: [ExI] we die alone while ogling the divers
In-Reply-To: <4B1AA584.3050407@satx.rr.com>
References: <182452.64981.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com><00A4F8668B384C2584840D149DD22DCE@spike>	<4B1A4D78.2080709@livelib.com>	<48C0CC05520447BE819381E282CA279E@spike>
	<4B1AA584.3050407@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4B1B7085.60503@livelib.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:
> On 12/5/2009 12:16 PM, spike wrote:
>
>>> ...Now I have a CPAP (constant
>>> >  pressure airway passage) machine that blows my throat open
>>> >  when I relax...  :-)
>>
>> Hey cool, I wonder if that machine can be modified.
>
> They have machines for that already, Spike.
I could FEEL that there was something wrong about that word, and you 
found the alternate interpretation, Spike!  Dang, I wish I'd trusted my 
instinct.   "Proofread twice, Send once", I guess.


From anders at aleph.se  Sun Dec  6 12:07:49 2009
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:07:49 +0100
Subject: [ExI] HM
In-Reply-To: 4B1AECF5.4060103@satx.rr.com
Message-ID: <20091206120749.4750e397@secure.ericade.net>

Damien Broderick wrote:
> Brain of world's best-known amnesiac mapped

It was a rather odd voyeristic feeling to watch the brain being sliced. This is a superstar brain, on par with Broca's brain in Mus?e de l'Homme. Webcasting it in real-time (with messages from the lab shown on colourful post-it notes placed near the cameras) is the descendant of the Trojan Room coffee pot of the early 90's.

I fear that the first brain emulation scan will be even less interesting to watch.


-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University 


From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Dec  6 12:16:00 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 13:16:00 +0100
Subject: [ExI] HM
In-Reply-To: <20091206120749.4750e397@secure.ericade.net>
References: <20091206120749.4750e397@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <20091206121600.GX17686@leitl.org>

On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 01:07:49PM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote:

> I fear that the first brain emulation scan will be even less interesting to watch.

How much would we need for a mouse right now, only a few years? 
There are a lot of cm^3 in a human brain, and scanners are expensive.

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


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  6 11:57:04 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 03:57:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <mailman.752.1259986823.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <79260.84482.qm@web32007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

From: Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> Ben Zaiboc wrote:

> Andrii Zvorygin <andrii.z at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> he seems like an angry confused person.
>
>> I very much doubt that he's confused. 

> I didn't see any signs of confusion either.

>> But angry? About the greatest evil that has ever existed?
>> Yes, I should think so.

> It doesn't take too much dwelling on what religion
tries to do to modern minds (and succeeds very often)
in order to make a thoughtful, skeptical person angry.

> "The greatest evil that has ever existed"?  I'm at a
loss here to think about what other candidates you
may have in mind, and how religion finally beats them
out in the evilness department.

> The noticeable thread to me that links all the recent
atheist books, and claims like Pat Condell's, is this:
we can hardly imagine history without religion. So we
can hardly imagine the outcome of any controlled
experiment.

> We know that the Aztecs and Mayas before them did
terrible things pretty high up on the scale of evil.
But it's highly significant, I think, that we *only*
know these things because a literate civilization
made contact with them and wrote it all down. It
seems likely to me that atrocities scarcely thinkable
to us were commonplace among *all* our ancestors if
we go back far enough.

> Reading a sympathetic biography of Genghis Khan left
me with the impression that the incredible holocausts
would have happened anyway, even without the worship
of the Tangri, the great blue sky.

> So, since atrocities and religion have always been
with us, how is it that so many people always manage
to suppose that the latter is truly responsible for
the former? I'm not convinced.


I agree that humans are capable of, and have done (and still do), pretty terrible things without needing religious encouragement, and religion is very good at playing on these tendencies, and exaggerating them.

My main point is not about physical cruelty, even though that's terrible enough, but about the evil that religion does to people's minds.  Never mind the forced ignorance (thankfully getting harder to enforce as technology spreads and advances), it's the poisoning of minds that I see as the most evil thing.  The way curiosity is killed off and rational thought punished and ultimately destroyed.

Yes, burning people alive is definitely a bad thing (and I suspect a lot more of this has been done in a religious context than a secular one), not to mention stoning and all kinds of other inventive horrors, but to deliberately blunt someone's mind to the point where it's almost useless for anything but doing the same to other people (especially children), that, to me, is evil with a capital E.  

And as far as I know, religions are far and away the biggest culprits in this kind of behaviour.

Ben Zaiboc


      


From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Dec  6 12:27:56 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 13:27:56 +0100
Subject: [ExI] climategate again
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0912051518x66db86afw8cbc9b4ad602af7b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912011647.nB1GlX1G025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<ee50357e0912051139q7e4cb71ew408644979fd6a2cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<F223EE785AF94549AF6A94AA3A4BF974@spike>
	<ee50357e0912051518x66db86afw8cbc9b4ad602af7b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091206122756.GA17686@leitl.org>

On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 11:18:40PM +0000, BillK wrote:

> As Keith (I think) pointed out, the work that the world should be
> doing to alleviate global warming is work that the world should be
> doing anyway.
> And the work should have started 20 years ago.

It's more like 40 years ago, but 20 years would have been plenty.
 
> Even if global warming wasn't happening, the world should be moving to
> renewable energy sources anyway. Solar power, wind power, fuel cells,
> nuclear power, geothermal power, etc.

Precisely. We should be thankful for this depression, since fossil
costs are right now sufficiently high to pay producers for new
infrastructure, and simultaneously keep demand down. This won't
last, however. Considering how many terabucks are now down the
drain which could have been used for infrastructure work... 
 
> The entrenched energy industries of coal and oil are fighting tooth
> and nail to protect their industry and profits and delaying the
> transfer to alternative fuels as long as possible. One hopeful sign is
> that the oil industry appears to be diversifying as oil production
> starts dropping. So they will be supporting green energy once they
> become the new green energy industry and can profit from it.
> 
> The trouble is that it might be too late by then for large areas of the world.

We will not be able to bridge the gap with renewables. However, with
reduced demand that should be possible. Not exactly a picnic.

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


From sparge at gmail.com  Sun Dec  6 14:37:47 2009
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 09:37:47 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
In-Reply-To: <4B1AA50F.6030901@satx.rr.com>
References: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com> 
	<580930c20912050358s76382d20sded35f1eb407ae96@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4B1A9FD4.6090807@rawbw.com> <4B1AA50F.6030901@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0912060637kbb50e78ydfe43101ac476347@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> ... But to rehearse the obvious, this list is not a public
> square, yet anything posted here can be read by anyone on the planet now or
> in the future. Since the list owners and most other transhumanists don't
> wish to be associated with outrageous proposals to (say) nuke or poison all
> the Muslims in the world or even in a given country, or to forcibly banish
> blacks and other "non-white" people "back to their own countries", it is
> very reasonable to step in and remove or block posts making such
> suggestions--even as thought experiments. If only on the same grounds that
> one is well advised not to make bomb jokes while boarding a plane.

Sorry, but I can't agree with that. The list owners and participants
are free to state publicly that they disagree with or find offensive
anything posted to the list. Removing messages from the archives is
censorship and indicates weakness on behalf of the owners/moderators
because it suggests that their pets ideas aren't viable on a level
playing field.

I'm OK with blocking users who continually disrupt the list by posting
spam, gibberish, personal attacks, etc. But I really don't think
merely "offensive" ideas should be discouraged.

Anyone ever read A Modest Proposal?

-Dave


From anders at aleph.se  Sun Dec  6 15:52:06 2009
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:52:06 +0100
Subject: [ExI] HM
In-Reply-To: 20091206121600.GX17686@leitl.org
Message-ID: <20091206155206.e0152894@secure.ericade.net>

Eugene:
> How much would we need for a mouse right now, only a few years? 
> There are a lot of cm^3 in a human brain, and scanners are expensive.

If the brain has volume V and you slice it in thickness t slices, you will get ~V^(1/3)/t slices, with a total area of V/t. 

In the case of doing a 50 nm slices of a 450 mm^3 mouse brain, this means 153,000 slices with a total area of 9 m^2. The same case with a 1400 cm^3 human brain gives 2 million slices and total area 28,000 m^2. 

Todd and the KESM team have a 2 Tb datasets of a mouse brain, but that is of course just optical resolution. Enough to see the neurons, but not enough to get connectivity.


>From a WBE perspective, the big problem is getting the scanning area up and the scanning time down. If we have N microscopes scanning an area A in time T, the total time will be V/tNAT - plus overheads due to tissue handling, presumably scaling as V^a t^-b N^c for some positive constants a, b and c (more stuff to handle, more slices to move, more destinations for slices). If A and/or T can be increased, then the total time is reduced without extra overhead. 


Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University 


From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Dec  6 16:43:24 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 17:43:24 +0100
Subject: [ExI] HM
In-Reply-To: <20091206155206.e0152894@secure.ericade.net>
References: <20091206155206.e0152894@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <20091206164324.GC17686@leitl.org>

On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 04:52:06PM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote:

> If the brain has volume V and you slice it in thickness t slices, you will get ~V^(1/3)/t slices, with a total area of V/t. 

I don't think a single scanner stage can handle more than a cube of cm^3 or so.
Even that might be a tad on the optimistic side.
 
> In the case of doing a 50 nm slices of a 450 mm^3 mouse brain, this means 153,000 slices with a total area of 9 m^2. The same case with a 1400 cm^3 human brain gives 2 million slices and total area 28,000 m^2. 
> 
> Todd and the KESM team have a 2 Tb datasets of a mouse brain, but that is of course just optical resolution. Enough to see the neurons, but not enough to get connectivity.

Right now we can handle about a PByte dataset comfortably. 10 PBytes less
comfortably, and 100 PBytes with a lot of pain. It will be
a while until we're in easy EByte country. Obviously we cannot
hold even a mouse voxel dataset explicitly, so for tracing/segmentation
you have to work with a sliding slice (anywhere in a 1 um-100 
um depth). The result would be a lot more compact, and also quite
compressible (very little difference between adjacent slices).
 
> From a WBE perspective, the big problem is getting the scanning area up and the scanning time down. If we have N microscopes scanning an area A in time T, the total time will be V/tNAT - plus overheads due to tissue handling, presumably scaling as V^a t^-b N^c for some positive constants a, b and c (more stuff to handle, more slices to move, more destinations for slices). If A and/or T can be increased, then the total time is reduced without extra overhead. 

The problem is that a dm^3 is 1000 cm^3, so these cm^3 scanner
stages (at about ~nm resolution laterally) be better cheap. This 
is something which will make even Paul Allen's people blanch.

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


From anders at aleph.se  Sun Dec  6 17:49:24 2009
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:49:24 +0100
Subject: [ExI] HM
In-Reply-To: 20091206164324.GC17686@leitl.org
Message-ID: <20091206174924.f87f211d@secure.ericade.net>

Eugene:
> I don't think a single scanner stage can handle more than a cube of cm^3 or
> so.
> Even that might be a tad on the optimistic side.

Yes, I think the KESM is the only system right now that can handle that. For Kenneth Hayworth's ATLUM I think the volume is many order of magnitude smaller. 

> > Todd and the KESM team have a 2 Tb datasets of a mouse brain, but that is
> of course just optical resolution. Enough to see the neurons, but not enough
> to get connectivity.
> 
> Right now we can handle about a PByte dataset comfortably. 10 PBytes less
> comfortably, and 100 PBytes with a lot of pain.

Even a terabyte dataset is a bit tricky to use, even if it fits nicely onto a single hard drive. For example, just doing a visualization or flythrough of that mouse brain seems to be a challenging software project. 

> for tracing/segmentation
> you have to work with a sliding slice (anywhere in a 1 um-100 
> um depth). The result would be a lot more compact, and also quite
> compressible (very little difference between adjacent slices).

Yup. What I worry about is how much sliding we can do between different lateral pieces of tissue. If we cannot use the same stage for an entire slice we will have to split it between stages. This has to be done *really* carefully so we can match the edges for connectivity. I don't know if there has been much work on how this can be done well - freeze cracking, maybe?


> The problem is that a dm^3 is 1000 cm^3, so these cm^3 scanner
> stages (at about ~nm resolution laterally) be better cheap. This 
> is something which will make even Paul Allen's people blanch.

The wonders of mass production. Right now microscope stages are sold one by one, and tend to be expensive (partially because they are generic for any preparation). 


Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University 


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  6 17:32:52 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 09:32:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] HM
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1260100802.19924.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <36014.13535.qm@web32003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

Brain of world's best-known amnesiac mapped
By Elizabeth Landau, CNN
December 3, 2009 7:21 p.m. EST

(CNN) -- Henry Molaison, known as H.M. in scientific literature, was
perhaps the most famous patient in all of brain science in the 20th century.

"My daddy's family came from the South and moved North, they came from
Thibodaux Louisiana, and moved north," Molaison would say. "My mother's
family came from the North and moved South." Within 15 minutes he might
repeat this exact statement twice more, unable to remember that he'd
already said it. Scientists studied him for most of his adult life.

This week, researchers are dissecting his brain to figure out exactly
which structures contributed to his amnesia, which he suffered for more
than 50 years.

At the Brain Observatory at the University of California, San Diego,
researchers began slicing H.M.'s brain Wednesday afternoon and streaming
the procedure live to the world on their Web site. Watch it live




Wow, does this mean the first upload will be an amnesiac?

Ben Zaiboc


      


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  6 18:11:32 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:11:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Rocketships!
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1260100802.19924.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <597707.34757.qm@web32003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Oops, I meant:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html

(start at the beginning!)

Ben Zaiboc


      


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  6 18:10:00 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:10:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Rocketships!
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1260100802.19924.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <598799.26143.qm@web32004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I haven't seen a mention of this on this list before, so here, for the delectation of at least some of you:

Rocketships!
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3a.html

Ben Zaiboc


      


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Dec  6 18:44:19 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 10:44:19 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d0912060637kbb50e78ydfe43101ac476347@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20912050358s76382d20sded35f1eb407ae96@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1A9FD4.6090807@rawbw.com> <4B1AA50F.6030901@satx.rr.com>
	<ffd22f9d0912060637kbb50e78ydfe43101ac476347@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B1BFB83.3040201@rawbw.com>

Dave Sill writes

 > The list owners and participants are free to state publicly
 > that they disagree with or find offensive anything posted to
 > the list. Removing messages from the archives is censorship...

I have *never* heard any thought before that anything of
the kind has been done or would be done. It was literally
unthinkable to me until you suggested it. Yes, in 1984
"he who controls the present controls the past", but
erasing memories here and now? Surely not.

I'm really sorry you brought that up. I think that I will
choose to continue to regard this as unthinkable, and not
think about it.

 > and indicates weakness on behalf of the owners/moderators
 > because it suggests that their pets ideas aren't viable on
 > a level playing field.

Yeah, well quite apart from them (they do own the list),
I'm most curious about what I am not understanding here
regarding those who want heavy censorship of the list.
We have (about six or seven months ago) been all through
this before---but still, I would like to understand. Sincerely.

Right now, all I have to go on is what Damien contributed,
which you quoted:

> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>> ... But to rehearse the obvious, this list is not a public
>> square, yet anything posted here can be read by anyone on the planet now or
>> in the future. Since the list owners and most other transhumanists don't
>> wish to be associated with outrageous proposals to (say) nuke or poison all
>> the Muslims in the world or even in a given country, or to forcibly banish
>> blacks and other "non-white" people "back to their own countries", it is
>> very reasonable to step in and remove or block posts making such
>> suggestions--even as thought experiments. If only on the same grounds that
>> one is well advised not to make bomb jokes while boarding a plane.
> 
> Sorry, but I can't agree with that. The list owners and participants
> are free to state publicly that they disagree with or find offensive
> anything posted to the list....

Let's read the words carefully, Dave. "[folks] don't wish to
be associated with outrageous proposals".  The key here may
be what is meant by "associated". I'm drawing a blank.

There *has* to be more going on here than just being loosely
associated with some reprehensible idea by having happened to
be "on" a list when said idea is suggested.

There are very deep waters here having to do with how
we all think (the heart leads the mind). We may also
have unreasonably high expectations about how rational
we ourselves are. Perhaps the real fear is this:

    Unless vigorously stomped out, certain ideas
    could gain a following.

(Even though surely 95% of the readers wouldn't abide
those ideas.)

For example, what if someone did propose that it would
be better for humanity or better for "us" (whoever that
is) to commit some drastic and extreme action? And
moreover that we "know in our hearts" that this is a
terrible, terrible proposal? Alas, then, we are no better
than the Church Fathers who needed to do the same thing.

But maybe it was arrogant of us to suppose that we ever
were "better"? All these people, Dave, who evidently write
often to the list moderator that this or that thread should
be excised--I think are just as thoughtful and well-meaning
as anyone else.

So, no, something else is going on that I don't quite
understand. (And no, I am *not* talking about the list
owners or moderators---they indeed could have a public
image to maintain or political goals. I understand that.)

Please give them some credit. We may (or I may) simply
have a blind spot here. I've had them before. What is
really going on?

Lee



From kanzure at gmail.com  Sun Dec  6 19:33:38 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 13:33:38 -0600
Subject: [ExI] H+ Summit 2009 transcripts/discussions
Message-ID: <55ad6af70912061133x25a8e525jce425be57fa04bdf@mail.gmail.com>

Hey all,

I'm over at the transhuman meetup. There are details at
http://hplus.eventbrite.com/ and http://www.techzulu.com/live.html
streaming some video at the moment.

Here are some details for keeping in contact with these people.

IRC channel: #hplusroadmap irc.freenode.net
twitter hashtag: #hplus http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23hplus

And here are some transcripts that I typed up (in real time, if you're
still here I'm sitting somewhere in the back).

Dylan Morris
http://adl.serveftp.org/~bryan/hplus-summit-2009/dylan-morris.html

Anselm Levskaya
http://adl.serveftp.org/~bryan/hplus-summit-2009/ansyem.html

Todd Huffman
http://adl.serveftp.org/~bryan/hplus-summit-2009/todd-huffman.html

Aubrey de Grey
http://adl.serveftp.org/~bryan/hplus-summit-2009/aubrey-de-grey.html

Greg Fahy
http://adl.serveftp.org/~bryan/hplus-summit-2009/fahy.html

Christine Peterson
http://adl.serveftp.org/~bryan/hplus-summit-2009/christine-peterson.html

Gregory Benford
http://adl.serveftp.org/~bryan/hplus-summit-2009/greg-benford.html

Andrew Hessel
http://adl.serveftp.org/~bryan/hplus-summit-2009/andrew-hessel.html

Alex Lightman
http://adl.serveftp.org/~bryan/hplus-summit-2009/alex-lightman.html

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507


From kanzure at gmail.com  Sun Dec  6 19:45:11 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 13:45:11 -0600
Subject: [ExI] H+ Summit 2009 transcripts/discussions
In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70912061133x25a8e525jce425be57fa04bdf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55ad6af70912061133x25a8e525jce425be57fa04bdf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55ad6af70912061145y391b2824k5a65d4382b3b5149@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:
> And here are some transcripts that I typed up (in real time, if you're
> still here I'm sitting somewhere in the back).

Ack, I forgot Patri's talk on the Seasteading Institute. What an
awesome guy to follow.

http://adl.serveftp.org/~bryan/hplus-summit-2009/patri-freadman.html

Ben Lipkowitz on SKDB and making open source hardware into easyware:
http://adl.serveftp.org/~bryan/presentations/hplus-summit-2009/hplus-summit-2009-how-to-make.pdf

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun Dec  6 20:41:01 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:41:01 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Aggressive Atheism, by Pat Condell
In-Reply-To: <254885.29236.qm@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.752.1259986823.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<254885.29236.qm@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912061241r6974f7d2k2192a184639271d4@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/5 Shannon <shannonvyff at yahoo.com>:
> Thank you for your illustration of empathy and the proper way to treat a
> religious friend or family member. One thing I've seen in the older kids I
> taught in Sunday School in Austin (the middle school aged kids) was that a
> few of them where very mad at religious kids in their schools, they wanted
> to debate them and basically show them how silly they were.

The modern Western culture is quite sold on the idea of "objective
Truth" - which in turn has monotheistic roots, but easily extends to
some kinds of atheism - and evades the idea of identities, worldviews
and fundamental choices.

This in turn makes for a status of "obviousness" of one's own ideas
and values, and a radical lack of perspective.

In this respect, I think that reading Nietzsche's Antichrist is a much
more fascinating experience for a young christian than watching a film
like Religolous, with its much eye-rotating and politically correct
scandal and mock suprise face to monotheistic beliefs that only preach
to the choir (and probably bore to death even the latter).

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun Dec  6 21:42:05 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 22:42:05 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>

The threads on militant atheism and on ExI-chat moderation have made
me think once more about tolerance and freedom of speech.

Let me say that as a matter of personal taste I am strongly inclined
towards tolerance and dialogue, and have an active dislike for easy
outrages and obstracisms. On the other hand, I realise that whatever
vague high ground "tolerance" may claim over its enemies, *it
immediately vanishes when it does not extend to alleged
"intolerants".*

Ultimately, in the famous Saint-Just's say "Pas de libert? pour les
ennemis de la libert?" the "libert?" does risk to become quickly
little more than a rhetoric definition of the political regime where
Saint Just's friends, rather than Louis XVI's friends, are in power.
Both being certainly ready to recognise the freedom of their partisans
(to support them), but neither willing to extend the courtesy to their
opponents.

But things become more complicate when one is tempted to put higher
demands on those who basically are supposed to share one's own camp.
In this respect, many of us are ready to accept, or at least to
tolerate, discourses and behaviours by, say, religious fundamentalists
or bioluddites with which no compromise is conceivable and where
perhaps a more clear-cut stance would be required; while radical or
aggressive or debatable positions by transhumanists or atheists are
often met with a much, much less understanding and/or respectful
attitude even though it is by no means obvious that they are entitled
to anything less.

Thus, e.g., if we must be indulgent with young christians and
sectarians trying to preach their creed and to disparage the
unfaithful, I would be reluctant not to extend the same treatment to
atheists who feel like doing just the same.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun Dec  6 22:34:32 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:34:32 +0100
Subject: [ExI] " Space-Based Solar Power - SBSP" sent you a message...
Message-ID: <580930c20912061434i24daefa0lbc3ee0c94134a092@mail.gmail.com>

I have just received that, and thought might be of interest to some of us...

<<From John Strickland:

NEW STRONG BUT INDIRECT SUPPORT FOR SSP

A Utah physicist Tim Garrett has just published a paper which gives
strong indirect support to SSP. ?His paper is based on physics more
than economics, and indicates that energy conservation has little
effect in the long run, and that the globe needs to replace and add
about 300 Gigawatts-equivalent of new non-carbon energy sources a day
in order to stabilize current greenhouse gas levels. ?He sees little
prospect of this in the short run. ?Several Journals refused to
publish his paper, in seeming confirmation of the Climate-gate
scandal. ?(Some of the Climate-gate documents are surely innocent, and
others surely not).

If we (the global community) currently need 300 Gigawatts equivalent /
year of new, clean energy (for fuel and power), Nuclear can only cover
part of it since there is not an unlimited amount of uranium. ?If we
had C.A.T.S., SSP would be able to provide such an unlimited amount of
energy, since there is no fuel to deplete. ?Trying to do it through
ground solar and wind means the globe would have to add 1200 Gigawatts
per year of solar and wind capacity, (assuming a capacity factor of
25%, yielding an annual average of 300 Gigawatts) along with either
the power storage needed to make it available as electricity when
needed, or the equipment to create non-carbon fuels out of the
majority of it. ?Assuming that the capital cost of building the ground
wind and solar equipment is about $10 Billion per Gigawatt, and that
the storage and conversion equipment would be about the same, the
annual global cost to meet this ?red queen?s race? would be about 24
Trillion dollars a year, of which the annual US share would be at
least $5 Trillion/yr. ?If nuclear reactor parts could be mass-produced
and the reactor construction standardized like France does to keep the
capital cost a $2 billion / Gigawatt, the global annual cost would be
2.4 Trillion and the US share would be about 500 Billion/yr. ?Building
the system of re-usable rockets and a system to build SSP would
probably cost much less than what the US would spend during a single
year. ?In addition, SSP represents the only source of power which we
can keep adding to at this rate without causing any environmental
degradation or massive use and depletion of physical resources to
build ground solar and wind equipment.

The link to a free, downloadable copy of the original article
(Published 11-21-09) in the journal ?Climatic Change? is at:
http://www.facebook.com/l/09c43;www.springerlink.com/content/9476j57g1t07vhn2/fulltext.pdf

The Article name is ?Are there basic physical constraints on future
anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide??

The link to ScienceDaily?s article Is Global Warming Unstoppable? on
the issue is at:
?http://www.facebook.com/l/09c43;www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123083704.htm

I suggest that everyone carefully check this new point of view out to
see how we can effectively use it.
If any physicists in the group can help translate the physics language
in to plain English, that would help.
If anyone finds sites where this is being discussed, let us know.
This should be starting to happen today.

John>>




-- 
Stefano Vaj


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  6 23:37:41 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 15:37:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia
In-Reply-To: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <368901.15134.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Semantic processes in the brain seem closely associated with a location known as Wernicke's area, normally located behind the left ear. Lesions in this area can cause a condition known as Wernicke's aphasia. Those afflicted with this form of aphasia speak meaningless sentences with normal syntax.

Wikipedia gives this example, presumably taken from an actual case:

"I called my mother on the television and did not understand the door. It was too breakfast, but they came from far to near. My mother is not too old for me to be young."

The person uttering those sentences does not merely get his wrongs wrong; he understands neither the words that he might mean nor the words that he actually speaks. And yet he speaks nevertheless, often fluently. 

This can happen because while the brain processes semantics in Wernicke's area, it processes syntax and forms sentences in Broca's area. If Broca goes to work while Wernicke goes to lunch, the poor fellow will babble nonsense in good form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke%27s_aphasia

I brought this factoid to post here on ExI because I noticed that a person afflicted with Wernicke's aphasia has much in common with the man in Searle's Chinese Room. Like the man in Searle's room, he follows the rules of syntax but knows not whereof he speaks.

-gts


      


From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  7 00:12:30 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 16:12:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d0912060637kbb50e78ydfe43101ac476347@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <789453.31167.qm@web59906.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

This has priobably been suggested so many times it will make you groan, but perhaps now is the time for?an exl-politics list, as WTA has?wta-politics. 
It would be more forthright to call?such the "exl-wingnut list", but exl-politics would do.
?
?
?
?

> ... But to rehearse the obvious, this list is not a public
> square, yet anything posted here can be read by anyone on the planet now or
> in the future. Since the list owners and most other transhumanists don't
> wish to be associated with outrageous proposals to (say) nuke or poison all
> the Muslims in the world or even in a given country, or to forcibly banish
> blacks and other "non-white" people "back to their own countries", it is
> very reasonable to step in and remove or block posts making such
> suggestions--even as thought experiments. If only on the same grounds that
> one is well advised not to make bomb jokes while boarding a plane.

Sorry, but I can't agree with that. The list owners and participants
are free to state publicly that they disagree with or find offensive
anything posted to the list. Removing messages from the archives is
censorship and indicates weakness on behalf of the owners/moderators
because it suggests that their pets ideas aren't viable on a level
playing field.

I'm OK with blocking users who continually disrupt the list by posting
spam, gibberish, personal attacks, etc. But I really don't think
merely "offensive" ideas should be discouraged.

Anyone ever read A Modest Proposal?

-Dave
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091206/d37d90d5/attachment.html>

From eschatoon at gmail.com  Mon Dec  7 05:51:35 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco (2nd email))
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 06:51:35 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>

I agree, of course, on extending tolerance to everyone. This is,
however, a private opt-in list, and spamming it with religious
propaganda should only be tolerated up to a certain extent.

I certainly tolerate fundamentalist atheists, in the sense that I
affirm their right to think whatever they like to think. On the other
hand, I think many of them have shed religion only to fall into
another fundamentalist faith. Both theist and atheist fundamentalists
have a right to speak their mind, of course, but I am not very
interested in discussing with them in their terms.

G.

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> The threads on militant atheism and on ExI-chat moderation have made
> me think once more about tolerance and freedom of speech.
>
> Let me say that as a matter of personal taste I am strongly inclined
> towards tolerance and dialogue, and have an active dislike for easy
> outrages and obstracisms. On the other hand, I realise that whatever
> vague high ground "tolerance" may claim over its enemies, *it
> immediately vanishes when it does not extend to alleged
> "intolerants".*
>
> Ultimately, in the famous Saint-Just's say "Pas de libert? pour les
> ennemis de la libert?" the "libert?" does risk to become quickly
> little more than a rhetoric definition of the political regime where
> Saint Just's friends, rather than Louis XVI's friends, are in power.
> Both being certainly ready to recognise the freedom of their partisans
> (to support them), but neither willing to extend the courtesy to their
> opponents.
>
> But things become more complicate when one is tempted to put higher
> demands on those who basically are supposed to share one's own camp.
> In this respect, many of us are ready to accept, or at least to
> tolerate, discourses and behaviours by, say, religious fundamentalists
> or bioluddites with which no compromise is conceivable and where
> perhaps a more clear-cut stance would be required; while radical or
> aggressive or debatable positions by transhumanists or atheists are
> often met with a much, much less understanding and/or respectful
> attitude even though it is by no means obvious that they are entitled
> to anything less.
>
> Thus, e.g., if we must be indulgent with young christians and
> sectarians trying to preach their creed and to disparage the
> unfaithful, I would be reluctant not to extend the same treatment to
> atheists who feel like doing just the same.
>
> --
> Stefano Vaj
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco
aka Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon


From eschatoon at gmail.com  Mon Dec  7 06:00:07 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco (2nd email))
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 07:00:07 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list
In-Reply-To: <580930c20912050358s76382d20sded35f1eb407ae96@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0912042155v39723bd2s16b19a46a2cc408a@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20912050358s76382d20sded35f1eb407ae96@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90912062200w77422183q4079fed268196381@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with Stefano. in particular on his list of sins.

Moderation is one of the many tools that help maintaining a mailing
list. It should be exercised with great care and not very frequently.

On the lsts that I moderate, I use these simple rules:
a) Spammers in the conventional sense are out at the first offense,
without warning.
b) Single issue trolls and those who always insult others receive one,
maximum two polite warnings, and then they are out.

G.

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/12/5 Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com>:
>> But as a person of conviction, I happen to believe in the first article of
>> the Bill of Rights, e.g. "Congress shall make no law respecting an an
>> establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof [1]; OR
>> ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH [2], .." should be taken very seriously.
>
> Interesting. I am myself a moderator of a few lists, and in turn
> happened at least once to be the victim of the moderation (or rather
> the owner) of a list at that time managed by one of my couple of
> personal trolls/poltergeists, who interpreted such role as the ability
> to engage in, by no means "moderate", attacks and flames where the
> ability of the other party to reply is by definition restricted.
> Unsurprisingly, the list members eventually migrated elsewhere,
> including those who had not directly suffered such behaviours...
>
> I think that both the moderation when in doubt should err on the side
> of the freedom of speech (and be very vigilant with regard to its own
> personal and ideological biases) AND that a moderation should exist.
> This not only as a matter of ideological or aesthetical taste, but for
> very practical reasons which have to do with its continuing viability
> and success.
>
>> The point of a moderated list would presumably be to minimize the exposure
>> of the list to defamation lawsuits, and in some cases "accuracy" statements
>> (say the Raelians were to start auto-cross-posting their fluff.
>
> No. The real point of moderation and the real (and only) cardinal sin
> in mailing lists is IMHO Off-Topic. Flames are off-topic. Spam is
> off-topic. Ad hominem are off-topic. Tireless single-issue evangelism
> is off-topic. Bilateral chit-chat is off-topic. Off-topic is what
> reduce the signal-to-noise ratio, annoys and ultimately keep away
> other participants. Cut the OT, but only the OT, and you have nothing
> else that you need (or should) do.
>
> --
> Stefano Vaj
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco
aka Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Dec  7 05:59:55 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:59:55 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B1C99DB.3040605@satx.rr.com>

On 12/6/2009 11:51 PM, Giulio Prisco (2nd email) wrote:
> Both theist and atheist fundamentalists
> have a right to speak their mind, of course, but I am not very
> interested in discussing with them in their terms.

I take the term "fundamentalist" to apply to one who embraces the 
literal and unalterable truth of some written revelation from one or 
more deities. Since an atheist is one who declines to accept such 
revelations as the basis for knowledge claims, I'm puzzled by how you 
define an "atheist fundamentalist". Would this be one who holds that one 
or more gods has revealed the unalterable truth that no deity exists?

Damien Broderick


From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Dec  7 10:28:14 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 21:28:14 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia
In-Reply-To: <368901.15134.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com> 
	<368901.15134.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912070228h12f3dfag4fe562e627172836@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/7 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
> Semantic processes in the brain seem closely associated with a location known as Wernicke's area, normally located behind the left ear. Lesions in this area can cause a condition known as Wernicke's aphasia. Those afflicted with this form of aphasia speak meaningless sentences with normal syntax.
>
> Wikipedia gives this example, presumably taken from an actual case:
>
> "I called my mother on the television and did not understand the door. It was too breakfast, but they came from far to near. My mother is not too old for me to be young."
>
> The person uttering those sentences does not merely get his wrongs wrong; he understands neither the words that he might mean nor the words that he actually speaks. And yet he speaks nevertheless, often fluently.
>
> This can happen because while the brain processes semantics in Wernicke's area, it processes syntax and forms sentences in Broca's area. If Broca goes to work while Wernicke goes to lunch, the poor fellow will babble nonsense in good form.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke%27s_aphasia
>
> I brought this factoid to post here on ExI because I noticed that a person afflicted with Wernicke's aphasia has much in common with the man in Searle's Chinese Room. Like the man in Searle's room, he follows the rules of syntax but knows not whereof he speaks.

But the man in the Chinese Room does not produce gibberish. He is more
like a properly functioning neuron in the language centres of the
brain, which has no idea of the greater significance of the enterprise
in which it is an essential participant. In other words, the
components don't know what they're doing, but the system does.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Dec  7 11:13:55 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:13:55 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com> 
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/7 Giulio Prisco (2nd email) <eschatoon at gmail.com>:
> I agree, of course, on extending tolerance to everyone. This is,
> however, a private opt-in list, and spamming it with religious
> propaganda should only be tolerated up to a certain extent.
>
> I certainly tolerate fundamentalist atheists, in the sense that I
> affirm their right to think whatever they like to think. On the other
> hand, I think many of them have shed religion only to fall into
> another fundamentalist faith. Both theist and atheist fundamentalists
> have a right to speak their mind, of course, but I am not very
> interested in discussing with them in their terms.

Is one who insists that ridiculous things are untrue as bad as one who
insists that ridiculous things are true?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From anders at aleph.se  Mon Dec  7 11:08:21 2009
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:08:21 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia
In-Reply-To: 368901.15134.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Message-ID: <20091207110821.ca747b8d@secure.ericade.net>

Gordon Swobe:
> I brought this factoid to post here on ExI because I noticed that a person
> afflicted with Wernicke's aphasia has much in common with the man in
> Searle's Chinese Room. Like the man in Searle's room, he follows the rules
> of syntax but knows not whereof he speaks.

I have neural networks (my language areas, in fact) that follows rules of syntax, yet cannot know what they speak about since that information is elsewhere in my brain. Searle's scenario seems to prime the intuition pump by using a human, who are usually aware and knowing, as a component of a system where the top-level understanding is the issue. He is biasing us to make a level mistake. 

It is worth noticing that people with Wernicke's usually have unimpaired cognition. They might be unable to speak and understand speech, but they can still think and plan. You could imagine someone with aphasia working at a translation company, moving stacks of documents around between the offices. This person could be absolutely essential for the translation work of the company, yet contribute absolutely nothing to the translation/understanding on the human level. If the person was replaced by a delivery robot or a normal person doing the same job, nothing would change. 


Aphasias are really annoying. My grandmother got it in her last years, limiting her vocabulary to a few swear words. For a rather prim lady this was a bit of a problem, although one can communicate a surprising amount this way. My dad managed to get sensory aprosodia, becoming unable to recognize irony - a bit of a handicap in my family. 


Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University 


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Dec  7 12:02:01 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 13:02:01 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912070402n7639e7egfc7024e7e3885253@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/7 Giulio Prisco (2nd email) <eschatoon at gmail.com>:
> I agree, of course, on extending tolerance to everyone. This is,
> however, a private opt-in list, and spamming it with religious
> propaganda should only be tolerated up to a certain extent.

Why, of course, but here we go back to my fundamental idea that
moderating a mailing list, a forum, a debate may (should?) basically
mean dealing with the excess of OT.

In other terms, while some piece or another of, e.g., religious
propaganda or commercial information (or a criticism thereof) may
sometimes be relevant to the debate at hand, the typical single-issue
infiltrator is not there to participate to any debate, but just to
profit from any opportunity to post long preaches or rants or
perorations or advertisements that quickly exceed whatever may be of
interest to the other participants.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Dec  7 12:17:08 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 13:17:08 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <4B1C99DB.3040605@satx.rr.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1C99DB.3040605@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912070417t7a2a55cakb8e43b0860e156cb@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/7 Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
> I take the term "fundamentalist" to apply to one who embraces the literal
> and unalterable truth of some written revelation from one or more deities.
> Since an atheist is one who declines to accept such revelations as the basis
> for knowledge claims, I'm puzzled by how you define an "atheist
> fundamentalist". Would this be one who holds that one or more gods has
> revealed the unalterable truth that no deity exists?

"Atheist fundamentalism" is a contradiction in terms only if you take
atheism to mean exclusively "critical atheism".

It is perfectly possible not to believe (any more) in a personal,
ghost-like deity but at the same time having one's holy scriptures,
dogmas, ethical universalism, belief that "faith" is a moral duty,
that if facts do not comply with doctrine then facts be damned, etc.
Take some variants of marxism, or Scientology.

I suspect however that whenever this is the case we are still facing
the dear, old monotheistic concepts and mentality, irrespective of the
fact that traditional middle-east derived religions might be
vehemently opposed by this kind of atheism, under a thin "secular"
veneer that can be easily deconstructed. In fact, we should be always
vigilant IMHO in order that we stay ourselves as clear as possible
from such temptations.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  7 12:27:32 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 04:27:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
Message-ID: <998024.79732.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Stathis,

>> I brought this factoid to post here on ExI because I
> noticed that a person afflicted with Wernicke's aphasia has
> much in common with the man in Searle's Chinese Room. Like
> the man in Searle's room, he follows the rules of syntax but
> knows not whereof he speaks.
>
> But the man in the Chinese Room does not produce gibberish.

Yes, I understand that. I have for several weeks engaged in a debate about Searle's Chinese Room Argument on another discussion list, one devoted to discussion of philosophy. My interlocutor there teaches philosophy and has great admiration for Professor Searle.

I've taken the position that for the thought experiment portion of Searle's CRA to have any value -- that if we should consider it anything more than mere philosophical hand-waving -- then it must first qualify as a valid scientific experiment. To qualify as such, it must work in a context-independent manner; scientists anywhere in the universe should obtain the same results using the same man in the room. And for that to happen, I argue, the man in the room must lack knowledge not only of the meanings of Chinese symbols, but also the words and symbols of every possible language in the universe. He must have no semantics whatsoever.

Somewhat tongue in cheek, I continued my argument by stating the subject would need to undergo brain surgery prior to the experiment to remove the relevant parts of his brain. I then did a little research and learned we would need to remove Wernicke's area, and learned also of this interesting phenomenon of Wernicke's aphasia.

One might consider the existence of Wernicke's aphasia as evidence supporting Searle's third premise in his CRA, that 'syntax is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics'. People with this strange malady have an obvious grasp of syntax but also clearly have no idea what they're talking about!

> In other words,the components don't know what they're doing, but the
> system does.

So goes the systems reply to the CRA, one of many that Searle fielded with varying degrees of success depending on who you ask.

-gts





      


From brentn at freeshell.org  Mon Dec  7 14:23:54 2009
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:23:54 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>


On 7 Dec, 2009, at 6:13, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> Is one who insists that ridiculous things are untrue as bad as one who
> insists that ridiculous things are true?


It depends on why they insist. I find the so-called "new atheists"  
whose arguments against religion amount to little more than "Religion  
Sucks! Nyeah!" to be incredibly tiresome people.  Compare and contrast  
the eloquent, rational atheism of Russell and Hitchens, to the  
emotionally-charged atheism of Dawkins ("Hur hur hur if you believe in  
God you're stupid, so we're going to call atheists 'Brights'!  Get it?  
Huh? Hur hur hur.")

You can hold a rational position for completely irrational reasons.  
"Rational" and "irrational" are better suited for describing the  
process used to attain a position than the position itself. While I  
agree that the term "fundamentalist atheist" contains some connotative  
dissonance, the label is nonetheless appropriately evocative.

B

--
Brent Neal, Ph.D.
http://brentn.freeshell.org
<brentn at freeshell.org>







From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Mon Dec  7 14:46:59 2009
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:46:59 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
Message-ID: <88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM>

> It depends on why they insist. I find the so-called "new atheists"  
> whose arguments against religion amount to little more than  
> "Religion Sucks! Nyeah!" to be incredibly tiresome people.  Compare  
> and contrast the eloquent, rational atheism of Russell and Hitchens,  
> to the emotionally-charged atheism of Dawkins ("Hur hur hur if you  
> believe in God you're stupid, so we're going to call atheists  
> 'Brights'!  Get it? Huh? Hur hur hur.")
> Brent Neal, Ph.D.

Dawkins arguments aren't at all like what you suggest. Certainly he  
believes religion is terrible, both from the things it has directly  
caused over the years and by its very base tenet: faith. He makes  
clear arguments that faith is antithetical to science and our modern  
society. Reason is the basis of our society, and if you give up reason  
and accept something on faith, then you are empowering the radical  
fundamentalists by your assent to their core beliefs, and it makes it  
much more difficult to make an argument against them. He also makes a  
number of arguments against religion from purely logical/empirical/ 
scientific grounds as well.

He's always seemed eloquent to me, even if he is passionate about it.  
Passion does not mean irrationality. It is rational to be angry when  
you judge something to be a tremendous evil or a huge weight on the  
world. Emotions and reason do not have to be opposed, and in Dr.  
Dawkins case, I do not believe they are.

I thought the whole "brights" thing was dumb too, just fyi. But I  
understood what he was trying to do, even if he didn't pick the best  
name.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Mon Dec  7 15:05:09 2009
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:05:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
Message-ID: <52553.12.77.168.205.1260198309.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>

>"Hur hur hur if you believe in
> God you're stupid, so we're going to call atheists 'Brights'!  Get it?
> Huh? Hur hur hur."

Arrgh. I was on an email list like this once.

They were correct: keep religion out of science class.

But reading the posts, rants really, about how stupid/evil religion and religious
people were got very old. I miss the interesting material that came up on that list,
but I sure don't miss the repeated vitriol and ranting.

Regards,
MB



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Dec  7 16:06:51 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:06:51 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
	<88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/7 JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com>:
>> It depends on why they insist. I find the so-called "new atheists" whose
>> arguments against religion amount to little more than "Religion Sucks!
>> Nyeah!" to be incredibly tiresome people. ?Compare and contrast the
>> eloquent, rational atheism of Russell and Hitchens, to the
>> emotionally-charged atheism of Dawkins ("Hur hur hur if you believe in God
>> you're stupid, so we're going to call atheists 'Brights'! ?Get it? Huh? Hur
>> hur hur.")
>> Brent Neal, Ph.D.
>
> Dawkins arguments aren't at all like what you suggest.

I am surprised that one may find Hitchens, with his heavy, moralistic
rhetorics, more "rational" than Dawkins, who if anything makes for a
much more pleasant reading...

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Dec  7 16:39:31 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:39:31 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>	<88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B1D2FC3.4030400@rawbw.com>

Stefano writes

> 2009/12/7 JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com>:
>>> It depends on why they insist. I find the so-called "new atheists" whose
>>> arguments against religion amount to little more than "Religion Sucks!
>>> Nyeah!" to be incredibly tiresome people.  Compare and contrast the
>>> eloquent, rational atheism of Russell and Hitchens, to the
>>> emotionally-charged atheism of Dawkins ("Hur hur hur if you believe in God
>>> you're stupid, so we're going to call atheists 'Brights'!  Get it? Huh? Hur
>>> hur hur.")
>>> Brent Neal, Ph.D.
>> Dawkins arguments aren't at all like what you suggest.
> 
> I am surprised that one may find Hitchens, with his heavy, moralistic
> rhetorics, more "rational" than Dawkins, who if anything makes for a
> much more pleasant reading...

Odd. My reaction is the reverse. I enjoyed Hitchens' book "God is
not great" very much. It was extremely insightful at quite a
number of points. His conclusion, reiterated again and again,
that "religions poisons everything" of course cannot be taken
too literally, but his examples are very impressive.

But I could not even stand listening to Dawkins for more than
a few minutes in a TED talk. There was just something so... so
fanatical and almost dogmatic, that I had to stop. And this
fits the picture of someone who'd coin that ridiculous concept
of "brights", such a stupid and embarrassing fiasco. Alas, it
seems to me that the Jacobin temperament is alive and well even
among us atheists.

So for me :-) it was the reverse! It's Hitchens who makes
for much more pleasant reading (though to be fair I have
not read Dawkins book, mostly for the reasons given above).

I suspect that this is *not* just entirely a matter of taste,
although it could turn out to be just that.

Lee


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Dec  7 16:15:34 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:15:34 -0500
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <D0265065-B541-4AAE-8982-AC4C0905D9E9@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 4, 2009, at 11:20 PM, Max More wrote:

> While Condell's aggressive approach definitely has a degree of wisdom (and a load of intellectual good sense), is it really appropriate to, or useful for, or humanistic in, dealing with all situations?

Atheists have played the Mr. Nice-guy part for a very long time and the end result is that religious morons crash airliners into skyscrapers; and the very next day the USA organized a national day of prayer to give homage to the very mental cancer that caused the disaster. It's enough to make you scream. I think it's good that people like Condell and Dawkins are  being a little more aggressive; at least it's different and might do some good, it certainly can't work worse than the Mr. Nice-guy approach. 

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091207/9ebedec5/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Dec  7 17:22:50 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:22:50 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <998024.79732.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <998024.79732.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <98DEC7E7-502D-4023-AFDF-571B7F312D8B@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> I argue, the man in the room must lack knowledge not only of the meanings of Chinese symbols, but also the words and symbols of every possible language in the universe. He must have no semantics whatsoever.

Or just get rid of the little man altogether and replace him with a 1950's punch card sorting machine, it would be slow but faster than the man. What makes Searle's Chinese Room such a stupid thought experiment is its conclusion: The little man doesn't understand anything therefore the entire Chinese Room doesn't understand anything. Pretty dumb.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091207/8ca2cb97/attachment.html>

From brentn at freeshell.org  Mon Dec  7 18:51:28 2009
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 13:51:28 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <4B1D2FC3.4030400@rawbw.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>	<88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1D2FC3.4030400@rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <C90E11A6-8D2D-4956-9944-FDDAE2A242C5@freeshell.org>


On 7 Dec, 2009, at 11:39, Lee Corbin wrote:

> Stefano writes
>
>> 2009/12/7 JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com>:
>>>> It depends on why they insist. I find the so-called "new  
>>>> atheists" whose
>>>> arguments against religion amount to little more than "Religion  
>>>> Sucks!
>>>> Nyeah!" to be incredibly tiresome people.  Compare and contrast the
>>>> eloquent, rational atheism of Russell and Hitchens, to the
>>>> emotionally-charged atheism of Dawkins ("Hur hur hur if you  
>>>> believe in God
>>>> you're stupid, so we're going to call atheists 'Brights'!  Get  
>>>> it? Huh? Hur
>>>> hur hur.")
>>>> Brent Neal, Ph.D.
>>> Dawkins arguments aren't at all like what you suggest.
>> I am surprised that one may find Hitchens, with his heavy, moralistic
>> rhetorics, more "rational" than Dawkins, who if anything makes for a
>> much more pleasant reading...
>
> Odd. My reaction is the reverse. I enjoyed Hitchens' book "God is
> not great" very much. It was extremely insightful at quite a
> number of points. His conclusion, reiterated again and again,
> that "religions poisons everything" of course cannot be taken
> too literally, but his examples are very impressive.



Lee's comments on Hitchens vs. Dawkins are pretty much in line with my  
own views. Hitchens lacks the emotionally charged rhetoric that  
Dawkins employs on a regular basis. Hitchens sets out to condemn  
religion and religiosity with an a posteriori approach - i.e. "look at  
what religion has done, and judge them based on that." Very  
analytical. Dawkins is the quintessential spin doctor, outlining  
arguments that are at times specious and are certainly a priori as to  
why religion is bad, then using emotional rhetoric to distract the mind.

Dawkins is more pleasant reading for most of us, simply because he has  
mastered the language that excites us and confirms (most of) our own  
views. Hitchens makes the same points, but in a tedious fashion that  
requires us to at least actively engage in his own "moralistic"  
judgements. Much more psychologically draining that way.

At least, that was my opinion after reading them both. (The God  
Delusion and God is not Great) YMMV, and all that. If you don't like  
Hitchens as an example of rational atheism, substitute Robert  
Ingersoll, or more recently, Michael Shermer.

B



--
Brent Neal, Ph.D.
http://brentn.freeshell.org
<brentn at freeshell.org>







From spike66 at att.net  Mon Dec  7 19:03:38 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:03:38 -0800
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <D0265065-B541-4AAE-8982-AC4C0905D9E9@bellsouth.net>
References: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<D0265065-B541-4AAE-8982-AC4C0905D9E9@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <3418453789D74C7BA8BF5A165F936B84@spike>

 

>On Behalf Of John Clark
...
		
	>Atheists have played the Mr. Nice-guy part for a very long time and
the end result is that religious morons crash airliners into skyscrapers;
and the very next day the USA organized a national day of prayer to give
homage to the very mental cancer that caused the disaster... John K Clark


John this approach lumps all religious memes together.  I would
counter-propose classifying religious thoughtspace into two broad
categories: those which suggest killing unbelievers and those which do not.

spike







From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Mon Dec  7 19:18:12 2009
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:18:12 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <C90E11A6-8D2D-4956-9944-FDDAE2A242C5@freeshell.org>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>	<88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1D2FC3.4030400@rawbw.com>
	<C90E11A6-8D2D-4956-9944-FDDAE2A242C5@freeshell.org>
Message-ID: <4675276D-9835-4965-A384-59363FF27738@GMAIL.COM>

> Hitchens sets out to condemn religion and religiosity with an a  
> posteriori approach - i.e. "look at what religion has done, and  
> judge them based on that." Very analytical. Dawkins is the  
> quintessential spin doctor, outlining arguments that are at times  
> specious and are certainly a priori as to why religion is bad, then  
> using emotional rhetoric to distract the mind.....

> Brent Neal, Ph.D.
What is wrong with an a priori argument? If you take an essential,  
basic, necessary feature of something and show that it must logically  
lead to terrible (or at least bad) consequences, how is that not  
valid? I mean, historical arguments can be used to back it up. But  
honestly an argument that shows how bad religion is, based on  
historical consequences alone, implicitly admits that it might not be  
bad or might even be good if only the did it differently! It's the  
same argument that socialists and communists use to distance  
themselves from the USSR, China, and N. Korea. "It's good, we promise,  
they just didn't do it right/were evil people/weren't smart  
enough/........."

The point, in my view, of an argument against religion (or socialism  
for that matter) is not to show that it has been bad in the past, but  
to show that it cannot, by its nature, be good. That it must,  
necessarily, lead to consequences that are worse than atheism (in the  
case of religion), ceteris paribus. This seems the much stronger  
argument. It also explains the passion of Dawkins as well-- he has  
come to the conclusion that faith is by its nature bad. This makes for  
a more passionate condemnation than a mere analysis of the historical  
consequences can create.

I haven't read anything from Hitchens, or Misters Ingersoll or Shermer  
(beyond the occasional piece in Scientific American), so I do not have  
a basis for comparison for their strategies. I'm simply judging from  
the characterizations of what I've read on the list.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From sparge at gmail.com  Mon Dec  7 19:25:42 2009
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:25:42 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <C90E11A6-8D2D-4956-9944-FDDAE2A242C5@freeshell.org>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com> 
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com> 
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
	<88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM> 
	<580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4B1D2FC3.4030400@rawbw.com>
	<C90E11A6-8D2D-4956-9944-FDDAE2A242C5@freeshell.org>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0912071125w25f9266fq1b9103e6185e6c8c@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Brent Neal <brentn at freeshell.org> wrote:
>
> Lee's comments on Hitchens vs. Dawkins are pretty much in line with my own
> views. Hitchens lacks the emotionally charged rhetoric that Dawkins employs
> on a regular basis. Hitchens sets out to condemn religion and religiosity
> with an a posteriori approach -

How can you "set out to condemn" something with an "a posteriori" approach?

> i.e. "look at what religion has done, and
> judge them based on that."

And the selection of evidence isn't tilted toward the goal that he
"set out" to achieve, it just turns out to prove his point?

> Very analytical. Dawkins is the quintessential
> spin doctor, outlining arguments that are at times specious and are
> certainly a priori as to why religion is bad, then using emotional rhetoric
> to distract the mind.

So you found Hitchens, the author/journalist/activist/pundit, to be
more scientific in his approach than Dawkins, the scientist?

> At least, that was my opinion after reading them both. (The God Delusion and
> God is not Great) YMMV, and all that.

I read and enjoyed both. I didn't think either was perfect, but I did
think Dawkins was more logical/scientific and Hitchens was more
haphazard and anecdotal, though slightly more entaining.

-Dave


From moulton at moulton.com  Mon Dec  7 19:00:09 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 7 Dec 2009 19:00:09 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <20091207190009.76990.qmail@moulton.com>


In the interest of brevity I will combine a couple of my responses.

On the topic of "Brights" my memory and the information I have found online indicate that the term was not coined by Dawkins; rather it was coined by Paul Geisert and that Mynga Futrell worked on the definition.  Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins all seem to be part of the group of people who have either written about "Brights" or have publicly assumed that label but these activities are not the same as coining the term.  Therefore I suggest that anyone who has claimed that Dawkins coined the term "Brights" either provide the evidence or retract the statement.

On the topic of Dawkins allegedly being emotionally charged and saying ("Hur hur hur if you believe in God you're stupid, so we're going to call atheists 'Brights'!  Get it? Huh? Hur hur hur.") I have much a different experience.  I have read several books and essays by Dawkins and heard him speak in person three times as well as several times on video and never have I read or seen Dawkins as alleged.  So anyone making those allegations needs to provide a very specific citation in a form that can be easily checked or retract the allegation.

Fred


From max at maxmore.com  Mon Dec  7 19:32:52 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:32:52 -0600
Subject: [ExI] From X to Ex: How the Marvel Myth Parallels the Real
 Posthuman Future
Message-ID: <200912071933.nB7JX0WG025733@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

In 2006, I wrote a chapter for a SmartPop book on the X-Men. My piece 
is "From X to Ex: How the Marvel Myth Parallels the Real Posthuman 
Future". I just heard that the publisher is making selections from 
their books available for limited periods of time online. My chapter 
is available online from now until Friday, December 11, 2009:

http://www.smartpopbooks.com/essay/full/279

I think many people here will find it a fun read, especially if you 
have any interest in the X-Men.

Max


-------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
Extropy Institute Founder
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com
------------------------------------- 



From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  7 20:20:02 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:20:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <98DEC7E7-502D-4023-AFDF-571B7F312D8B@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <910546.13745.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Mon, 12/7/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> What makes Searle's Chinese Room such a stupid thought
> experiment is its conclusion: The little man doesn't
> understand anything therefore the entire Chinese Room
> doesn't understand anything. Pretty dumb.

Searle replies that the man could in principle memorize the syntactic rule-book, thus internalizing the formal program and the entire the room/system. On Searle's view such a man would still lack understanding of the Chinese symbols.

In my discussions on the philosophy list, I have nicknamed that man "Cram" (CRA man) and contrasted him with an ordinary bloke named Sam.

Sam has intrinsic intentionality (philosophy-speak for "the about-ness of consciousness", or for our purposes here, "conscious understanding of the meanings of the symbols"). Cram, says Searle, does not.

-gts


      


From brentn at freeshell.org  Mon Dec  7 20:38:52 2009
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:38:52 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d0912071125w25f9266fq1b9103e6185e6c8c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
	<88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1D2FC3.4030400@rawbw.com>
	<C90E11A6-8D2D-4956-9944-FDDAE2A242C5@freeshell.org>
	<ffd22f9d0912071125w25f9266fq1b9103e6185e6c8c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1BA962BE-CEAA-4F70-B64B-449630DB4039@freeshell.org>


On 7 Dec, 2009, at 14:25, Dave Sill wrote:

> And the selection of evidence isn't tilted toward the goal that he
> "set out" to achieve, it just turns out to prove his point?
>
>> Very analytical. Dawkins is the quintessential
>> spin doctor, outlining arguments that are at times specious and are
>> certainly a priori as to why religion is bad, then using emotional  
>> rhetoric
>> to distract the mind.
>
> So you found Hitchens, the author/journalist/activist/pundit, to be
> more scientific in his approach than Dawkins, the scientist?

if you're going to say "scientific," be VERY sure what you mean here.  
I consider neither of their approaches to be scientific, as neither  
makes argument by falsification. A scientific approach is not possible  
to this problem since it is not likely that we'll ever be able to  
approach religion with scientific inquiry.

Yes, I do think that "God is Not Great" was less emotionally charged  
than "The God Delusion."  In answer to some other poster, while  
Dawkins did not coin the term "Brights," the God Delusion, amongst his  
other writings -including several essays at least one of which was  
published in John Brockman's Edge essay series, does very much espouse  
the childish "hur hur" sort of argument. By Dawkins' arguments, the  
religious is a sign of moral and intellectual inferiority.  I have  
very little patience for that sort of name calling.

The utilitarian argument is much more compelling. If the thing  
produces good results, then the thing has merit. If it does not, then  
it is meritless.

B

--
Brent Neal, Ph.D.
http://brentn.freeshell.org
<brentn at freeshell.org>







From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  7 21:15:30 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 13:15:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia
In-Reply-To: <20091207110821.ca747b8d@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <648085.10437.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Mon, 12/7/09, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> It is worth noticing that people with Wernicke's usually
> have unimpaired cognition. They might be unable to speak and
> understand speech, but they can still think and plan. 

Actually they do speak, and from what I understand some of them speak very well. They simply don't make any sense, even to themselves.

Wernicke's aphasia falls under the category of receptive aphasias as contrasted with expressive aphasias. Generally lesions in Broca's area cause the expressive sort and lesions in Wernicke's area cause the receptive sort. 

Simply stated, receptive aphasiasiacs don't know what they mean but still have plenty to say about it. Expressive aphasiasiacs know what they mean but cannot say anything about it. (At least that's what I think I mean to say about it.)

-gts




      


From sparge at gmail.com  Mon Dec  7 21:33:58 2009
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:33:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <1BA962BE-CEAA-4F70-B64B-449630DB4039@freeshell.org>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com> 
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com> 
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
	<88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM> 
	<580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4B1D2FC3.4030400@rawbw.com>
	<C90E11A6-8D2D-4956-9944-FDDAE2A242C5@freeshell.org> 
	<ffd22f9d0912071125w25f9266fq1b9103e6185e6c8c@mail.gmail.com> 
	<1BA962BE-CEAA-4F70-B64B-449630DB4039@freeshell.org>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0912071333j5e03f119l9ce24cc16709c7a@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Brent Neal <brentn at freeshell.org> wrote:
>
> On 7 Dec, 2009, at 14:25, Dave Sill wrote:
>
>> So you found Hitchens, the author/journalist/activist/pundit, to be
>> more scientific in his approach than Dawkins, the scientist?
>
> if you're going to say "scientific," be VERY sure what you mean here.

OK, pretend I said "more analytical".

> Yes, I do think that "God is Not Great" was less emotionally charged than
> "The God Delusion."

OK. I disagree.

>?In answer to some other poster, while Dawkins did not
> coin the term "Brights," the God Delusion, amongst his other writings
> -including several essays at least one of which was published in John
> Brockman's Edge essay series, does very much espouse the childish "hur hur"
> sort of argument.

Could you provide an example? I don't remember anything like that.

> By Dawkins' arguments, the religious is a sign of moral
> and intellectual inferiority. ?I have very little patience for that sort of
> name calling.

I don't know that it's name calling, really. Don't you have even the
slightest problem respecting the intellectual abilities of people who
believe unlikely (absurd, really) things without extraordinary
evidence? A person can be a brilliant physicist, mathematician,
chemist, etc., but if they honestly believe, for example, that the
Bible is the word of God, aren't they also exhibiting a massive
intellectual defect?

> The utilitarian argument is much more compelling. If the thing produces good
> results, then the thing has merit. If it does not, then it is meritless.

Can't say I'm a fan of that one.

-Dave


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Dec  7 21:57:57 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:57:57 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d0912071333j5e03f119l9ce24cc16709c7a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
	<88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1D2FC3.4030400@rawbw.com>
	<C90E11A6-8D2D-4956-9944-FDDAE2A242C5@freeshell.org>
	<ffd22f9d0912071125w25f9266fq1b9103e6185e6c8c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1BA962BE-CEAA-4F70-B64B-449630DB4039@freeshell.org>
	<ffd22f9d0912071333j5e03f119l9ce24cc16709c7a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912071357r188f19aaj6e01afac85c79175@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/7 Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Brent Neal <brentn at freeshell.org> wrote:
>> The utilitarian argument is much more compelling. If the thing produces good
>> results, then the thing has merit. If it does not, then it is meritless.
>
> Can't say I'm a fan of that one.

Neither can I.

Especially when an absolute God is replaced with an equally absolute,
albeit allegedly "secular", view of what is Good and what is Wrong.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Dec  7 21:36:39 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:36:39 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <910546.13745.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <910546.13745.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <870A3F6D-298C-4967-8B21-4D37BFCF4FDE@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 7, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:
> 
> Searle replies that the man could in principle memorize the syntactic rule-book, thus internalizing the formal program and the entire the room/system. On Searle's view such a man would still lack understanding of the Chinese symbols.

Then either the little man in the room is lying about his linguistic inadequacy or he is suffering from multiple personality disorder because it is clear that somebody or something in that room knows Chinese. By the way I assume Searle is a creationist because if he is right Evolution might have been able to produce intelligence but it could never have made consciousness, not in a billion years and not in a trillion, and yet there is at least one conscious being in the universe. Probably more but I can't prove it.

 John K Clark 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091207/8f90f954/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Mon Dec  7 22:07:45 2009
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:07:45 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <870A3F6D-298C-4967-8B21-4D37BFCF4FDE@bellsouth.net>
References: <910546.13745.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<870A3F6D-298C-4967-8B21-4D37BFCF4FDE@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0912071407g54912d0tc599017d07b6f020@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/7 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
>
> By the way I
> assume Searle is a creationist because if he is right Evolution might have
> been able to produce intelligence but it could never have made
> consciousness, not in a billion years and not in a trillion, and yet there
> is at least one conscious being in the universe. Probably more but I can't
> prove it.

But you can prove there's one? "I think, therefore I am."?

-Dave


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Dec  7 22:12:33 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:12:33 -0500
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <3418453789D74C7BA8BF5A165F936B84@spike>
References: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<D0265065-B541-4AAE-8982-AC4C0905D9E9@bellsouth.net>
	<3418453789D74C7BA8BF5A165F936B84@spike>
Message-ID: <88A25264-0DE1-4E18-B0FD-B0C720D475E1@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 7, 2009, at 2:03 PM, spike wrote:

> John this approach lumps all religious memes together.

Yes, and lumping can often be a useful tool.

> I would counter-propose classifying religious thoughtspace into two broad
> categories: those which suggest killing unbelievers and those which do not.

Ah, the religious moderates, those sniveling cowards who give cover to maniacs. Look at me they say, I think that believing in nonsense is important too but I don't crash airliners into skyscrapers. What the 19 hijackers did on 911 was far more logical than anything religious moderates do, provided you accept their basic assumption and take what their holy book says at face value. And in a way I have more respect for creationists who just refuse to believe anything about evolution than I have for religious moderates who believe in a benevolent God and also believe in an inefficient and hideously cruel process like Evolution. At least the creationists are smart enough to know that the two things are not compatible and are in fact completely contradictory.

If you're into classification I would propose putting people into two broad categories, those who think it's a virtue to believe in nonsense and those who don't.  

 John K Clark 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091207/a5f01874/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Dec  7 22:22:51 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:22:51 +0000
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <88A25264-0DE1-4E18-B0FD-B0C720D475E1@bellsouth.net>
References: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<D0265065-B541-4AAE-8982-AC4C0905D9E9@bellsouth.net>
	<3418453789D74C7BA8BF5A165F936B84@spike>
	<88A25264-0DE1-4E18-B0FD-B0C720D475E1@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0912071422n1e5057adlb4b810060fe44794@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/7/09, John Clark wrote:
<snip>
> If you're into classification I would propose putting people into two broad
> categories, those who think it's a virtue to believe in nonsense and those
> who don't.
>
>

 ?There are two groups of people in the world; those who believe that
the world can be divided into two groups of people, and those who
don't.?

?There are three kinds of people in the world; those who can count and
those who can't.?


BillK


From moulton at moulton.com  Mon Dec  7 22:26:15 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 7 Dec 2009 22:26:15 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <20091207222615.48250.qmail@moulton.com>


On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 15:38 -0500, Brent Neal wrote:
  In answer to some other poster, while  
> Dawkins did not coin the term "Brights," the God Delusion, amongst his  
> other writings -including several essays at least one of which was  
> published in John Brockman's Edge essay series, does very much espouse  
> the childish "hur hur" sort of argument. By Dawkins' arguments, the  
> religious is a sign of moral and intellectual inferiority.  I have  
> very little patience for that sort of name calling.
 
So now we have someone who has admitted that Dawkins did not coin the term "Brights".  I also asked for a specific citation about what Dawkins is alleged to have said.  However instead of a specific citation all we are given is something vague which borders on hand waving.  The most substantial part of it refers to the Edge essay series so I went to that website and as far as I can tell there are about nine items on that site which are in whole or in part attributable to Dawkins.  So please give the specific URL or essay title and quote the paragraph where Dawkins says: 
> > ("Hur hur hur if you believe in God you're stupid, so we're going
> > to call atheists 'Brights'!  Get it? Huh? Hur hur hur.")

If a specific citation can be provided that Dawkins said the above then I am quite willing to admit it and if a citation can not be produced then those who make the allegation need to retract it.

Fred



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Dec  7 22:23:40 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:23:40 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d0912071407g54912d0tc599017d07b6f020@mail.gmail.com>
References: <910546.13745.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<870A3F6D-298C-4967-8B21-4D37BFCF4FDE@bellsouth.net>
	<ffd22f9d0912071407g54912d0tc599017d07b6f020@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <40433EC8-8F12-4163-811B-01831AD2E6B7@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 7, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Dave Sill wrote:

> But you can prove there's one [conscious being]? 

No of course I can't prove it, but one thing outranks even proof, direct experience. If I had a proof that you don't find it painful to put your hand in a fire I still think you'd pull it out at the first opportunity. Or you could say that I do have proof that I am conscious but unfortunately it is available only to me.

 John K Clark



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091207/03e8c3c0/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Dec  7 22:31:03 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:31:03 -0500
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0912071422n1e5057adlb4b810060fe44794@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<D0265065-B541-4AAE-8982-AC4C0905D9E9@bellsouth.net>
	<3418453789D74C7BA8BF5A165F936B84@spike>
	<88A25264-0DE1-4E18-B0FD-B0C720D475E1@bellsouth.net>
	<ee50357e0912071422n1e5057adlb4b810060fe44794@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <89C83BC0-3F7D-4C3A-A79C-76C16568FF09@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 7, 2009, at 5:22 PM, BillK wrote:

> ?There are three kinds of people in the world; those who can count and
> those who can't.?

2+2=5 , for extremely large values of 2.

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091207/579bd3f4/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Dec  7 23:07:50 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:07:50 -0600
Subject: [ExI] 2 + 2
In-Reply-To: <89C83BC0-3F7D-4C3A-A79C-76C16568FF09@bellsouth.net>
References: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>	<D0265065-B541-4AAE-8982-AC4C0905D9E9@bellsouth.net>	<3418453789D74C7BA8BF5A165F936B84@spike>	<88A25264-0DE1-4E18-B0FD-B0C720D475E1@bellsouth.net>	<ee50357e0912071422n1e5057adlb4b810060fe44794@mail.gmail.com>
	<89C83BC0-3F7D-4C3A-A79C-76C16568FF09@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <4B1D8AC6.30606@satx.rr.com>

On 12/7/2009 4:31 PM, John Clark wrote:

> 2+2=5 , for extremely large values of 2.

No, 2 + 2 = 5 for moderately large values of two.  For extremely large 
values, it = 6.

Damien Broderick


From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Mon Dec  7 23:13:59 2009
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:13:59 -0600
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <3418453789D74C7BA8BF5A165F936B84@spike>
Message-ID: <20091207231359.U1XLF.382295.root@hrndva-web13-z02>

---- spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote: 
 
> John this approach lumps all religious memes together.  I would
> counter-propose classifying religious thoughtspace into two broad
> categories: those which suggest killing unbelievers and those which do not.

Useless distinction really, the question rests too much on political practicality and not ethical bedrock. A more practical and pragmatic distinction is whether the religion recognizes cosmological transcendence.

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

James Choate
jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at twcable.com
512-657-1279
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Dec  7 23:04:48 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 18:04:48 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
Message-ID: <97E007C8-0D32-4669-8CF8-F461D648DDDE@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 7, 2009, at 9:23 AM, Brent Neal wrote:

>  I find the so-called "new atheists" whose arguments against religion amount to little more than "Religion Sucks!

They are stating a truth, religion sucks. It sucks BIG TIME!

> Compare and contrast the eloquent, rational atheism of Russell and Hitchens, to the emotionally-charged atheism of Dawkins ("Hur hur hur if you believe in God you're stupid,

Well what can I say, if you believe in God then you are stupid, at least you are on that subject. And as much as I love Russell and Hitchens there is no way to ignore the fact that Dawkins is FAR more capable than either of the two in explaining exactly why it is stupid.

> so we're going to call atheists 'Brights'!  Get it? Huh? Hur hur hur.")

There is no doubt that Brights are smarter than their religious counterparts, however I don't know if it was good public relations to give atheists that name. I don't know much about PR.

 John K Clark


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091207/7f890279/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  7 23:25:49 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:25:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
Message-ID: <981805.30511.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Mon, 12/7/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Searle replies that the man could in principle
> memorize the syntactic rule-book, thus internalizing the
> formal program and the entire room/system. On
> Searle's view such a man would still lack understanding
> of the Chinese symbols.
> 
> Then either the little man in the room is lying
> about his linguistic inadequacy?or...

What little man in the room, John? We have now only this real flesh and blood man who goes by the name Cram. His brain runs a formal program that uses syntactic rules to answer Chinese questions with Chinese answers. 

Some Chinese guy comes along and says "sguiggle" so Cram dutifully looks it up in his mental look up table and replies "squaggle". The Chinese guy responds in Chinese "Thanks for the sage advice, Cram!" 

But Cram has no idea what "sguiggle" or "squaggle" means. From his point of view, he's no different from the Wernicke aphasiac who speaks nonsense with proper syntax.

-gts



      


From brentn at freeshell.org  Tue Dec  8 00:14:54 2009
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 19:14:54 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <97E007C8-0D32-4669-8CF8-F461D648DDDE@bellsouth.net>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
	<97E007C8-0D32-4669-8CF8-F461D648DDDE@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <CE3795F3-DDE2-4E7C-B62C-1736C9FC1589@freeshell.org>


On 7 Dec, 2009, at 18:04, John Clark wrote:

> Well what can I say, if you believe in God then you are stupid, at  
> least you are on that subject. And as much as I love Russell and  
> Hitchens there is no way to ignore the fact that Dawkins is FAR more  
> capable than either of the two in explaining exactly why it is stupid.
>
>> so we're going to call atheists 'Brights'!  Get it? Huh? Hur hur  
>> hur.")
>
> There is no doubt that Brights are smarter than their religious  
> counterparts, however I don't know if it was good public relations  
> to give atheists that name. I don't know much about PR.
>


Well, there's nothing much more to say here then. I simply disagree  
with you, based on evidence. Being wrong doesn't mean being stupid.  
Einstein was certainly quite wrong about the probabilistic nature of  
quantum mechanics, but that didn't make him stupid. It merely made his  
position incorrect. I don't think we accomplish much by assuming  
people are stupid when they are, to our minds, mistaken.

Of course, my assumption here is that you want to accomplish  
something. :)

B


--
Brent Neal, Ph.D.
http://brentn.freeshell.org
<brentn at freeshell.org>







From spike66 at att.net  Mon Dec  7 23:51:17 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:51:17 -0800
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <20091207231359.U1XLF.382295.root@hrndva-web13-z02>
References: <3418453789D74C7BA8BF5A165F936B84@spike>
	<20091207231359.U1XLF.382295.root@hrndva-web13-z02>
Message-ID: <F7D14B3974174B3496340A89BB0A087A@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of jameschoate at austin.rr.com
> Subject: Re: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
> 
> ---- spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote: 
>  
> > John this approach lumps all religious memes together.  I would 
> > counter-propose classifying religious thoughtspace into two broad
> > categories: those which suggest killing unbelievers and 
> those which do not.
> 
> Useless distinction really, the question rests too much on 
> political practicality and not ethical bedrock. A more 
> practical and pragmatic distinction is whether the religion 
> recognizes cosmological transcendence. James Choate


Of course, but the reason I am interested in that particular distinction is
that I wish to avoid those who want to kill me.  If they do not wish to slay
me, I care not if they recognize transcendance, or what they believe, or if
they believe anything.  I have but one life to live, and I do not wish to
have it shortened by a McDawnstor*.

spike


*McDawnstor = Man-caused Disasterist, Associated With No Specific Theology
Or Religion.


  



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 00:24:58 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:54:58 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
	<88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912071624w459e1bf9pcc4f7358897abeb6@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/8 Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:
> 2009/12/7 JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com>:
>>> It depends on why they insist. I find the so-called "new atheists" whose
>>> arguments against religion amount to little more than "Religion Sucks!
>>> Nyeah!" to be incredibly tiresome people. ?Compare and contrast the
>>> eloquent, rational atheism of Russell and Hitchens, to the
>>> emotionally-charged atheism of Dawkins ("Hur hur hur if you believe in God
>>> you're stupid, so we're going to call atheists 'Brights'! ?Get it? Huh? Hur
>>> hur hur.")
>>> Brent Neal, Ph.D.
>>
>> Dawkins arguments aren't at all like what you suggest.
>
> I am surprised that one may find Hitchens, with his heavy, moralistic
> rhetorics, more "rational" than Dawkins, who if anything makes for a
> much more pleasant reading...
>
> --
> Stefano Vaj

I agree; Richard Dawkins is nothing if not reasonable. Hitchens is
eloquent, but he uses every trick in the rhetorical book to attack his
opponents, he's certainly not a rational purist, *and* I sometimes get
the impression that he opposes religion because he doesn't like the
human religious hierarchies and power structures, rather than because
he thinks it is fundamentally incorrect. Thinking about the "four
horsemen" interview, with Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett,
Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris, it seemed to me like a sesame street
one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other-ones moment; he comes from a
far more emotive position than the other three.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Dec  8 00:39:40 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:39:40 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <CE3795F3-DDE2-4E7C-B62C-1736C9FC1589@freeshell.org>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>	<97E007C8-0D32-4669-8CF8-F461D648DDDE@bellsouth.net>
	<CE3795F3-DDE2-4E7C-B62C-1736C9FC1589@freeshell.org>
Message-ID: <4B1DA04C.3000503@satx.rr.com>

On 12/7/2009 6:14 PM, Brent Neal wrote:

> I don't think we accomplish much by assuming people are stupid when they
> are, to our minds, mistaken.

The principle of tolerance might be based on the assumption that we 
don't accomplish much by assuming people are *mistaken* when they are, 
to our minds, mistaken--that is, tolerance is a negative epistemological 
thesis. "Repressive tolerance", as Herbert Marcuse dubbed it, is the 
ideologically motivated assertion that any proposition at all is as 
likely to be true as any other, as in the "equal time" notion of the msm 
exemplified by "balance" between (usually) two propositions, even when 
one is utterly grotesque or ludicrous ("Was the moon landing a hoax?--a 
balanced look at the controversy").

In practical terms, one must surely regard many mistaken ideas as 
entirely ridiculous (thetan infestation via Xenu bombing, say), and then 
one casts about for an explanation of how people could devote their 
lives and wealth to such preposterous ideas. It is understandable that 
one might conclude that such people, *in regard to that part of their 
thinking at any rate*, are indeed operationally stupid. But one doesn't 
get far in changing their opinions by baldly announcing this 
diagnosis--which is often wrong anyway. My dear wife tells me that 
Jesuits are obviously stupid (if they are not dissembling rogues), 
because they apparently believe such incredible bullshit. I try to 
convince her that, to the contrary, most Jesuits are smart as whips, and 
apply their keen minds to this bullshit with powerful intellects and 
expertise.

John Clark is convinced that I believe extremely stupid propositions 
about the reality of psi phenomena, but he doesn't think I'm stupid. I 
don't think he's stupid for denying what the evidence insists is the 
case, just pigheaded and lazy for not looking at it.

Damien Broderick


From moulton at moulton.com  Tue Dec  8 00:43:43 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 8 Dec 2009 00:43:43 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <20091208004343.54141.qmail@moulton.com>


On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 18:04 -0500, John Clark wrote:

> There is no doubt that Brights are smarter than their religious
> counterparts, however I don't know if it was good public relations
> to give atheists that name. I don't know much about PR.

I think there is a confusion here and I do not think "stupid" is a useful term to use.  Have you actually taken a random sample of Brights and a random sample of their religious counterparts and given them some tests.  If so what kind of tests?  What were the results?  What were the tests supposed to measure?  How was "smart" being defined?  And just so you know there are a wide variety people including clergy who call themselves Bright according to the Bright website.  Note that the term religious does not necessarily imply supernaturalism.  I suggest actually reading the Brights website; for example:
http://www.the-brights.net/people/

I suggest that the quoted statement be retracted and replaced with a statement which is more precise and more accurate.

Fred


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 00:39:24 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:39:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <981805.30511.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <584384.14217.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

> I assume Searle is a creationist because if he is right
> Evolution might have been able to produce intelligence but
> it could never have made consciousness, not in a billion
> years and not in a trillion

Searle would laugh and say that's like saying water can never freeze into a solid, not in a billion years and not in a trillion. On his view, the brain takes on the property of consciousness in a manner analogous to that by which water takes on the property of solidity.

Like most of us here, he subscribes to and promotes a species of naturalism. He adamantly rejects both property and substance dualism. You won't find any mystical hocus-pocus in his philosophy.

He's more our friend than our enemy, except that he sees logical problems in the computationalist theory of mind.

And contrary to popular opinion, he allows for the possibility of Strong Artificial Intelligence. He just doesn't think it possible with formal programs running on hardware. Not hardware enough!

-gts




      


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 01:13:09 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 11:43:09 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <1BA962BE-CEAA-4F70-B64B-449630DB4039@freeshell.org>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
	<88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1D2FC3.4030400@rawbw.com>
	<C90E11A6-8D2D-4956-9944-FDDAE2A242C5@freeshell.org>
	<ffd22f9d0912071125w25f9266fq1b9103e6185e6c8c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1BA962BE-CEAA-4F70-B64B-449630DB4039@freeshell.org>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912071713g718a1937h9b4231bdccfd9f0c@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/8 Brent Neal <brentn at freeshell.org>:
> The utilitarian argument is much more compelling. If the thing produces good
> results, then the thing has merit. If it does not, then it is meritless.

This is where many of us would disagree I think. For me, the
consequentialist approach is not useful, because it can only ever be
evaluated after the fact. You can't use it to predict the future or
guide future action, because it's only a case by case description of
the past; this thing turned out well, that thing turned out poorly. So
for instance, if you were to look at religion this way, you'd come up
with a catalogue of good outcomes / bad outcomes, but how could you
use this to choose future action? I see it only as an approach useful
in assigning blame, which is sometimes important, but largely an empty
endeavour.

If you were to use this catalogue to guide future action (let's assume
an approach based on "do the thing that turned out best most often in
the past"), then you'd be making an assumption that the past is the
best guide to the future. Without extracting principles from your
catalogue, this leaves you with a very narrow band of behaviours; you
can use only approaches which have been tried before. As a guide to
21st century behaviour, that's pretty moribund.

If you extract principles from the past, then you can start doing
useful things. However, this is no longer the kind of act
utilitarianism you have described, it's rule utilitarianism. Here you
are looking for principles for behaviour, some set of self consistent
rules which lead to good outcomes more of the time than anything else
you can come up with.

And here you are solidly in theoretical reasoning territory. You are
trying to predict the future, so you need a theoretical model of the
universe, of utility, of how people work, etc etc.

That's exactly where you need a priori arguments about religion. We
can say that we shouldn't use religion because, in the general case,
we think it will lead to negative utility, based not only on evidence
but on logical extrapolation of its definitional features (eg: focus
on faith above truth).

But I'm even suspicious of utilitarianism here. Utilitarianism appears
to me to have a real weakness regarding relative power of actors. When
you talk of maximizing utility, you're talking about something very
fuzzy as if it were strongly defined. Are there utility points which
each person has, which you can sum under various scenarios and find
the greatest such? No. Instead, we kind of guess at what the utility
overall is, based on intuition of what is good for other people, and
invariably altered by the lens we look through, which is our POV.

Inescapably, people's interests clash; if they didn't, we wouldn't
need any systems for sorting this kind of stuff out in the first
place. So any important decision about how to live, how to proceed
into the future, is one where competing interests are being "balanced"
(ie: some winners and losers are being chosen). But who is deciding
how to do this balancing? Those with power in a given situation. Is
their assessment of the best outcome the same as that of the losers?
Almost definitely not, these are groups in conflict. I think the more
you use case-by-case assessment of utility, the more prone you are to
the (sometimes unconscious) bias toward the powerful by the simple
fact that it is their utility functions being used in calculations.

So I find myself more and more in favour of general, unalterable
principles. The most important I can think of is the pre-eminence of
truth. Truth is more important than anything else. Which is why I like
Richard Dawkins, I think we share that as a value.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From brentn at freeshell.org  Tue Dec  8 01:20:03 2009
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 20:20:03 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <4B1DA04C.3000503@satx.rr.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>	<97E007C8-0D32-4669-8CF8-F461D648DDDE@bellsouth.net>
	<CE3795F3-DDE2-4E7C-B62C-1736C9FC1589@freeshell.org>
	<4B1DA04C.3000503@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <605F4023-5A54-4E3A-B0BA-18414D46080B@freeshell.org>


On 7 Dec, 2009, at 19:39, Damien Broderick wrote:

> In practical terms, one must surely regard many mistaken ideas as  
> entirely ridiculous (thetan infestation via Xenu bombing, say), and  
> then one casts about for an explanation of how people could devote  
> their lives and wealth to such preposterous ideas. It is  
> understandable that one might conclude that such people, *in regard  
> to that part of their thinking at any rate*, are indeed  
> operationally stupid. But one doesn't get far in changing their  
> opinions by baldly announcing this diagnosis--which is often wrong  
> anyway. My dear wife tells me that Jesuits are obviously stupid (if  
> they are not dissembling rogues), because they apparently believe  
> such incredible bullshit. I try to convince her that, to the  
> contrary, most Jesuits are smart as whips, and apply their keen  
> minds to this bullshit with powerful intellects and expertise.

I think you're stating, with a lot more eloquence, the point I was  
trying to make. :)

But I also think that while there are some ideas that are clearly  
false (the existence of thetans, or the Heavenly Host, e.g.), there  
are ideas that are not as obviously false. I fully expect that at  
sometime in the far future, our descendants will be laughing at our  
"juvenlie superstitions" (to quote Dawkins) about synthetic biology  
and string theory. :)

B


--
Brent Neal, Ph.D.
http://brentn.freeshell.org
<brentn at freeshell.org>







From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Dec  8 01:21:05 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:21:05 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <584384.14217.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <584384.14217.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B1DAA01.6080705@satx.rr.com>

On 12/7/2009 6:39 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> Searle would laugh and say that's like saying water can never freeze into a solid, not in a billion years and not in a trillion. On his view, the brain takes on the property of consciousness in a manner analogous to that by which water takes on the property of solidity.

You summarize his position nicely. However, this ignores what actually 
happens with people learning a new skill, especially a new language. At 
first, the elements are laboriously memorized, then chunked, then the 
activity is practised, and at a certain point the process does indeed... 
crystalize. Your consciousness alters. You are no longer arduously 
performing an algorithm, you're *reading* or *speaking* the other 
language (or playing tennis, not just hitting the ball).

You claimed on Searle's behalf:

 >Some Chinese guy comes along and says "squiggle" so Cram dutifully 
looks it up in his mental look up table and replies "squaggle". ... But 
Cram has no idea what "squiggle" or "squaggle" means. From his point of 
view, he's no different from the Wernicke aphasiac who speaks nonsense 
with proper syntax.<

Leaving aside the absurd scale problems with this analogy (the guy 
equals a neuron with very slow synaptic connections to other neurons), 
if this could be instantiated in an memory-augmented brain I'd expect 
that Cram would finally have an epiphanic moment of illumination and 
find that he *did* understand Chinese. Would an equivalent nonhuman 
computer? Maybe not, unless it emulated an embodied brain with an 
in-built grammar menu, just like us at birth. And at that point we seem 
to rejoin Searle in his agreement that AI is possible, using the correct 
causal architecture and powers.

Damien Broderick



From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 00:21:45 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:21:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <973172.81999.qm@web59914.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>



What?interests me about?someone such as?a Dawkins is not what he says but what he doesn't say, concerning his ambition.
?If there is no God, then what fills the vacuum left by God's absence? Dawkins or someone else fills the void. So you replace one god with another; you replace a?metaphysical god with a secular deity. Rather than place your money in an offering basket at church, you spend the funds on, say, 'The God Delusion', or 'The Greatest Show On Earth'; go to a lecture or watch a DVD by Dawkins or someone of his sort. And?the secular deity?stands on the podium like a priest standing in his pulpit. 
As the medium is the message, so too is the messenger the medium: the secular messiah's message is "God is dead, but I am alive; and I?offer an enlightenment you might want in place of God's."
?


>> Dawkins arguments aren't at all like what you suggest.
But I could not even stand listening to Dawkins for more than
a few minutes in a TED talk. There was just something so... so
fanatical and almost dogmatic, that I had to stop. And this
fits the picture of someone who'd coin that ridiculous concept
of "brights", such a stupid and embarrassing fiasco. Alas, it
seems to me that the Jacobin temperament is alive and well even
among us atheists.



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091207/9807ddd5/attachment.html>

From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 00:34:34 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:34:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <475488.12108.qm@web59910.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

putting aside the metaphysics involved, I can think of one practical reason right off the bat to respect-- but not necessarily like-- religion.
Say there was no religious prohibition on adultery. Then more husbands than would otherwise cheat on their wives, more families would eventually break up, the wives and children get on welfare, and libertarians have more lazy people to complain about who don't take care of their children. We can't have that?:)


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091207/98e798ce/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Dec  8 01:48:44 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:48:44 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com>

Pat Condell and John Clark are not only very entertaining,
but often put truths in a way that's a delight to hear---
so long as you already agree that God does not exist or
religion has done at least as much harm as good (and
probably more).

In a more extensive way, of course, Dawkins and Hitchens
document why it's reasonable not to believe, and what
deleterious results follow from religious belief. And
I agree wholeheartedly with Brent about *results*
counting more than anything.

But there is an important asymmetry that arises when
we go beyond just considering our "internal" (though quite
public) discussions among us atheists. Say that two
persons A and B converse, and A lets it be known he's
religious and B affirms that he's an atheist. The
situation is not symmetrical: already B is implying
that A is a dupe.

It's the *added* shrill militancy of people like Dawkins
that I find repellent. You don't have to read much history
to see the same vicious certainty in revolutionary France
or Russia, or even in Hitlerite Germany. The intolerance
is palpable.

Of course, throughout history, it is we nonbelievers and
skeptics who have been on the short end of intolerance.
But is it either wise or good to imply that when the
tables are turned, if they ever are, that we will then
be completely intolerant of the "stupidity" of religion?

Brent wrote

 > I don't think we accomplish much by assuming people
 > are stupid when they are, to our minds, mistaken.

This must strike those of the Jacobin temperament as
hopelessly wishy-washy, good-willed, and easy-going.
Where is the fire and brimstone? NO! According to many
on our side, the religious must be denounced in every
possible way. Name-calling that would be prohibited
on this list (or in any civilized discourse) is par
for the course.

Brent continued

 > Of course, my assumption here is that you want to
 > accomplish something. :)

Well---that's exactly the right question. I totally
agree that atheists need to speak up despite the
lack of symmetry I pointed to above (in fact, I think,
it's this asymmetry that most often keeps atheists
quiet). But it's *how* we speak up that we need to
reconsider.

The only things that come of name-calling that I know
of are rather reprehensible:

    1. you can, by screaming abuse, scare people into
       being silent (we occasionally see that on this
       list)

    2. you can poison the conversation, creating an
       extreme polarization that forces even the
       neutral to take sides

Now Dawkins and the others behind a "brights" campaign
are hardly dumb---and it frightens me that they must be
perfectly well-aware of these two points.

They very rightly, though, point out that atheists
have often been the ones scared to speak up, and
perfectly correct to say that this should stop.
It's just sad that the word can't be spread without
creating even more polarization.

And when it comes to that, my friends, I'm afraid
that those of us who lack the God gene will be the
ones outnumbered and outgunned. Do you want that?

Let's please confine ourselves to an evolutionary,
not revolutionary, approach. Evolutionary persuasion
---not revolutionary confrontation.

Lee


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 01:48:43 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:18:43 +1030
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <3418453789D74C7BA8BF5A165F936B84@spike>
References: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<D0265065-B541-4AAE-8982-AC4C0905D9E9@bellsouth.net>
	<3418453789D74C7BA8BF5A165F936B84@spike>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912071748l2b33abfo4b7bbe28c31de4fa@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/8 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>
>
>>On Behalf Of John Clark
> ...
>
> ? ? ? ?>Atheists have played the Mr. Nice-guy part for a very long time and
> the end result is that religious morons crash airliners into skyscrapers;
> and the very next day the USA organized a national day of prayer to give
> homage to the very mental cancer that caused the disaster... John K Clark
>
>
> John this approach lumps all religious memes together. ?I would
> counter-propose classifying religious thoughtspace into two broad
> categories: those which suggest killing unbelievers and those which do not.
>
> spike

I like this Spike. If we can combine religion and ideology and
philosophy into the same group (maybe the space of meme packages),
then it's a great principle for them all. There are plenty of examples
of non-religious ideologies which have been just as dangerous.

Liberal societies always have this problem of how to do tolerance,
when those they are being tolerant of wont necessarily extend the same
invitation back. I think for inclusive, tolerant societies, where
values are allowed to be divergent, we need some concept of
meta-values; values about values, which all participants are expected
to honor. We might say that the major meta-value is that each person's
interests have equal weight, and derive the various freedoms (such as
speech, liberty, association) from this meta-value, in that if
everyone doesn't respect these, then how is the value to be upheld?

I'm sure someone famous has said this better than I do here. But, I
think it's a good approach; a way of separating the really important
core values that free society requires in order to function, from
everything else, which by definition we want to allow to be divergent.

Back to Spike's topic, any meme package which encourages killing
outgroupers is anathema to the meta value, and deserves to be treated
with some suspicion.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Dec  8 01:56:28 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:56:28 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <973172.81999.qm@web59914.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <973172.81999.qm@web59914.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B1DB24C.1000505@satx.rr.com>

On 12/7/2009 6:21 PM, Post Futurist wrote:

> What interests me about someone such as a Dawkins is not what he says
> but what he doesn't say, concerning his ambition.
>   If there is no God, then what fills the vacuum left by God's absence?

If there is no god, who pulls up the next Kleenex?

If there is no unicorn, what fills up the vacuum left by the unicorn's 
absence? Answer: there is no vacuum to fill, since there was no unicorn 
to start with. Is this really so difficult to grasp?

Damien Broderick


From brentn at freeshell.org  Tue Dec  8 01:56:55 2009
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 20:56:55 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912071713g718a1937h9b4231bdccfd9f0c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
	<88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1D2FC3.4030400@rawbw.com>
	<C90E11A6-8D2D-4956-9944-FDDAE2A242C5@freeshell.org>
	<ffd22f9d0912071125w25f9266fq1b9103e6185e6c8c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1BA962BE-CEAA-4F70-B64B-449630DB4039@freeshell.org>
	<710b78fc0912071713g718a1937h9b4231bdccfd9f0c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <74D51C9E-B9B6-4AA6-B75C-95FF460DA71C@freeshell.org>


On 7 Dec, 2009, at 20:13, Emlyn wrote:

> 2009/12/8 Brent Neal <brentn at freeshell.org>:
>> The utilitarian argument is much more compelling. If the thing  
>> produces good
>> results, then the thing has merit. If it does not, then it is  
>> meritless.
>
> This is where many of us would disagree I think. For me, the
> consequentialist approach is not useful, because it can only ever be
> evaluated after the fact. You can't use it to predict the future or
> guide future action, because it's only a case by case description of
> the past; this thing turned out well, that thing turned out poorly. So
> for instance, if you were to look at religion this way, you'd come up
> with a catalogue of good outcomes / bad outcomes, but how could you
> use this to choose future action? I see it only as an approach useful
> in assigning blame, which is sometimes important, but largely an empty
> endeavour.

I don't think that's necessarily true. We have the ability to predict  
outcomes of our actions and thus act with an expectation of a  
particular outcome. We therefore act in a way that we believe will  
create maximum utility. If we were only able to do this on the basis  
of past experiences, as you suggest, then we'd not have the concept of  
imagination or creativity.




>
> But I'm even suspicious of utilitarianism here. Utilitarianism appears
> to me to have a real weakness regarding relative power of actors. When
> you talk of maximizing utility, you're talking about something very
> fuzzy as if it were strongly defined. Are there utility points which
> each person has, which you can sum under various scenarios and find
> the greatest such? No. Instead, we kind of guess at what the utility
> overall is, based on intuition of what is good for other people, and
> invariably altered by the lens we look through, which is our POV.


You said that you more enamored of universal principles of action.  
Yet, you reject the concept of maximizing utility. This doesn't make  
sense to me in some way, since it seems obvious that personal  
preference and individual agency are not subject to falsification.  
Given that, you shouldn't expect there to be "universal" truth, but  
rather some metric of goodness that is dependent on individual  
experience and preference. The concept of utility, I grant you, isn't  
perfect, but meets those criteria for a metric on something that  
cannot be objectively measured as well as anything else.

B


--
Brent Neal, Ph.D.
http://brentn.freeshell.org
<brentn at freeshell.org>







From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Dec  8 01:58:41 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:58:41 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2 + 2
In-Reply-To: <4B1D8AC6.30606@satx.rr.com>
References: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>	<D0265065-B541-4AAE-8982-AC4C0905D9E9@bellsouth.net>	<3418453789D74C7BA8BF5A165F936B84@spike>	<88A25264-0DE1-4E18-B0FD-B0C720D475E1@bellsouth.net>	<ee50357e0912071422n1e5057adlb4b810060fe44794@mail.gmail.com>	<89C83BC0-3F7D-4C3A-A79C-76C16568FF09@bellsouth.net>
	<4B1D8AC6.30606@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4B1DB2D1.20405@rawbw.com>

>> 2+2=5 , for extremely large values of 2.
> 
> No, 2 + 2 = 5 for moderately large values of two.  For extremely large 
> values, it = 6.

Unfortunately, all values are small.

Now, if there were only finitely many positive
integer values, then you guys might have a case.

Lee



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Dec  8 02:09:29 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:09:29 -0600
Subject: [ExI] 2 + 2
In-Reply-To: <4B1DB2D1.20405@rawbw.com>
References: <200912050420.nB54KLCl021144@andromeda.ziaspace.com>	<D0265065-B541-4AAE-8982-AC4C0905D9E9@bellsouth.net>	<3418453789D74C7BA8BF5A165F936B84@spike>	<88A25264-0DE1-4E18-B0FD-B0C720D475E1@bellsouth.net>	<ee50357e0912071422n1e5057adlb4b810060fe44794@mail.gmail.com>	<89C83BC0-3F7D-4C3A-A79C-76C16568FF09@bellsouth.net>	<4B1D8AC6.30606@satx.rr.com>
	<4B1DB2D1.20405@rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <4B1DB559.6020902@satx.rr.com>

On 12/7/2009 7:58 PM, Lee Corbin wrote:

>>> 2+2=5 , for extremely large values of 2.

>> No, 2 + 2 = 5 for moderately large values of two.  For extremely large
>> values, it = 6.

> Unfortunately, all values are small.

2.45 (a moderately large value of 2), rounded, is treated as 2.

4.9, rounded, is treated as 5.

2.95 (an extremely large value of 2), rounded, is treated as 3.

QED.

(I know, I know.)



From moulton at moulton.com  Tue Dec  8 02:25:03 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 8 Dec 2009 02:25:03 -0000
Subject: [ExI] [Exi] Tolerance
Message-ID: <20091208022503.60246.qmail@moulton.com>


On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 16:21 -0800, Post Futurist wrote:
> What interests me about someone such as a Dawkins is not what he says
> but what he doesn't say, concerning his ambition .
>  If there is no God, then what fills the vacuum left by God's
>  absence? Dawkins or someone else fills the void.

First there is an error in stating that the absence of something
necessarily creates a vacuum.  Second if you are writing about
a "psychological void" then I challange you to prove it.  Because
all I see is assertions with little or no substance and a lack of
evidence.

> So you replace
>  one god with another; you replace a metaphysical god with a secular
>  deity.

And exactly who is this "you"?  If you are referring to me then you
wrong; completely wrong and making assertions about things which you
have no knowlege.

>  Rather than place your money in an offering basket at church,
>  you spend the funds on, say, 'The God Delusion', or 'The Greatest
>  Show On Earth'; go to a lecture or watch a DVD by Dawkins or someone
>  of his sort. And the secular deity stands on the podium like a priest
>  standing in his pulpit.
> As the medium is the message, so too is the messenger the medium:
> the secular messiah's message is "God is dead, but I am alive; and
> I offer an enlightenment you might want in place of God's."

I am not going to bother pointing the remainder of the errors and
logical fallacies; I have better things to do at the moment.

Fred



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 02:47:57 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:17:57 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <475488.12108.qm@web59910.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <475488.12108.qm@web59910.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912071847w70956625vc0e5f3c18ac407ab@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/8 Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com>

> putting aside the metaphysics involved, I can think of one practical reason
> right off the bat to respect-- but not necessarily like-- religion.
> Say there was no religious prohibition on adultery. Then more husbands than
> would otherwise cheat on their wives, more families would eventually break
> up, the wives and children get on welfare, and libertarians have more lazy
> people to complain about who don't take care of their children. We can't
> have that *:)*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
That, in fact, is wrong.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm

>From a 1999 Barna Research Group study (a religious group I believe):

11% of all American adults are divorced
25% of all American adults have had at least one divorce
27% of born-again Christians have had at least one divorce
24% of all non-born-again Christians have been divorced
21% of atheists have been divorced
21% of Catholics and Lutherans have been divorced
24% of Mormons have been divorced
25% of mainstream Protestants have been divorced
29% of Baptists have been divorced
24% of nondenominational, independent Protestants have been divorced
27% of people in the South and Midwest have been divorced
26% of people in the West have been divorced
19% of people in the Northwest and Northeast have been divorced

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091208/359dadd4/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 02:23:35 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 18:23:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <4B1DAA01.6080705@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <183035.84621.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hiya Damien,

> >Some Chinese guy comes along and says "squiggle" so
> Cram dutifully looks it up in his mental look up table and
> replies "squaggle". ... But Cram has no idea what "squiggle"
> or "squaggle" mean. From his point of view, he's no
> different from the Wernicke aphasiac who speaks nonsense
> with proper syntax.<
> 
> Leaving aside the absurd scale problems with this analogy
> (the guy equals a neuron with very slow synaptic connections
> to other neurons),

No, perhaps you missed the earlier messages. 

Some of Searle's critics argued that the man in the room represents a neuron or some other small part of a larger system and that his lack of understanding means nothing -- after all he's not the system and perhaps the system has understanding. Searle replied "Fine, let the man internalize the entire room."

That's my man (android?) Cram. He runs a formal program in is brain as described in the paragraph of mine that you quoted above.

No Chinese Room. No system. Just Cram.  

> if this could be instantiated in an memory-augmented brain I'd 
> expect that Cram would finally have an epiphanic moment of 
> illumination and find that he *did* understand Chinese. 

I'd like to expect it too, but I need an argument to justify that expectation of an "epiphanic moment of illumination". Short of an act of god, or some other mystical explanation, how exactly does such a marvelous thing happen? What awakens Pinocchio?


-gts


      


From kanzure at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 03:18:39 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 21:18:39 -0600
Subject: [ExI] H+ Summit 2009 transcripts/discussions
In-Reply-To: <a4d800b0-1bed-4d9b-bccb-9e61261730d1@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
References: <55ad6af70912061133x25a8e525jce425be57fa04bdf@mail.gmail.com>
	<a4d800b0-1bed-4d9b-bccb-9e61261730d1@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <55ad6af70912071918t41d407f8q496c6648c238af6a@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:37 PM, JonathanCline wrote:
> What software are you using to transcribe?

Just vim. For Windows users, the closest analogy would be notepad, or
your standard text editor. Nothing fancy..

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507


From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 03:29:38 2009
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:29:38 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com>
References: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM>

> But is it either wise or good to imply that when the
> tables are turned, if they ever are, that we will then
> be completely intolerant of the "stupidity" of religion?
It depends on how you define intolerance. Banning them, flogging them,  
stoning them, torturing them, etc. is of course bad, but I very much  
doubt anyone here or any of the main "New Atheists" would propose  
that. If you mean say unequivocally they were wrong and refuse to  
listen to any of their nonsense, then that isn't a problem at all.  
Being intolerant of wrong ideas on a personal level (arguing against  
them, disassociating oneself from those ideas and weighing it in a  
decision to interact with someone who holds those ideas, etc.) is a  
rational strategy, it increases the costs of their mistake, and  
thereby increases the likelihood they will correct it, as well as  
simply limiting the contact in your own life between you and error.
> And when it comes to that, my friends, I'm afraid
> that those of us who lack the God gene will be the
> ones outnumbered and outgunned. Do you want that?
>
> Let's please confine ourselves to an evolutionary,
> not revolutionary, approach. Evolutionary persuasion
> ---not revolutionary confrontation.
> Lee
I think we've been trying that for a number of decades now, and it  
hasn't had great success. In fact, the only success its really had in  
the public is that it opened the way for Dawkins and the rest. Now  
obviously I am not for declaring an intellectual war or anything. But  
I do think that atheists need to not be wishy-washy and somehow give  
the religious the idea we think their ideas about the nature of  
reality have merit. Because, honestly, they don't. Science has  
disproved them or logic has shown them sorely wanting and riddled with  
inconsistency. Don't go around telling people with crosses around  
their necks they're " 'tards" or something offensive like that. But if  
ever the subject comes up, atheists should make it clear where they  
stand, and if the religious pursue it further, ensure that they do  
their best to dissuade them of their error.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From sparge at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 03:37:59 2009
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:37:59 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <605F4023-5A54-4E3A-B0BA-18414D46080B@freeshell.org>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com> 
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com> 
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
	<97E007C8-0D32-4669-8CF8-F461D648DDDE@bellsouth.net> 
	<CE3795F3-DDE2-4E7C-B62C-1736C9FC1589@freeshell.org>
	<4B1DA04C.3000503@satx.rr.com> 
	<605F4023-5A54-4E3A-B0BA-18414D46080B@freeshell.org>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0912071937o7f7995f4m7ccd474fb50477be@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Brent Neal <brentn at freeshell.org> wrote:
>
> ... I fully expect that at sometime in the far future,
> our descendants will be laughing at our "juvenlie superstitions" (to quote
> Dawkins) about synthetic biology and string theory. :)

It's one thing to be wrong about something based on incomplete
evidence or lack of understanding and another to believe something
that's contradictory to all evidence because it offers a comforting
explanation.

The person holding a wrong belief due to incomplete evidence or lack
of understanding will automatically adjust their beliefs when new
evidence is discovered, but the person believing a made up story about
a supreme being will adjust their interpretation of contrary evidence
to make it consistent with their beliefs.

We find it amusing that people used to think the Sun revolved around
the Earth, but those people believed that because that's the way it
looked to them, and they had no evidence to the contrary. But people
believing in religions do so in the face of overwhelming evidence that
their beliefs are highly unlikely to be correct and with only the
scantiest evidence that they're true.

-Dave


From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 03:39:51 2009
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:39:51 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <74D51C9E-B9B6-4AA6-B75C-95FF460DA71C@freeshell.org>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
	<88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1D2FC3.4030400@rawbw.com>
	<C90E11A6-8D2D-4956-9944-FDDAE2A242C5@freeshell.org>
	<ffd22f9d0912071125w25f9266fq1b9103e6185e6c8c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1BA962BE-CEAA-4F70-B64B-449630DB4039@freeshell.org>
	<710b78fc0912071713g718a1937h9b4231bdccfd9f0c@mail.gmail.com>
	<74D51C9E-B9B6-4AA6-B75C-95FF460DA71C@freeshell.org>
Message-ID: <BD1D2346-6A0A-4330-A77D-3EB148589D41@GMAIL.COM>

> You said that you more enamored of universal principles of action.  
> Yet, you reject the concept of maximizing utility. This doesn't make  
> sense to me in some way, since it seems obvious that personal  
> preference and individual agency are not subject to falsification.  
> Given that, you shouldn't expect there to be "universal" truth, but  
> rather some metric of goodness that is dependent on individual  
> experience and preference. The concept of utility, I grant you,  
> isn't perfect, but meets those criteria for a metric on something  
> that cannot be objectively measured as well as anything else.
> Brent Neal, Ph.D.
You can develop universal tenets for human behavior from the fact  
humans are animals who survive solely based on their rational  
capacity, and the fact that the source of all value for an organism is  
that organisms life (it can't have values of any sort without that).  
As such, any action by anyone which interferes with the ability of a  
person to behave in the way which they decide is immoral, it is  
attacking the basic principle and root cause of all possible values.  
As a result, you have no right to initiate force against any other  
human being.

I'm glossing over of course, but that gives a very basic outline of  
how you can arrive at certain universal principles of action based on  
principles and reason alone. As for what an individual should do  
outside not initiate force, well that is a more complex subject. But  
overall it is simply to serve his own individual life and pursue his  
own individual values which it has determined based on reason. That is  
a universal principle which can apply to every single person on the  
face of the Earth (or anywhere else humans happen to be) without  
contradiction.

Utility cannot be judged accurately at all. I know what is best for me  
most likely better than anyone, I cannot know what is best for you or  
society as a whole. That is totally personal and individual in nature.  
It seems odd to say that one should universalize a purely personal  
view of what are values, etc. and the apply them to everyone in order  
to determine what course of action to take. Why not just have them  
apply to yourself? That makes it much less prone to error.

I am intrigued by your repeated stress on falsification. You cannot  
live your entire life based on falsification alone without any  
principles created inductively from experience and reason. So why  
place such stress on falsification, especially in a moral system,  
which is expressly about how to live your life?


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From brentn at freeshell.org  Tue Dec  8 04:03:40 2009
From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 23:03:40 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <BD1D2346-6A0A-4330-A77D-3EB148589D41@GMAIL.COM>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
	<88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM>
	<580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1D2FC3.4030400@rawbw.com>
	<C90E11A6-8D2D-4956-9944-FDDAE2A242C5@freeshell.org>
	<ffd22f9d0912071125w25f9266fq1b9103e6185e6c8c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1BA962BE-CEAA-4F70-B64B-449630DB4039@freeshell.org>
	<710b78fc0912071713g718a1937h9b4231bdccfd9f0c@mail.gmail.com>
	<74D51C9E-B9B6-4AA6-B75C-95FF460DA71C@freeshell.org>
	<BD1D2346-6A0A-4330-A77D-3EB148589D41@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <0CD7901A-BC7B-43E7-A27B-1006BB34E9CB@freeshell.org>


On 7 Dec, 2009, at 22:39, JOSHUA JOB wrote:

> I am intrigued by your repeated stress on falsification. You cannot  
> live your entire life based on falsification alone without any  
> principles created inductively from experience and reason. So why  
> place such stress on falsification, especially in a moral system,  
> which is expressly about how to live your life?


You're reiterating exactly the point I was making. Morals and ethics  
are not scientific, in the Popperian sense or any other sense. I  
conclude from that that any purported "universal" ethics are flawed.  
In the vernacular, only you have the ability to decide for yourself  
what is morally or ethically correct. It has been my observation that  
people adhere to social structures due to some utility that they  
provide. I choose a rationalist approach because it provides me with  
more utility than a superstitional approach. I rather like being able  
to figure out what's going on around me through testing hypotheses and  
appreciate the value that having some guidelines on what can be  
objectively determined and what cannot.  Some people, apparently, don't.

Now, I could go all anthropological and argue that at some point in  
the distant past the structures we now call "religions" had some  
utility in society, but now, the marginal utility of religion has been  
driven to the negative by insistence, particularly of the Abrahamic  
set, that faith comes before science, therefore atheism/humanism/etc.  
is on the rise as increasing numbers of people discover that these old  
traditions are truly not useful anymore. But, I won't, since I'm a  
physicist and not an anthropologist and as such I'm quite aware that  
this argument can fairly be considered crackpottish. :)

It still doesn't change my original argument that calling people names  
based on your sense of superiority is profoundly self-defeating.  
Someone mentioned the Four Horsemen interview. I recall thinking that  
Dennett was the only one of the four of them that wasn't a total tool  
in the interview. :) While I tend to sympathize, as you will no doubt  
have noted, with Hitchens and Dawkins, that doesn't mean that I don't  
think they can act like asses at times.  And I question the  
rationality of a worldview that provides such a black-and-white view  
of superiority and inferiority as the worldview of these so-called  
"Brights" does. Outside the realm of the scientific, I've learned to  
be profoundly distrustful of folks who offer me either-or choices:  
Believe in my god or suffer. Free markets mean zero regulation. You're  
either atheist or stupid.  The world is only that simple to people who  
are too lazy to think in depth about the issue at hand or are too  
uneducated to have a complex opinion.

B


--
Brent Neal, Ph.D.
http://brentn.freeshell.org
<brentn at freeshell.org>







From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 03:13:53 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 19:13:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <647812.20276.qm@web59916.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

One (not a "you", Mr. Moulton) might say that God?is a necessary fiction to billions, but that a unicorn is only?a droll legend such as Santa Claus; thus a God is not comparable to a unicorn. If all the statues and paintings of unicorns were destroyed, the world would remain the same, but if belief in God were to be destroyed the world would be different-- how different no one can say. Now, I don't say that God or even a Santa Clausian belief in God is necessary, but religion is necessary as it has existed for thousands of years, and cannot be?dispensed with?like that, any more?than the family can be?dispensed like that, however outmoded they both may very well be. 
Dawkins?isn't so?strident today, he has toned down his rhetoric since 'The God Delusion' in the interest of better public relations.????

--- On Mon, 12/7/09, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:


If there is no unicorn, what fills up the vacuum left by the unicorn's absence? Answer: there is no vacuum to fill, since there was no unicorn to start with. Is this really so difficult to grasp?

Damien Broderick


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091207/a6ffc4a2/attachment.html>

From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 03:51:21 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 19:51:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d0912071937o7f7995f4m7ccd474fb50477be@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57076.78853.qm@web59908.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

?Religion might be important for another 200 years for all anyone knows. This is what soured me on futurism: the far future can be so far in the future it isn't worth thinking about, let alone discussing. 

> ... I fully expect that at sometime in the far future,
> our descendants will be laughing at our "juvenlie superstitions" (to quote
> Dawkins) about synthetic biology and string theory. :)


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091207/0dc76cc7/attachment.html>

From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 03:21:51 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 19:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912071847w70956625vc0e5f3c18ac407ab@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <437222.72716.qm@web59903.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Would these stats (aside from the 21 percent atheists) be higher if?adultery wasn't rejected by many or most religions?


11% of all American adults are divorced
25% of all American adults have had at least one divorce
27% of born-again Christians have had at least one divorce
24% of all non-born-again Christians have been divorced
21% of atheists have been divorced
21% of Catholics and Lutherans have been divorced
24% of Mormons have been divorced
25% of mainstream Protestants have been divorced
29% of Baptists have been divorced
24% of nondenominational, independent Protestants have been divorced
27% of people in the South and Midwest have been divorced
26% of people in the West have been divorced
19% of people in the Northwest and Northeast have been divorced


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091207/f3aa5331/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Dec  8 04:56:59 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:56:59 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <0CD7901A-BC7B-43E7-A27B-1006BB34E9CB@freeshell.org>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>	<88C5E3C6-5BB3-4F7F-8CA9-8517CD489425@GMAIL.COM>	<580930c20912070806i3e490aa0h92aeb72cdf854e76@mail.gmail.com>	<4B1D2FC3.4030400@rawbw.com>	<C90E11A6-8D2D-4956-9944-FDDAE2A242C5@freeshell.org>	<ffd22f9d0912071125w25f9266fq1b9103e6185e6c8c@mail.gmail.com>	<1BA962BE-CEAA-4F70-B64B-449630DB4039@freeshell.org>	<710b78fc0912071713g718a1937h9b4231bdccfd9f0c@mail.gmail.com>	<74D51C9E-B9B6-4AA6-B75C-95FF460DA71C@freeshell.org>	<BD1D2346-6A0A-4330-A77D-3EB148589D41@GMAIL.COM>
	<0CD7901A-BC7B-43E7-A27B-1006BB34E9CB@freeshell.org>
Message-ID: <4B1DDC9B.90108@satx.rr.com>

On 12/7/2009 10:03 PM, Brent Neal wrote:

> I question the rationality of a worldview that provides such a
> black-and-white view of superiority and inferiority as the worldview of
> these so-called "Brights" does. Outside the realm of the scientific,
> I've learned to be profoundly distrustful of folks who offer me
> either-or choices: Believe in my god or suffer. Free markets mean zero
> regulation. You're either atheist or stupid.  The world is only that
> simple to people who are too lazy to think in depth about the issue at
> hand or are too uneducated to have a complex opinion.

I have an essay titled "Beyond Faith and Opinion" in a rather 
interesting "New Atheists" book, 50 VOICES OF DISBELIEF: Why We Are 
Atheists, eds. Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk (Wiley-Blackwell). My 
view is closer to Brent's:

<When it comes to God in any of the Abrahamic senses... I do disbelieve 
in these alleged deities. Indeed, I'm inclined to think that the 
existence of such a supernatural being is not just unsupported by any 
sound evidence, but is logically impossible and self refuting.

On the other hand, my grip on logic and reasoning is no better than most 
people's, despite some formal training in philosophy. Can I have any 
absolute warrant in my confidence that deities are unbelievable? I might 
be wrong.

Many of the contributors to this book will rehearse the arguments for 
and against various gods of their choice. I mean to make a sort of 
meta-argument about the vulnerability of all arguments. This might cut 
against disbelief and nonbelief as it does against the varieties of 
belief in the divine, but I think it's worth keeping in mind. Perhaps it 
urges a certain modesty about any utter conviction that what we know is 
true, let alone obviously true.>

Damien Broderick


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Dec  8 06:12:48 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 01:12:48 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <584384.14217.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <584384.14217.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <EC6D5FB6-DAF5-4CD5-ACB6-12AC6911FA43@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:39 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> On his view, the brain takes on the property of consciousness in a manner analogous to that by which water takes on the property of solidity.

But for some reason this mysterious phase change only happens to 3 pounds of grey goo in our head and never happens in his Chinese Room. He never explains why.

> Like most of us here, he subscribes to and promotes a species of naturalism. He [Searle] adamantly rejects both property and substance dualism. You won't find any mystical hocus-pocus in his philosophy.

Bullshit. He thinks intelligent behavior is possible without consciousness so evolution could not have produced consciousness, no way no how. He has no other explanation how it came to be so to explain its existence he has no choice but to resort to mystical hocus-pocus.

> he allows for the possibility of Strong Artificial Intelligence. He just doesn't think it possible with formal programs running on hardware. Not hardware enough!

So if atoms are arranged in a way that produces a human brain those atoms can produce consciousness and if arranged as a computer they can too, provided the computer doesn't use hardware or software. Don't you find that idea just a little bit stupid?

 John K Clark 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091208/67b1914d/attachment.html>

From moulton at moulton.com  Tue Dec  8 06:45:13 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 8 Dec 2009 06:45:13 -0000
Subject: [ExI] [Exi] Tolerance
Message-ID: <20091208064513.3166.qmail@moulton.com>


On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 23:03 -0500, Brent Neal wrote:
>  And I question the  
> rationality of a worldview that provides such a black-and-white view  
> of superiority and inferiority as the worldview of these so-called  
> "Brights" does.

Please provide a citation from the Brights website or a publication from the Brights organization.  I have looked around the Brights website and I can not find what you seem to referencing.

Fred


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Dec  8 06:44:51 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 01:44:51 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <981805.30511.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <981805.30511.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9BF2C078-1A26-49F7-9E77-BB3D6C425B2B@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 7, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

>  Cram has no idea what "sguiggle" or "squaggle" means.

There is not one scrap of evidence that is true and there is considerable evidence that it is false. If you don't believe me then just ask Cram, he will tell you exactly what sguiggle or squaggle means.

Its like saying Einstein was really an idiot, he just wrote spoke and acted brilliantly. 

 John 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091208/2fde6bef/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Dec  8 06:59:13 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 01:59:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <CE3795F3-DDE2-4E7C-B62C-1736C9FC1589@freeshell.org>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30912070313p380f50dam5ead7b6510d1f15@mail.gmail.com>
	<052B1759-B17F-431F-82F8-A361A5163F7C@freeshell.org>
	<97E007C8-0D32-4669-8CF8-F461D648DDDE@bellsouth.net>
	<CE3795F3-DDE2-4E7C-B62C-1736C9FC1589@freeshell.org>
Message-ID: <959388F1-BD3F-41C7-B4C2-EB5D15B10BED@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Brent Neal wrote:

> Einstein was certainly quite wrong about the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, but that didn't make him stupid. It merely made his position incorrect.

Agreed.

> I don't think we accomplish much by assuming people are stupid when they are, to our minds, mistaken.

So do you think the word "stupid" should be removed from the English language? And if you can't use that word in reference to religion when in the world can you use it? We are not talking about some esoteric point in physics, we are talking about people who want to crash airliners into skyscrapers and the moderates who give them cover by demanding respect for a particular brand of mind cancer. I make no apology in calling that stupid as well as evil.

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091208/5d891b4b/attachment.html>

From moulton at moulton.com  Tue Dec  8 07:49:58 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 8 Dec 2009 07:49:58 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <20091208074958.69748.qmail@moulton.com>

On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 17:48 -0800, Lee Corbin wrote:

> But there is an important asymmetry that arises when
> we go beyond just considering our "internal" (though quite
> public) discussions among us atheists. Say that two
> persons A and B converse, and A lets it be known he's
> religious and B affirms that he's an atheist. The
> situation is not symmetrical: already B is implying
> that A is a dupe.
 
Slightly false since not all religions are theist.

Now there are some religions which are theist.  So instead of leaving this example let us make it specific.  Let A be a Christian who believes in the literal truth of the entire Judeo-Christian scriptures (what is commonly referred to as a Fundamentalist).  And let B be an atheist who says there is no God.  Now B may feel that A is a dupe, or B may feel that A is going through a period of transition until A arrives at a higher level of understanding or whatever.  The point is that we do not know exactly what B thinks about A.  However we know what the Fundamentalist position is about B; the Fundamentalist position comes right out of the Bible and says that B is a fool.  Yes it is in the Bible and to quote the entire verse:
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good
Psalms 14:1

Now we know that not all religious are Fundamentalist.  The term "religious"
covers a variety of positions.  So my point is that we need to avoid
oversimplifying complex issues.  

> It's the *added* shrill militancy of people like Dawkins
> that I find repellent.

Dawkins is not a "shrill militant" by any reasonable usage of the phrase "shrill militant".  I have been present on three different occasions where Dawkins spoke at length and he is not shrill. 

> You don't have to read much history
> to see the same vicious certainty in revolutionary France
> or Russia, or even in Hitlerite Germany. The intolerance
> is palpable.
 
This is totally both false and disgusting.  To try to smear Dawkins by reference to the French or Russian revolutions or to "Hitlerite Germany" is intellectually dishonest and contemptible and anyone who does so should be ashamed.

Fred



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Dec  8 08:28:46 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:28:46 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM>
References: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com>
	<239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <4B1E0E3E.5010708@rawbw.com>

JOSHUA JOB wrote:

>> But is it either wise or good to imply that when the
>> tables are turned, if they ever are, that we will then
>> be completely intolerant of the "stupidity" of religion?
 >
> It depends on how you define intolerance. Banning them, flogging them, 
> stoning them, torturing them, etc. is of course bad, but I very much 
> doubt anyone here or any of the main "New Atheists" would propose that. 

Thank G..., er thank goodness that yes, indeed we have
progressed beyond flogging and stoning.

> If you mean say unequivocally they were wrong and refuse to listen to 
> any of their nonsense, then that isn't a problem at all.

Agreed. One can listen to or not listen to whatever one wishes.

>> And when it comes to that, my friends, I'm afraid
>> that those of us who lack the God gene will be the
>> ones outnumbered and outgunned. Do you want that?
>>
>> Let's please confine ourselves to an evolutionary,
>> not revolutionary, approach. Evolutionary persuasion
>> ---not revolutionary confrontation.
 >
> I think we've been trying that for a number of decades now, and it 
> hasn't had great success.

Au contraire. By every measure in the west, the percentage
of atheists is rising. We'll "win"---just be patient. (At
least we'll win until the demographic change starts the
game over from square one.)

But the strategy of alienating religious people yet further
isn't going to help, except in ways I would not condone.
They shouldn't be given any reason whatsoever to think
that life under the atheists has been as bad as (at many
times) life for us under the religious often was.

Alas, this is surely all wishful thinking on my part.
As soon as we are in the heavy majority, kids will
hear in school from their PC teachers that, so far
as religion goes, "there are the brights who don't
believe, and then, there are the others, less bright,
who do, and sadly some of you in this very class come
from disadvantaged homes..."

> obviously I am not for declaring an intellectual war or anything. But I 
> do think that atheists need to not be wishy-washy and somehow give the 
> religious the idea we think their ideas about the nature of reality have 
> merit.

Again, I agree.

> Because, honestly, they don't. Science has disproved them or 
> logic has shown them sorely wanting and riddled with inconsistency. 
> Don't go around telling people with crosses around their necks they're " 
> 'tards" or something offensive like that.

Exactly. Nor try to define them as "un-bright".

> But if ever the subject comes 
> up, atheists should make it clear where they stand, and if the religious 
> pursue it further, ensure that they do their best to dissuade them of 
> their error.

Quite so.

Lee



From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec  8 11:12:30 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:12:30 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <183035.84621.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <4B1DAA01.6080705@satx.rr.com>
	<183035.84621.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20091208111230.GT17686@leitl.org>

On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 06:23:35PM -0800, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> No, perhaps you missed the earlier messages. 
> 
> Some of Searle's critics argued that the man in the room represents a neuron or some other small part of a larger system and that his lack of understanding means nothing -- after all he's not the system and perhaps the system has understanding. Searle replied "Fine, let the man internalize the entire room."

Fine, let's the cow jump over the Moon.

I mean, it only takes a few megagee or so, to achieve enough
momentum to overcome hypersonic drag at ground level. Of 
course, the cow will get homogenized by the acceleration, 
and then turned into shocked plasma before its lunar flyby.
 
> That's my man (android?) Cram. He runs a formal program in is brain as described in the paragraph of mine that you quoted above.

So you want to simulate a Chinese-speaking person.
So first you use paper, which doesn't work (the Sun would burn out
before you can get the system to comprehend the first
sentence, not that there are enough tree on the planet
anyway). Not content with that impossibility, you want 
to represent at least 10^17 bits nevermind the nontrivial 
transition function over them between some guy's ears
who can't even handle seven thoughts without starting
dropping them.

Where do they grow such fine idiots like Searle?
 
> No Chinese Room. No system. Just Cram.  

Just omit Cram. Works even better now.
 
> > if this could be instantiated in an memory-augmented brain I'd 
> > expect that Cram would finally have an epiphanic moment of 
> > illumination and find that he *did* understand Chinese. 
> 
> I'd like to expect it too, but I need an argument to justify that expectation of an "epiphanic moment of illumination". Short of an act of god, or some other mystical explanation, how exactly does such a marvelous thing happen? What awakens Pinocchio?

What makes you think the guy even knows what he's doing?

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


From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 11:59:58 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:59:58 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <973172.81999.qm@web59914.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <973172.81999.qm@web59914.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912080359j2fe08cd8xe2bcc176d0069be1@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/8 Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com>
>
> What?interests me about?someone such as?a Dawkins is not what he says but what he doesn't say, concerning his ambition.
> ?If there is no God, then what fills the vacuum left by God's absence? Dawkins or someone else fills the void. So you replace one god with another; you replace a?metaphysical god with a secular deity. Rather than place your money in an offering basket at church, you spend the funds on, say, 'The God Delusion', or 'The Greatest Show On Earth'; go to a lecture or watch a DVD by Dawkins or someone of his sort. And?the secular deity?stands on the podium like a priest standing in his pulpit.
> As the medium is the message, so too is the messenger the medium: the secular messiah's message is "God is dead, but I am alive; and I?offer an enlightenment you might want in place of God's."

You probably wouldn't put up this argument in defence of other sorts
of nonsense, such as a belief in Santa Claus, or astrology, or the
power of crystals to heal disease, or any number of things which you
would dismiss as just obviously crap. Why should religious nonsense
get special consideration?



--
Stathis Papaioannou


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 12:04:32 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:04:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <EC6D5FB6-DAF5-4CD5-ACB6-12AC6911FA43@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <367275.93635.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Tue, 12/8/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> But for some reason this mysterious phase change only
> happens to 3 pounds of grey goo in our head and never
> happens in his Chinese Room. He never explains why.

He explains exactly why in his formal argument: 

Premise A1: Programs are formal (syntactic).
Premise A2: Minds have mental contents (semantics). 
Premise A3: Syntax is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics. 

Ergo, 

Conclusion C1: Programs are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for minds.

So then Searle gives us at least four targets at which to aim (three premises and the opportunity to deny that his conclusion follows).

He continues with more formal arguments to defend his philosophy of mind, what he calls biological naturalism, but if C1 doesn't hold then we needn't consider them. 

I came back to ExI after a long hiatus (I have 6000+ unread messages in my ExI mail folder) because I was struck by the fact that Wernicke's aphasia lends support to A3, normally considered the only controversial premise in his argument.

-gts









 
> Like most of us here, he subscribes to and
> promotes a species of naturalism. He [Searle] adamantly
> rejects both property and substance dualism. You won't
> find any mystical hocus-pocus in his philosophy.
> 
> Bullshit. He thinks intelligent behavior is possible
> without consciousness so evolution could not have produced
> consciousness, no way no how. He has no other explanation
> how it came to be so to explain its existence he has no
> choice but to resort to?mystical
> hocus-pocus.
> he allows for the possibility
> of Strong Artificial Intelligence. He just doesn't think
> it possible with formal programs running on hardware. Not
> hardware enough!
> 
> So if atoms are arranged in a way that produces a
> human brain those atoms can produce consciousness and if
> arranged as a computer they can too, provided the computer
> doesn't use hardware or software. Don't you find
> that idea just a little bit stupid?
> ?John K Clark?
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 


      


From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 12:23:42 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 23:23:42 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <998024.79732.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <998024.79732.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912080423v3f21a4e7u2457276601125a1c@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/7 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:

> I've taken the position that for the thought experiment portion of Searle's CRA to have any value -- that if we should consider it anything more than mere philosophical hand-waving -- then it must first qualify as a valid scientific experiment. To qualify as such, it must work in a context-independent manner; scientists anywhere in the universe should obtain the same results using the same man in the room. And for that to happen, I argue, the man in the room must lack knowledge not only of the meanings of Chinese symbols, but also the words and symbols of every possible language in the universe. He must have no semantics whatsoever.

I don't see why you say that. He simply needs to carry out a purely
mechanical process, like a factory labourer.

> Somewhat tongue in cheek, I continued my argument by stating the subject would need to undergo brain surgery prior to the experiment to remove the relevant parts of his brain. I then did a little research and learned we would need to remove Wernicke's area, and learned also of this interesting phenomenon of Wernicke's aphasia.
>
> One might consider the existence of Wernicke's aphasia as evidence supporting Searle's third premise in his CRA, that 'syntax is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics'. People with this strange malady have an obvious grasp of syntax but also clearly have no idea what they're talking about!

It is probably true that syntax is not sufficient for semantics. We
could study an alien language and, with enough examples, work out all
the criteria for well-formed sentences, but still not have the
faintest idea what even a single word in the language means.

>> In other words,the components don't know what they're doing, but the
>> system does.
>
> So goes the systems reply to the CRA, one of many that Searle fielded with varying degrees of success depending on who you ask.

It seems that Searle just doesn't get the difference between a system
and its components. We agree that the brain as a whole understands
language, but that does not mean that the neurons understand language.
Even if the neurons had their own separate intelligence and were
telepathically linked, discussing when they were going to release
certain neurotransmitters and so on, they need not have any
understanding of the language the brain understands.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 12:34:25 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 23:34:25 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <870A3F6D-298C-4967-8B21-4D37BFCF4FDE@bellsouth.net>
References: <910546.13745.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<870A3F6D-298C-4967-8B21-4D37BFCF4FDE@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912080434n59c5a5e8m67e9e47877f208e9@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/8 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> On Dec 7, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:
>
> Searle replies that the man could in principle memorize the syntactic
> rule-book, thus internalizing the formal program and the entire the
> room/system. On Searle's view such a man would still lack understanding of
> the Chinese symbols.
>
> Then either the little man in the room is lying about his linguistic
> inadequacy?or he is suffering from multiple personality disorder because it
> is clear that somebody or something in that room knows Chinese.

No, the man could still be completely ignorant of Chinese. Chinese is
difficult, but you could probably get a patient idiot to carry out a
simpler computation in his head following mechanical rules, but have
no idea what he was doing.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 12:37:11 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:37:11 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <20091208074958.69748.qmail@moulton.com>
References: <20091208074958.69748.qmail@moulton.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912080437p4739681dj24ccee07b1280396@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/8  <moulton at moulton.com>:
> Slightly false since not all religions are theist.

Yes. This raises an important point.

In fact, I am slightly uneasy with the concept itself of "atheism",
since it accepts in the first place that Jahv?, Allah and the Holy
Trinity are in fact "gods", according to the bad Bible translation of
the Seventies", and that the rejection thereof is a fundamental stance
splitting the world in two camps. During the Roman empire, in fact,
christianism was not even considered as a legitimate religion, but
rather as a superstitio nova ac malefica (a new, malicious
superstition).

In fact, almost every other religion either comprises a set of beliefs
which die away gently, or has no problem whatsoever with a
technoscientific or a transhumanist worldview (in fact, it might even
corroborate it); and in any event does not command "faith" in a number
of statements of fact as a moral duty to be imposed on any human
being. Say, Zen, pre-christian paganism, confucianism, shinto...

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 12:43:25 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 23:43:25 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <367275.93635.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <EC6D5FB6-DAF5-4CD5-ACB6-12AC6911FA43@bellsouth.net> 
	<367275.93635.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912080443m3d5243del3fe6617ca6743f51@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/8 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:

> Premise A1: Programs are formal (syntactic).
> Premise A2: Minds have mental contents (semantics).
> Premise A3: Syntax is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics.
>
> Ergo,
>
> Conclusion C1: Programs are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for minds.
>
> So then Searle gives us at least four targets at which to aim (three premises and the opportunity to deny that his conclusion follows).
>
> He continues with more formal arguments to defend his philosophy of mind, what he calls biological naturalism, but if C1 doesn't hold then we needn't consider them.
>
> I came back to ExI after a long hiatus (I have 6000+ unread messages in my ExI mail folder) because I was struck by the fact that Wernicke's aphasia lends support to A3, normally considered the only controversial premise in his argument.

The A1/A2 dichotomy is deceptive. A human child learns that if it
utters a particular word it gets a particular response, and a computer
program can learn the same thing. Why would you say the child
"understands" the word but the program doesn't?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 12:47:20 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:47:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <mailman.774.1260226258.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <163726.13368.qm@web32003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

"spike" <spike66 at att.net> observed:

>>On Behalf Of John Clark
...
       
>> Atheists have played the Mr. Nice-guy part for a very long time and
the end result is that religious morons crash airliners into skyscrapers;
and the very next day the USA organized a national day of prayer to give
homage to the very mental cancer that caused the disaster... John K Clark


> John this approach lumps all religious memes together.  I would
counter-propose classifying religious thoughtspace into two broad
categories: those which suggest killing unbelievers and those which do not.


Hmm, that leaves precious few religions that do not.  Christianity certainly isn't one of them.  Before you object, consider that the only thing that restrains it is secular law, whereas Islam has no such restraint.  Go back a few hundred years and find a religion that did not practice the killing of unbelievers.  Even Buddhism isn't spotless in this regard.

Ben Zaiboc


      


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 12:49:00 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:49:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <mailman.774.1260226258.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <686569.71154.qm@web32007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

"MB" <mbb386 at main.nc.us> declared:

>>"Hur hur hur if you believe in
>> God you're stupid, so we're going to call atheists 'Brights'!  Get it?
>> Huh? Hur hur hur."

> Arrgh. I was on an email list like this once.

> They were correct: keep religion out of science class.


But religion is part of human history and psychology.  
There are several sciences where a study of religion is appropriate.

Surely you're not saying that religion shouldn't be studied in anthropology, psychology and psychiatry?

Religion shouldn't be mistaken for a science, of course, but it is a fit subject for study.

Ben Zaiboc


      


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 13:12:30 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 05:12:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912080443m3d5243del3fe6617ca6743f51@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <475553.36640.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Tue, 12/8/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Premise A1: Programs are formal (syntactic).
> Premise A2: Minds have mental contents (semantics).
> Premise A3: Syntax is neither constitutive of nor
> sufficient for semantics.


> The A1/A2 dichotomy is deceptive. A human child learns that
> if it utters a particular word it gets a particular response, and
> a computer program can learn the same thing. Why would you say the
> child "understands" the word but the program doesn't?

Presumably the child has mental contents, i.e., semantics, that accompany if not also cause its behaviors, whereas the machine intelligence has only syntactical rules (even if self-written) that define its behaviors.

Keep in mind, and this is in reply also to one of your other messages, that Searle has no problem whatsoever with weak AI. He believes Software/Hardware systems will eventually mimic the behaviors of humans, pass the Turing test and in the eyes of behaviorists exceed the intelligence of humans. 

But will such S/H systems have semantic understanding? More generally, will any S/H system running a formal program have what philosophers call intentionality? Never, says Searle. The Turing test will give false positives.

-gts






      


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec  8 13:13:39 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:13:39 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912080434n59c5a5e8m67e9e47877f208e9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <910546.13745.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<870A3F6D-298C-4967-8B21-4D37BFCF4FDE@bellsouth.net>
	<f21c22e30912080434n59c5a5e8m67e9e47877f208e9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091208131339.GU17686@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 11:34:25PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> No, the man could still be completely ignorant of Chinese. Chinese is
> difficult, but you could probably get a patient idiot to carry out a

Your idiot has to be able to simulate a neuron by hand. That means
holding a lot of state, and doing billions of computations by hand
more or less accurately.

> simpler computation in his head following mechanical rules, but have

Let's drop the "in his head" requirement, because It's Just Not Possible.

> no idea what he was doing.

It would take a genius to figure out what he's doing. It would
be worse than an ant mapping New York.

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


From anders at aleph.se  Tue Dec  8 13:13:22 2009
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:13:22 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <20091208111230.GT17686@leitl.org>
References: <4B1DAA01.6080705@satx.rr.com>	<183035.84621.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20091208111230.GT17686@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <4B1E50F2.5000507@aleph.se>

Gordon Swobe wrote:

> > Some of Searle's critics argued that the man in the room represents a neuron or some other small part of a larger system and that his lack of understanding means nothing -- after all he's not the system and perhaps the system has understanding. Searle replied "Fine, let the man internalize the entire room."
> >   
>   

How does Searle take Clark and Chalmer's extended mind concept?

(My guess: he doesn't believe in it)


-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Tue Dec  8 13:23:23 2009
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 08:23:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <686569.71154.qm@web32007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <686569.71154.qm@web32007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <53512.12.77.168.220.1260278603.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>


> But religion is part of human history and psychology.
> There are several sciences where a study of religion is appropriate.

This is true.

The theme of the list I was referring to was, "Keep *the teaching of* Intelligent
Design and Creation Science out of the biology class."

Regards,
MB




From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 13:46:52 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 05:46:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1260273602.10107.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <294076.76666.qm@web32008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com> asked:

> Would these stats (aside from the 21 percent atheists) be higher if adultery wasn't rejected by many or most religions?


> 11% of all American adults are divorced
> 25% of all American adults have had at least one divorce
> 27% of born-again Christians have had at least one divorce
> 24% of all non-born-again Christians have been divorced
> 21% of atheists have been divorced
> 21% of Catholics and Lutherans have been divorced
> 24% of Mormons have been divorced
> 25% of mainstream Protestants have been divorced
> 29% of Baptists have been divorced
> 24% of nondenominational, independent Protestants have been divorced
> 27% of people in the South and Midwest have been divorced
> 26% of people in the West have been divorced
> 19% of people in the Northwest and Northeast have been divorced


I don't understand what significance this has, neither the stats nor the question.  Could you explain?

Ben Zaiboc


      


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Dec  8 15:35:30 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:35:30 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <367275.93635.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <367275.93635.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BC41913E-FDA5-425D-8917-2E2E7D88DE1F@bellsouth.net>


On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> --- On Tue, 12/8/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 
>> But for some reason this mysterious phase change only
>> happens to 3 pounds of grey goo in our head and never
>> happens in his Chinese Room. He never explains why.
> 
> He explains exactly why in his formal argument: 
> 
> Premise A1: Programs are formal (syntactic).
> Premise A2: Minds have mental contents (semantics). 
> Premise A3: Syntax is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics. 
> 
> Ergo, 
> 
> Conclusion C1: Programs are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for minds.
> 
> So then Searle gives us at least four targets at which to aim (three premises and the opportunity to deny that his conclusion follows).
> 
> He continues with more formal arguments to defend his philosophy of mind, what he calls biological naturalism, but if C1 doesn't hold then we needn't consider them. 
> 
> I came back to ExI after a long hiatus (I have 6000+ unread messages in my ExI mail folder) because I was struck by the fact that Wernicke's aphasia lends support to A3, normally considered the only controversial premise in his argument.
> 
> -gts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Like most of us here, he subscribes to and
>> promotes a species of naturalism. He [Searle] adamantly
>> rejects both property and substance dualism. You won't
>> find any mystical hocus-pocus in his philosophy.
>> 
>> Bullshit. He thinks intelligent behavior is possible
>> without consciousness so evolution could not have produced
>> consciousness, no way no how. He has no other explanation
>> how it came to be so to explain its existence he has no
>> choice but to resort to mystical
>> hocus-pocus.
>> he allows for the possibility
>> of Strong Artificial Intelligence. He just doesn't think
>> it possible with formal programs running on hardware. Not
>> hardware enough!
>> 
>> So if atoms are arranged in a way that produces a
>> human brain those atoms can produce consciousness and if
>> arranged as a computer they can too, provided the computer
>> doesn't use hardware or software. Don't you find
>> that idea just a little bit stupid?
>>  John K Clark 
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091208/903becc9/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Dec  8 15:43:05 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:43:05 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <367275.93635.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <367275.93635.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <48F499D6-0600-4160-AD1E-F9BB44CFB4B4@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> He explains exactly why in his formal argument: 
> 
> Premise A1: Programs are formal (syntactic).
> Premise A2: Minds have mental contents (semantics). 
> Premise A3: Syntax is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics. 
> Ergo, 
> Conclusion C1: Programs are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for minds.

So he assumes that programs can't have minds and then triumphantly concludes that programs can't have minds. I don't think creationists like Searle are very bright.

 John K Clark



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091208/09b23816/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Dec  8 16:00:02 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 11:00:02 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912080434n59c5a5e8m67e9e47877f208e9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <910546.13745.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<870A3F6D-298C-4967-8B21-4D37BFCF4FDE@bellsouth.net>
	<f21c22e30912080434n59c5a5e8m67e9e47877f208e9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DE5518DF-8B1F-40A7-90DB-23A5EB3A83EB@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:34 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> No, the man could still be completely ignorant of Chinese. Chinese is
> difficult, but you could probably get a patient idiot to carry out a
> simpler computation in his head following mechanical rules, but have
> no idea what he was doing.

If that is possible then Darwin was wrong. I don't think Darwin was wrong.

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091208/f58c2d26/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Dec  8 15:54:51 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:54:51 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912080423v3f21a4e7u2457276601125a1c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <998024.79732.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30912080423v3f21a4e7u2457276601125a1c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AFEC67C4-52F9-4FF6-9BA1-3FD703296FA5@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:23 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> It is probably true that syntax is not sufficient for semantics. We
> could study an alien language and, with enough examples, work out all
> the criteria for well-formed sentences, but still not have the
> faintest idea what even a single word in the language means.

I think we could understand what an alien book on pure mathematics means but never mind, a computer could figure out what words mean the same way that we do, by examples. I don't see why Searle thinks that straightforward process can only proceed in the 3 pounds of grey goo in our head and is inaccessible to silicon. 

 John K Clark  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091208/3061cfdc/attachment.html>

From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 18:12:01 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:12:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912080359j2fe08cd8xe2bcc176d0069be1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <101682.31015.qm@web59911.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Actually, I accept possible placebo effects of Santa, astrology, crystals, etc. 
In fact that might be the entire point.


You probably wouldn't put up this argument in defence of other sorts
of nonsense, such as a belief in Santa Claus, or astrology, or the
power of crystals to heal disease, or any number of things which you
would dismiss as just obviously crap. Why should religious nonsense
get special consideration?

--
Stathis Papaioannou


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091208/9f6b7f70/attachment.html>

From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 18:27:35 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:27:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] tolerance
Message-ID: <137321.58391.qm@web59905.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

There isn't any significance, it was purely academic. My collateral?point is: intellectuals can't reduce, say, a family unit to symbols; the husband isn't h, the wife isn't w, the children are not x,y,z. My perhaps irrelevant (to this list) opinion is that hyper-intellectualism can reduce humans to mere abstractions, and?perceive the cosmos as being almost VR. 
Which?might smack of intolerance.
?
?
From: Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.
I don't understand what significance this has, neither the stats nor the question.? Could you explain?

Ben Zaiboc



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091208/e779eddc/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 20:47:46 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 21:47:46 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912080359j2fe08cd8xe2bcc176d0069be1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <973172.81999.qm@web59914.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30912080359j2fe08cd8xe2bcc176d0069be1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912081247teed175g8d26e7d17b8345a@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/8 Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>:
>> ?If there is no God, then what fills the vacuum left by God's absence? Dawkins or someone else fills the void.

Gods are not created equal.

I certainly do no consider Mr. Dawkins as mine, but I can live very
well with the fact that human beings are bounds to have some kind of
"religious" identity in the very broadest sense of the word. My
problem is that I do not like it to be of a metaphysical,
superstitious, universalist, repressive, escathological,
anti-scientific, anti-promethean, and, yes, ultimately
anti-transhumanist nature as is the case for the Big Monotheistic
Trio.

Especially since even amongst "traditional" religions (let alone other
equally plausibly satisfactory philosophical persuasions) this need
not be the case.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 20:30:01 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:30:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <mailman.783.1260242328.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <617130.15122.qm@web32001.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

From: Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com> wrote:

> putting aside the metaphysics involved, I can think of one practical reason right off the bat to respect-- but not necessarily like-- religion.
Say there was no religious prohibition on adultery. Then more husbands than would otherwise cheat on their wives, more families would eventually break up, the wives and children get on welfare, and libertarians have more lazy people to complain about who don't take care of their children. We can't have that?:)


Aha.  I received a digest out of order, which is why I missed this.  It was Emlyn, not you, who posted the stats about divorce.

Anyway, this all depends on a bunch of very conventional assumptions:

That not having a religious prohibition on 'adultery' would mean more husbands having extramarital sex.
That 'cheating' on your wife is necessarily bad, and without her consent, etc.
That this would lead to the breakup of families.
That families breaking up would lead to wives and children on welfare.
That people on welfare are lazy.
That lazy people on welfare complain about their children not being taken care of.


A pretty tenuous chain of assumptions, I think.

As most religions tend to reinforce these conventions, I'd say they have more of a negative than a positive effect.  Don't you think people would be happier if their religion said it was fine to have extramarital sex providing everyone involved was fully aware of what was going on, and  agreed to it?  It's the abrahamic religions' attitude of fear and disgust towards sex that created these problems in the first place, and you're saying you respect them for this?

There are a large (and growing) number of polyamorous people for whom these problems don't exist, because they take the trouble to communicate with each other, and are honest with each other.  I've never actually seen what any of the majority religions' attitude on polyamory is, but I'd hazard a guess that it's not a supportive one.

Ben Zaiboc


      


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 21:07:12 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:07:12 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <617130.15122.qm@web32001.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.783.1260242328.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<617130.15122.qm@web32001.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912081307j5761a2f1p6e8d5c6dc21bd521@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/8 Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com>:
> As most religions tend to reinforce these conventions, I'd say they have more of a negative than a positive effect. ?Don't you think people would be happier if their religion said it was fine to have extramarital sex providing everyone involved was fully aware of what was going on, and ?agreed to it? ?It's the abrahamic religions' attitude of fear and disgust towards sex that created these problems in the first place, and you're saying you respect them for this?

Yep. I wanted to post something along this exact lines, but then I
decided to drop the idea since I doubted  to be able to explain such
point in US English.... :-D

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Dec  8 22:12:32 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 23:12:32 +0100
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <163726.13368.qm@web32003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.774.1260226258.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<163726.13368.qm@web32003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912081412l1c54e7b2mdf73536a533e215b@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/8 Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com>:
> Hmm, that leaves precious few religions that do not. ?Christianity certainly isn't one of them. ?Before you object, consider that the only thing that restrains it is secular law, whereas Islam has no such restraint. ?Go back a few hundred years and find a religion that did not practice the killing of unbelievers. ?Even Buddhism isn't spotless in this regard.

I beg to differ. With the exception of middle-east monotheisms, and
unless and until confronted therewith, it seems to me that most world
religions could not care less about "unbelief".

Can you imagine, say, a druid trying to obtain the forced conversion
of a war prisoner? Aboriginal Austrialians fighting against one
another on the basis of theological dissents? A Zen practitioner
attacking a shinto shrine? Venus partisans against Iuppiter partisans
in ancient Rome?

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 22:41:05 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:41:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <883322.8210.qm@web59902.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Having grown up in the '60s with wild characters, I saw it all by age 13; so it doesn't happen to bother me in the slightest. 

But I have no kids. 

You would have to ask unbiased statisticians as to whether or not permissive has an overall negative effect. It may have a negative effect in the short run, but in the long run a beneficial effect. Perhaps by mid-century people will be genuinely "free".

Anyway, the only thing that seemed extremely unreasonable was thousands blaming Reagan for not caring about HIV and allegedly
hoping AIDS would thin the gay herd. Reagan probably didn't pay
attention and if he did he almost certainly thought it was none of his
concern. He had other things on his mind.




?
Don't you think people would be happier if their religion said it was
fine to have extramarital sex providing everyone involved was fully
aware of what was going on, and? agreed to it?? It's the abrahamic
religions' attitude of fear and disgust towards sex that created these
problems in the first place, and you're saying you respect them for
this? There are a large (and growing) number of polyamorous people for
whom these problems don't exist, because they take the trouble to
communicate with each other, and are honest with each other.? I've
never actually seen what any of the majority religions' attitude on
polyamory is, but I'd hazard a guess that it's not a supportive one.

Ben Zaiboc


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091208/3df71d7b/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  8 23:24:48 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <4B1E50F2.5000507@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <5734.42256.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Anders,

> How does Searle take Clark and Chalmer's extended mind concept?
> 
> (My guess: he doesn't believe in it)

Not sure he's ever considered it, but I agree he would not believe in it. 

Odd that you should mention it, by the way. I seem to recall bringing that obscure paper to the attention of people here about a million years ago in a discussion about qualia. I found it intriguing because it made sense of qualia without assaulting common sense. According to that preposterous theory, people say tomatoes are red because tomatoes are red. 

-gts


      


From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Dec  9 00:51:28 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:51:28 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <475553.36640.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912080443m3d5243del3fe6617ca6743f51@mail.gmail.com> 
	<475553.36640.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912081651x3255717dmc5ca41100ce3823c@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/9 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
> --- On Tue, 12/8/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Premise A1: Programs are formal (syntactic).
>> Premise A2: Minds have mental contents (semantics).
>> Premise A3: Syntax is neither constitutive of nor
>> sufficient for semantics.
>
>
>> The A1/A2 dichotomy is deceptive. A human child learns that
>> if it utters a particular word it gets a particular response, and
>> a computer program can learn the same thing. Why would you say the
>> child "understands" the word but the program doesn't?
>
> Presumably the child has mental contents, i.e., semantics, that accompany if not also cause its behaviors, whereas the machine intelligence has only syntactical rules (even if self-written) that define its behaviors.

The child learns to make a particular noise when it is hungry and that
*becomes* semantics. The syntax is more difficult and comes later.

> Keep in mind, and this is in reply also to one of your other messages, that Searle has no problem whatsoever with weak AI. He believes Software/Hardware systems will eventually mimic the behaviors of humans, pass the Turing test and in the eyes of behaviorists exceed the intelligence of humans.
>
> But will such S/H systems have semantic understanding? More generally, will any S/H system running a formal program have what philosophers call intentionality? Never, says Searle. The Turing test will give false positives.

Searle's insistence that weak AI is possible but not strong AI is his
other big failing. He has not addressed David Chalmer's argument in
his 1995 paper (http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html) showing that IF
it is possible to replicate the behaviour of neurons with electronic
replacements THEN any subjective experiences associated with the
original neurons will also be replicated. In fact, I've never seen an
attempt at a rebuttal of this argument by anyone who has understood
it.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Dec  9 00:57:06 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:57:06 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <101682.31015.qm@web59911.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912080359j2fe08cd8xe2bcc176d0069be1@mail.gmail.com> 
	<101682.31015.qm@web59911.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912081657p64a8b681u1e5e329cd357f8a4@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/9 Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com>
>
> Actually, I accept possible placebo effects of Santa, astrology, crystals, etc.
> In fact that might be the entire point.
>
> > You probably wouldn't put up this argument in defence of other sorts
> > of nonsense, such as a belief in Santa Claus, or astrology, or the
> > power of crystals to heal disease, or any number of things which you
> > would dismiss as just obviously crap. Why should religious nonsense
> > get special consideration?

Sometimes it is appropriate to tell or even believe lies, but in
general the truth is better.


--
Stathis Papaioannou


From anders at aleph.se  Wed Dec  9 01:05:09 2009
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:05:09 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: 5734.42256.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Message-ID: <20091209010509.626fa8a9@secure.ericade.net>

Gordon Swobe:
> Anders,
> > How does Searle take Clark and Chalmer's extended mind concept?
> > 
> > (My guess: he doesn't believe in it)
> 
> Not sure he's ever considered it, but I agree he would not believe in it. 
> 
> Odd that you should mention it, by the way. I seem to recall bringing that
> obscure paper to the attention of people here about a million years ago in a
> discussion about qualia. 


I came across it tonight - in the context of time management! Heylighen, Francis and Vidal, Cl?ment (2007) Getting Things Done: The Science behind Stress-Free Productivity, http://cogprints.org/5904/
is a nice little overview of Allens GTD method for time management, which they try to link with situated and distributed cognition. Useful transhumanist reading. 

So not only does it solve qualia, it also helps time management :-)


Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University 


From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Dec  9 01:07:25 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:07:25 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
In-Reply-To: <20091208131339.GU17686@leitl.org>
References: <910546.13745.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<870A3F6D-298C-4967-8B21-4D37BFCF4FDE@bellsouth.net> 
	<f21c22e30912080434n59c5a5e8m67e9e47877f208e9@mail.gmail.com> 
	<20091208131339.GU17686@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912081707l1a577cic002bce8e1180f4c@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/9 Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 11:34:25PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>> No, the man could still be completely ignorant of Chinese. Chinese is
>> difficult, but you could probably get a patient idiot to carry out a
>
> Your idiot has to be able to simulate a neuron by hand. That means
> holding a lot of state, and doing billions of computations by hand
> more or less accurately.
>
>> simpler computation in his head following mechanical rules, but have
>
> Let's drop the "in his head" requirement, because It's Just Not Possible.
>
>> no idea what he was doing.
>
> It would take a genius to figure out what he's doing. It would
> be worse than an ant mapping New York.

An idiot who can add and subtract and follow instructions could do
more complex computations in which only these operations are required
without understanding what it is he is doing.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From kanzure at gmail.com  Wed Dec  9 01:14:21 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:14:21 -0600
Subject: [ExI] SKDB (apt-get for hardware) presentation from H+ Summit 2009
Message-ID: <55ad6af70912081714g2bc708afx2bd1f511a2909df1@mail.gmail.com>

Hey all,

I edited (split up) the videos and threw them up on youtube. You can
see fenn and I talking about SKDB in a broader context (this is not
the technical nitty-gritty).

http://bit.ly/50Fi1g
http://bit.ly/5jvyjG
http://bit.ly/87ntrh

slides: http://adl.serveftp.org/~bryan/presentations/hplus-summit-2009/hplus-summit-2009-how-to-make.pdf

More details:
http://openmanufacturing.org/
http://adl.serveftp.org/dokuwiki/skdb
git clone http://adl.serveftp.org/skdb.git
#hplusroadmap on irc.freenode.net

There was also a brief mention of the open source hardware
cooperative, and the feedback has been fantastic so far. Let's keep
things rolling.. hope you enjoy the videos. :-)

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507


From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  9 01:26:23 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 17:26:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912081657p64a8b681u1e5e329cd357f8a4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <858729.23330.qm@web59912.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

"Truth"? now don't go using those arcane words on us!
If only truth were objective.

Sometimes it is appropriate to tell or even believe lies, but in
general the truth is better.


--
Stathis Papaioannou



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091208/0c572031/attachment.html>

From max at maxmore.com  Wed Dec  9 02:02:59 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:02:59 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA
Message-ID: <200912090203.nB9239uT013820@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


>I came across it tonight - in the context of 
>time management! Heylighen, Francis and Vidal, 
>Cl?ment (2007) Getting Things Done: The Science 
>behind Stress-Free Productivity, 
>http://cogprints.org/5904/ is a nice little 
>overview of Allens GTD method for time 
>management, which they try to link with situated 
>and distributed cognition. Useful transhumanist reading.

I like Allen's system too. I reviewed Getting 
Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity:
http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreco.aspx?coid=CO67011150213

See also Allen's:
Ready for Anything: 52 Productivity Principles for Work and Life
http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreco.aspx?coid=CO1230415323614

Max


-------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
Extropy Institute Founder
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com
------------------------------------- 



From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Dec  9 04:02:32 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:02:32 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <858729.23330.qm@web59912.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912081657p64a8b681u1e5e329cd357f8a4@mail.gmail.com> 
	<858729.23330.qm@web59912.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912082002y3832dabevb1e8f442c7d6775a@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/9 Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com>
>
> "Truth"? now don't go using those arcane words on us!
> If only truth were objective.

I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples where you would bet your
life it was true or bet your life it was untrue, even though you can
never be *absolutely* certain of any empirical fact.


--
Stathis Papaioannou


From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  9 04:27:46 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:27:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912082002y3832dabevb1e8f442c7d6775a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <416321.74195.qm@web59916.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Naturally. But disingenuousness may be more social-cohesion promoting than we know. How long would a given couple stay together if they told each other the truth too often? people tell little 'white' lies all the time to smooth things over. 
But getting back to placebo:
?placebo may be more potent than we know. Sitting in church for two hours may offer as much (or more) health benefit as taking supplements & pharmaceuticals, or, say, listening to a two hour non-mystical lecture.


I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples where you would bet your
life it was true or bet your life it was untrue, even though you can
never be *absolutely* certain of any empirical fact.



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091208/016a0fe0/attachment.html>

From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Wed Dec  9 05:00:32 2009
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 21:00:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <416321.74195.qm@web59916.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <392539.30313.qm@web110410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

--- On Tue, 12/8/09, Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com> wrote:
> But dis ingenuousness may be more social-cohesion promoting than we know. How long would a given couple stay together if they told each other the truth too often? 

Well let's try to find out:)

> people tell little 'white' lies all the time to smooth things over. 

there is a big difference between being polite and telling a lie.  

> But getting back to placebo: placebo may be more potent than we know. Sitting in church for two hours may offer as much (or more) health benefit as taking supplements & pharmaceuticals, or,say, listening to a two hour non-mystical lecture.

Let's define placebo: a control group..damn that sounds pretty religious.
 
>> I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples where you would bet your
life it was true or bet your life it was untrue, even though you can never be *absolutely* certain of any empirical fact

There have been moments.  After careful calculations you can usually get the truth especially if you search for it:) 

Anna:)


      __________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.


From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Wed Dec  9 05:17:09 2009
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 21:17:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <959388F1-BD3F-41C7-B4C2-EB5D15B10BED@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <887413.26405.qm@web110404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

--- On Tue, 12/8/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> So do you think the word "stupid" should be removed from the English language? 

Actually I think "stupid" could at times be replaced by "ignorance".

> And if you can't use that word in reference to religion when in the
world can you use it? 

2+2=5:)

> We are not talking about some esoteric point in physics, we are talking about people who want to crash airliners into skyscrapers and the moderates who give them cover by demanding respect for a particular brand of mind cancer. I make no apology in calling that stupid as well as evil.

There is a huge difference between stupid and evil.  Stupid is as stupid does while evil lashes out to unwarranted events to make examples instead of giving alternative ideas. 

Just an idea:)
Anna




      __________________________________________________________________
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 spike66 at att.net  Wed Dec  9 06:06:39 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:06:39 -0800
Subject: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
In-Reply-To: <580930c20912081412l1c54e7b2mdf73536a533e215b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.774.1260226258.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><163726.13368.qm@web32003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<580930c20912081412l1c54e7b2mdf73536a533e215b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1217FE34C4284AAEA6F1BFE768DACA2E@spike>

> Subject: Re: [ExI] pat condell's latest subtle rant
> 
> 2009/12/8 Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com>:
> > Hmm, that leaves precious few religions that do not. ?
> Christianity certainly isn't one of them. ?Before you object, 
> consider that the only thing that restrains it is secular 
> law, whereas Islam has no such restraint. ?Go back a few 
> hundred years and find a religion that did not practice the 
> killing of unbelievers. ?Even Buddhism isn't spotless in this regard.

There has really been only one general circumstance under which organized
religions have supported and carried out the slaying of unbelievers.  They
have done this only when given the opportunity.

Now we learn that the US is preventing the return of the hidden Madhi, and
Ahmadinijad can prove it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579640,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g4:r2
:c0.000000:b29258552:z10

The nerve of that country!  Preventing the savior of mankind from returning!

After reading all the goings on here about religion this and religion that,
I am beginning to suspect it is one of you guys that is doing it.  John, is
it you?  Or anyone here?  Fess up, where are you hiding him?  Hand him over
forthwith, or NO VIRGINS for YOU!

spike






From estropico at gmail.com  Wed Dec  9 09:04:56 2009
From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:04:56 +0000
Subject: [ExI] ExtroBritannia: The Way Ahead
Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90912090104ua39ba48u5d28b2679329006a@mail.gmail.com>

Venue: Room 538, Birkbeck College.
Date: Saturday 19th December.
Time: 1pm-3pm.

PLEASE NOTE EARLIER START THAN FOR USUAL MEETINGS.

Topic: Group discussion on Extrobritannia activities, 2009-2010.

Attendees: The meeting is open to anyone interested in supporting
Extrobritannia activities.

Proposed agenda:

1.) Results of online survey. Discussion of points arising.

2.) Input to SWOT for Extrobritannia (list of Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and Threats)

3.) Proposal re membership scheme and group finances

4.) Plans for "Humanity+, UK 2010"

5.) Relations with other H+ organisations (world, EU...)

6.) Any proposals or reports on specific projects or activities
(ideally circulated, or at least mentioned, in advance)

7.) (Optional) Retire to the nearby Marlborough Arms pub for
refreshment and informal discussion.


From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Wed Dec  9 15:08:52 2009
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 9:08:52 -0600
Subject: [ExI] SKDB (apt-get for hardware) presentation from H+ Summit
 2009
In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70912081714g2bc708afx2bd1f511a2909df1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091209150852.YKLK6.410576.root@hrndva-web28-z02>

---- Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote: 
> Hey all,
> 
> I edited (split up) the videos and threw them up on youtube. You can
> see fenn and I talking about SKDB in a broader context (this is not
> the technical nitty-gritty).
> 
> http://bit.ly/50Fi1g
> http://bit.ly/5jvyjG
> http://bit.ly/87ntrh

These were not particularly enlightening as there was really not a lot that hasn't been hashed around since the late 70's (ever hear of Toffler?) and 80's. This is in many ways the same sort of stuff we were talking about at Discovery Hall and (for example) the first Cyberspace Conference that was held here in Austin in 1990 if memory serves.

Free software didn't start with Richard and the FSF (which started in '84) it goes way back to DECUS and the original hackers at MIT. Then we talked about copyleft now we talk GPL. Same idea different coat.

Finally, society isn't going digital. It's communications and storage infrastructure is. This is a subtle but major distinction to be made and understood. What this means is that the real value of material that is digitizable will become clear, it isn't worth much. Real economic value will come from the things that people need to interact with their environment.

I have noticed a common thread in a lot of this transhumanism/free technology discussions over the last ten years, it's like anything before about mid-1980's doesn't exist. There seems to be a major disconnect between the younger generation of 'hackers' and the actual history of hacking technology. A recent example of this was the discussion on the Robot Group mailing list about the 8-cube several of the members made and then were looking for applications.  Several of the comments made during that discussion referred back to material that was at best 80's and several important aspects from earlier times was unknown or seriously confused; hadn't heard of ONAG and there was some serious confusion about how the nomenclature of CAs came about. These cubes are also rather amusing as the common theme is they are somehow new and different, when in fact they were a pretty common project for hackers in the late 70's playing around with their 6502/6800/8080/z80 SBCs.

There really needs to be more effort put into looking farther back as we're going to end up recreating the wheel, not only technologically but also philosophically. Just remember Santayana,

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

James Choate
jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at twcable.com
512-657-1279
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Wed Dec  9 16:10:17 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 17:10:17 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <367275.93635.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <EC6D5FB6-DAF5-4CD5-ACB6-12AC6911FA43@bellsouth.net>
	<367275.93635.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912090810p28d0f6fkafa15286510f38c4@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Tue, 12/8/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > But for some reason this mysterious phase change only
> > happens to 3 pounds of grey goo in our head and never
> > happens in his Chinese Room. He never explains why.
>
> He explains exactly why in his formal argument:
>
> Premise A1: Programs are formal (syntactic).
> Premise A2: Minds have mental contents (semantics).
> Premise A3: Syntax is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics


A question, how is semantics defined in this context? I have doubts that it
can be defined narrowly enough to allow for semantics in human minds, but
not in sufficiently complex computer programs.

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091209/0c36ca62/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Wed Dec  9 17:29:10 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:29:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <887413.26405.qm@web110404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <887413.26405.qm@web110404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <31136E73-DA7D-48AA-8BF3-CFA09635D87D@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 9, 2009, at Anna Taylor wrote:

> Actually I think "stupid" could at times be replaced by "ignorance".

And I think "stupid" is a perfectly respectable word that does an adequate job describing a certain type of brain function and I see no reason not to use it where appropriate. Such as, religion is stupid. 

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091209/20066254/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Dec  9 17:50:59 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:50:59 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <31136E73-DA7D-48AA-8BF3-CFA09635D87D@bellsouth.net>
References: <887413.26405.qm@web110404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<31136E73-DA7D-48AA-8BF3-CFA09635D87D@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <580930c20912090950t37dbf0b0s55f4633eaa69296b@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/9 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> And I think "stupid" is a perfectly respectable word that does an adequate
> job describing a certain type of brain function and I see no reason not to
> use it where appropriate.

I think stupid may plausibly mean, depending the circumstances, both
somebody believing in naive and crazy ideas *and* the contrary of
astute and clever.

Personally, I am inclined to consider the supporters of the religions
of the Book as "stupid" in the first sense, but not necessarily nor
always in the second. Far from it...

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Wed Dec  9 18:17:53 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:17:53 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <580930c20912090950t37dbf0b0s55f4633eaa69296b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <887413.26405.qm@web110404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<31136E73-DA7D-48AA-8BF3-CFA09635D87D@bellsouth.net>
	<580930c20912090950t37dbf0b0s55f4633eaa69296b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <190ADF20-92BF-42D5-BB67-1BDB55CAA150@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 9, 2009,  Stefano Vaj wrote:

> I think stupid may plausibly mean, depending the circumstances, both
> somebody believing in naive and crazy ideas *and* the contrary of
> astute and clever.

Crazy, not just odd but crazy ideas are pretty close to the contrary of astute and clever. And I think one can decide to be stupid, as in a surgeon who doesn't believe in the cornerstone of the biological sciences, Evolution; or a structural engineer who doesn't believe in Newton's theory of gravitation. Actually such things are possible provided you put your ideas in little airtight compartments and refuse to let them interact, but that's just a longwinded way of saying the word stupid. 

>  I am inclined to consider the supporters of the religions
> of the Book as "stupid" in the first sense, but not necessarily nor
> always in the second. Far from it...

Oh come now Stefano, we both know its really not that far.

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091209/49ccfd58/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  9 20:23:50 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:23:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912081651x3255717dmc5ca41100ce3823c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <663216.30606.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Tue, 12/8/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> The child learns to make a particular noise when it is
> hungry and that *becomes* semantics. The syntax is more 
> difficult and comes later.

No matter which comes first, semantics, broadly defined), involves conscious awareness of some object or idea, i.e., *intentionality*.

Here we have a good working definition of intentionality: 

"Intentionality is the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs." 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/

I once tried to deny the existence of intentionality. I found the idea of the non-existence of intentionality pretty difficult to hold in mind, because to hold anything in mind is to have intentionality.

And Searle says this beast called intentionality cannot live inside S/H systems. That's what his Chinese Room Argument is all about.

> [Sear;e] has not addressed David Chalmer's argument in
> his 1995 paper (http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html) showing that IF
> it is possible to replicate the behaviour of neurons with
> electronic replacements THEN any subjective experiences associated
> with the original neurons will also be replicated. 

IF pigs had wings THEN pigs could fly, but this does not refute the arguments of those who don't believe pigs fly! :-)

Seriously, as I've stated elsewhere, contrary to popular opinion Searle does not dismiss the possibility of strong AI.

He argues this way:

1) Formal programs running on hardware cannot have semantics. 

2) Because human brains have semantics, human brains must do something besides run formal programs. They must have some causal powers that science has yet to understand. 

Now then, IF we first come to understand those causal powers of brains and IF we then find a way to duplicate those powers in something other than brains, THEN we will create strong AI. On that day, pigs will fly.

-gts


      


From scerir at libero.it  Wed Dec  9 20:42:15 2009
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:42:15 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI]  russian fireworks
Message-ID: <21803962.1966481260391335455.JavaMail.root@wmail35>

spiral blue light display hovers above Norway
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1234430/Mystery-spiral-blue-
light-display-hovers-Norway.html

but another strange light appeared in connection with
a Russian rocket flight ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV08q4SCaBQ



From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  9 21:00:41 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:00:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912090810p28d0f6fkafa15286510f38c4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <523297.37972.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Wed, 12/9/09, Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Premise A1: Programs are formal (syntactic).
>> Premise A2: Minds have mental contents (semantics).
>> Premise A3: Syntax is neither constitutive of nor
>> sufficient for semantics

> A question, how is semantics defined in this context? 

By "having semantics" Searle means not only the ability to have conscious understanding of the meanings of words or symbols (as in the meanings of his Chinese symbols) but also the ability to have any conscious awareness of any thing or idea, real or imaginary. In this sense "semantics" equals "mental contents".

-gts



      


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Dec  9 21:10:29 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:10:29 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <190ADF20-92BF-42D5-BB67-1BDB55CAA150@bellsouth.net>
References: <887413.26405.qm@web110404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<31136E73-DA7D-48AA-8BF3-CFA09635D87D@bellsouth.net>
	<580930c20912090950t37dbf0b0s55f4633eaa69296b@mail.gmail.com>
	<190ADF20-92BF-42D5-BB67-1BDB55CAA150@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <580930c20912091310x12bde748w9ba115c594120e1d@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/9 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> On Dec 9, 2009, ?Stefano Vaj wrote:
> I think stupid may plausibly mean, depending the circumstances, both
> somebody believing in naive and crazy ideas *and* the contrary of
> astute and clever.
>
> Crazy, not just odd but crazy ideas are pretty close to?the contrary
> of?astute and clever.

I think you are too optimistic about that. Many crazy, delirious and
ultimately stupid ideas have found exceptionally astute and eloquent
and devious and masterly and effective supporters in history. Think of
the Jesuits' (in)famous tradition. Were it not the case, we would have
rid ourselves of monotheism, or for that matter of bioluddites of all
persuasions, a long time ago... :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Dec  9 22:23:37 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:23:37 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <4B1E0E3E.5010708@rawbw.com>
References: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com>
	<239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM>
	<4B1E0E3E.5010708@rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0912091423m58240e2bi2d0209afcc4e1044@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/8/09, Lee Corbin wrote:
<snip>
>  But the strategy of alienating religious people yet further
>  isn't going to help, except in ways I would not condone.
>  They shouldn't be given any reason whatsoever to think
>  that life under the atheists has been as bad as (at many
>  times) life for us under the religious often was.
>
>  Alas, this is surely all wishful thinking on my part.
>  As soon as we are in the heavy majority, kids will
>  hear in school from their PC teachers that, so far
>  as religion goes, "there are the brights who don't
>  believe, and then, there are the others, less bright,
>  who do, and sadly some of you in this very class come
>  from disadvantaged homes..."
>
>
> > obviously I am not for declaring an intellectual war or anything. But I do
> think that atheists need to not be wishy-washy and somehow give the
> religious the idea we think their ideas about the nature of reality have
> merit.
> >
>
>  Again, I agree.
>

This new article seems relevant.........

<http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2009/12/09/dawkins-offers-delusion-removal-service-for-bereaved-and-dying/>

Dawkins offers delusion removal service for bereaved and dying

?Face Reality Now?, a new ?delusion removal? service set up by Richard
Dawkins, offers the soon to be bereaved an opportunity to confront
their dying friends and relations with their mortality.

?It?s a scandal that people continue to die unaware that really is
it,? explained Dr Dawkins. ?Now, for a small fee, my service will send
trained atheists to reassure the dying that they can forget about any
after life nonsense.?

The service also offers a comprehensive after death option in which
the funeral cortege is followed by men with loudhailers shouting,
?Stop comforting yourself with mumbo-jumbo. For God?s sake, he?s dead
? deal with it!?

But the Dawkins service has run into difficulties where some friends
of the dying are believers, but others aren?t. ?At a recent deathbed
scene,? admitted Dr Dawkins, ?my atheists turned up at the same time
as a Catholic priest. Things got a bit out of hand with a fight
breaking out around the dying man. Still, I?m pleased to say ?Face
Reality Now? won.?
-------------


BillK
(By the way, this is a satirical article)  :)


From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Dec  9 23:17:14 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:17:14 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <663216.30606.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912081651x3255717dmc5ca41100ce3823c@mail.gmail.com> 
	<663216.30606.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912091517o364fecc2y8db65120760701e1@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/10 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
> --- On Tue, 12/8/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The child learns to make a particular noise when it is
>> hungry and that *becomes* semantics. The syntax is more
>> difficult and comes later.
>
> No matter which comes first, semantics, broadly defined), involves conscious awareness of some object or idea, i.e., *intentionality*.
>
> Here we have a good working definition of intentionality:
>
> "Intentionality is the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs."
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/
>
> I once tried to deny the existence of intentionality. I found the idea of the non-existence of intentionality pretty difficult to hold in mind, because to hold anything in mind is to have intentionality.
>
> And Searle says this beast called intentionality cannot live inside S/H systems. That's what his Chinese Room Argument is all about.

And the counterargument is that of course the Chinese Room would have
semantics and intentionality and all the other good things that the
brain has. Only if consciousness were a side-effect of intelligent
behaviour would it have evolved.

>> [Sear;e] has not addressed David Chalmer's argument in
>> his 1995 paper (http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html) showing that IF
>> it is possible to replicate the behaviour of neurons with
>> electronic replacements THEN any subjective experiences associated
>> with the original neurons will also be replicated.
>
> IF pigs had wings THEN pigs could fly, but this does not refute the arguments of those who don't believe pigs fly! :-)

Searle agrees that it would be possible to replicate the behaviour of
neurons, but he thinks the resulting brain would be a zombie. This is
what Chalmer's paper shows  to be wrong. It's really worthwhile
reading the cited paper.

> Seriously, as I've stated elsewhere, contrary to popular opinion Searle does not dismiss the possibility of strong AI.
>
> He argues this way:
>
> 1) Formal programs running on hardware cannot have semantics.
>
> 2) Because human brains have semantics, human brains must do something besides run formal programs. They must have some causal powers that science has yet to understand.
>
> Now then, IF we first come to understand those causal powers of brains and IF we then find a way to duplicate those powers in something other than brains, THEN we will create strong AI. On that day, pigs will fly.

IF we simulate the externally observable behaviour of brains THEN we
will create strong AI.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  9 23:34:46 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:34:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <48F499D6-0600-4160-AD1E-F9BB44CFB4B4@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <803291.69674.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Tue, 12/8/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> A1: Programs are formal (syntactic).
>> A2: Minds have mental contents (semantics).?
>> A3: Syntax is neither constitutive of nor
>> sufficient for semantics.?
>> Ergo,?
>> C1: Programs are neither constitutive of nor
>> sufficient for minds.
> 
> So he assumes that programs can't have minds and
> then triumphantly concludes that programs can't have
> minds. 

I could hardly contain my excitement when I read your words. I thought, "Hey, maybe John has handed me a weapon to use in my debate with that Searlian philosophile over on that other discussion list! I wonder what that Searlian will say when he learns that his favorite professor made such an egregious error!"

I looked at the argument hoping to see what you see. I didn't see it, so leaned closer to my monitor, rubbed my chin and squinted my eyes. I still didn't see it.

Only A1 refers to programs, and I see nothing there about minds. In fact we could restate that premise without changing its meaning: "Programs are formal (syntactic) and may or may not be constitutive or sufficient for minds." 

-gts





      


From olga.bourlin at gmail.com  Wed Dec  9 23:28:14 2009
From: olga.bourlin at gmail.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:28:14 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0912091423m58240e2bi2d0209afcc4e1044@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com>
	<239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM>
	<4B1E0E3E.5010708@rawbw.com>
	<ee50357e0912091423m58240e2bi2d0209afcc4e1044@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e65701210912091528i5b7dd1cese2e5f782079c225b@mail.gmail.com>

Yep, satire.


But - and this is no satire -  Dawkins is a wuss. ;))



He aligns himself with ?cultural Christians,? and even goes along with
singing those treacly, annoying $$$mas carols.  Gads, there?s just no
accounting for some people?s taste.



http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2034


*Pa Ra Pa* Pum Pum!

Olga



On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:23 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/8/09, Lee Corbin wrote:
> <snip>
> >  But the strategy of alienating religious people yet further
> >  isn't going to help, except in ways I would not condone.
> >  They shouldn't be given any reason whatsoever to think
> >  that life under the atheists has been as bad as (at many
> >  times) life for us under the religious often was.
> >
> >  Alas, this is surely all wishful thinking on my part.
> >  As soon as we are in the heavy majority, kids will
> >  hear in school from their PC teachers that, so far
> >  as religion goes, "there are the brights who don't
> >  believe, and then, there are the others, less bright,
> >  who do, and sadly some of you in this very class come
> >  from disadvantaged homes..."
> >
> >
> > > obviously I am not for declaring an intellectual war or anything. But I
> do
> > think that atheists need to not be wishy-washy and somehow give the
> > religious the idea we think their ideas about the nature of reality have
> > merit.
> > >
> >
> >  Again, I agree.
> >
>
> This new article seems relevant.........
>
> <
> http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2009/12/09/dawkins-offers-delusion-removal-service-for-bereaved-and-dying/
> >
>
> Dawkins offers delusion removal service for bereaved and dying
>
> ?Face Reality Now?, a new ?delusion removal? service set up by Richard
> Dawkins, offers the soon to be bereaved an opportunity to confront
> their dying friends and relations with their mortality.
>
> ?It?s a scandal that people continue to die unaware that really is
> it,? explained Dr Dawkins. ?Now, for a small fee, my service will send
> trained atheists to reassure the dying that they can forget about any
> after life nonsense.?
>
> The service also offers a comprehensive after death option in which
> the funeral cortege is followed by men with loudhailers shouting,
> ?Stop comforting yourself with mumbo-jumbo. For God?s sake, he?s dead
> ? deal with it!?
>
> But the Dawkins service has run into difficulties where some friends
> of the dying are believers, but others aren?t. ?At a recent deathbed
> scene,? admitted Dr Dawkins, ?my atheists turned up at the same time
> as a Catholic priest. Things got a bit out of hand with a fight
> breaking out around the dying man. Still, I?m pleased to say ?Face
> Reality Now? won.?
> -------------
>
>
> BillK
> (By the way, this is a satirical article)  :)
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091209/5207f60b/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 00:23:21 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:53:21 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0912091423m58240e2bi2d0209afcc4e1044@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com>
	<239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM>
	<4B1E0E3E.5010708@rawbw.com>
	<ee50357e0912091423m58240e2bi2d0209afcc4e1044@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912091623u3241e9a8jbaebd5a36f20de6e@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/10 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:
>
> This new article seems relevant.........
>
> <http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2009/12/09/dawkins-offers-delusion-removal-service-for-bereaved-and-dying/>
>
> Dawkins offers delusion removal service for bereaved and dying
>
> ?Face Reality Now?, a new ?delusion removal? service set up by Richard
> Dawkins, offers the soon to be bereaved an opportunity to confront
> their dying friends and relations with their mortality.

Nice :-)

I remember hearing someone speaking on radio I think, who was a
paliative care person, about the issue of deathbed conversions. He
said that it happens, but that it was far more common for people to
lose their faith at the end, and be in torment, staring down impending
death and realising everything they'd believed was a lie.

I wish I had a link or some kind of reference, it'll just have to
remain hearsay. Sorry.
-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 10 00:28:25 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:28:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <830069.68211.qm@web59916.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Christmas is quite silly, but most of its effluvia?has more taste than, say,?porn; which is no longer shocking for its sexuality, but for its general unimaginative tastelessness. As rote, stylized as Christmas. One silliness is traded for another.
Secular culture isn't much of an improvement over the religious. People want to be young at heart, however they end up being silly in the head instead.



--- On Wed, 12/9/09, Olga Bourlin <olga.bourlin at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Olga Bourlin <olga.bourlin at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Tolerance
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 6:28 PM







Yep, satire.? 



But - and this is no satire -? Dawkins is a wuss. ;)) 
? 
He aligns himself with ?cultural Christians,? and even goes along with singing those treacly, annoying $$$mas carols.? Gads, there?s just no accounting for some people?s taste. 

? 
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2034 

Pa Ra Pa Pum Pum!


Olga 




On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:23 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/8/09, Lee Corbin wrote:
<snip>
> ?But the strategy of alienating religious people yet further
> ?isn't going to help, except in ways I would not condone.
> ?They shouldn't be given any reason whatsoever to think
> ?that life under the atheists has been as bad as (at many
> ?times) life for us under the religious often was.
>
> ?Alas, this is surely all wishful thinking on my part.
> ?As soon as we are in the heavy majority, kids will
> ?hear in school from their PC teachers that, so far
> ?as religion goes, "there are the brights who don't
> ?believe, and then, there are the others, less bright,
> ?who do, and sadly some of you in this very class come
> ?from disadvantaged homes..."
>
>
> > obviously I am not for declaring an intellectual war or anything. But I do
> think that atheists need to not be wishy-washy and somehow give the
> religious the idea we think their ideas about the nature of reality have
> merit.
> >
>
> ?Again, I agree.
>

This new article seems relevant.........

<http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2009/12/09/dawkins-offers-delusion-removal-service-for-bereaved-and-dying/>

Dawkins offers delusion removal service for bereaved and dying

?Face Reality Now?, a new ?delusion removal? service set up by Richard
Dawkins, offers the soon to be bereaved an opportunity to confront
their dying friends and relations with their mortality.

?It?s a scandal that people continue to die unaware that really is
it,? explained Dr Dawkins. ?Now, for a small fee, my service will send
trained atheists to reassure the dying that they can forget about any
after life nonsense.?

The service also offers a comprehensive after death option in which
the funeral cortege is followed by men with loudhailers shouting,
?Stop comforting yourself with mumbo-jumbo. For God?s sake, he?s dead
? deal with it!?

But the Dawkins service has run into difficulties where some friends
of the dying are believers, but others aren?t. ?At a recent deathbed
scene,? admitted Dr Dawkins, ?my atheists turned up at the same time
as a Catholic priest. Things got a bit out of hand with a fight
breaking out around the dying man. Still, I?m pleased to say ?Face
Reality Now? won.?
-------------


BillK
(By the way, this is a satirical article) ?:)



_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091209/88faa5a3/attachment.html>

From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 10 00:30:09 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:30:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <639565.13465.qm@web59910.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>


Polite is another way of saying diplomatic;
'diplomatic' means evasive; obfuscation is the diplomats tool.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091209/00708e82/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 00:32:50 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:02:50 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <e65701210912091528i5b7dd1cese2e5f782079c225b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com>
	<239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM>
	<4B1E0E3E.5010708@rawbw.com>
	<ee50357e0912091423m58240e2bi2d0209afcc4e1044@mail.gmail.com>
	<e65701210912091528i5b7dd1cese2e5f782079c225b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912091632hd38827awcc6275841b95377d@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/10 Olga Bourlin <olga.bourlin at gmail.com>:
> Yep, satire.
>
> But - and this is no satire -? Dawkins is a wuss. ;))
>
>
>
> He aligns himself with ?cultural Christians,? and even goes along with
> singing those treacly, annoying $$$mas carols.? Gads, there?s just no
> accounting for some people?s taste.

Me too, I guess!

I think it's important to separate religion into culture +
metaphysical beliefs; they're not as tightly bound together as it
might seem. The metaphysical beliefs are the crazy stuff, culture is
the tradition+ritual+values which live separately from the crazy
beliefs, and are what underpins community.

The conflating of these two is one of the reasons so many religious
people are suspicious of atheists; they think we want to smash their
traditions & communities. I don't think that's the case at all. I'm
happy to do christmas & easter and all that stuff (although I'm not
cool with consumerism, a separate issue). Just don't expect me to
*believe* this stuff; it's myth, culture, stories.

Also, once you separate these things out, you can also excise the
odious stuff that some traditions include (eg: female genital
mutilation), because you can no longer have special pleading for these
things based on metaphysics; it's got to stand alone as a defensible
human behaviour. Walking around in funny hats, it's all good.
Mutilating people, not so much.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From spike66 at att.net  Thu Dec 10 00:21:22 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:21:22 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <e65701210912091528i5b7dd1cese2e5f782079c225b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com><239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM><4B1E0E3E.5010708@rawbw.com><ee50357e0912091423m58240e2bi2d0209afcc4e1044@mail.gmail.com>
	<e65701210912091528i5b7dd1cese2e5f782079c225b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <24CB2747AB3F4E8EB01B045ACDF7A968@spike>

 
...On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin
...

	>He aligns himself with "cultural Christians," and even goes along
with singing those treacly, annoying $$$mas carols.  Gads, there's just no
accounting for some people's taste. 

	http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2034

	
	>Pa Ra Pa Pum Pum!
	
	>Olga 

Does not that particular one drive ya nuts?  Every year, rum pa pum pum,
about a jillion times, until one is so mind-raped one cannot get the damn
tune to go away.  Every pop star has to have his or her own version of it,
perhaps because they like the notion of a performance being a gift.  But it
isn't even accurate: drums don't go rum pa pum pum, they go rat a tat tat.
Or if it's a rimshot, more like bluck a bluck bluck.  

Perhaps they were concerned with how to make that one rhyme.

spike










From spike66 at att.net  Thu Dec 10 01:17:07 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 17:17:07 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912091623u3241e9a8jbaebd5a36f20de6e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com><239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM><4B1E0E3E.5010708@rawbw.com><ee50357e0912091423m58240e2bi2d0209afcc4e1044@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0912091623u3241e9a8jbaebd5a36f20de6e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1947BA9A1CB740F0A1EFEB5C458BD549@spike>

...On Behalf Of Emlyn
...
> <http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2009/12/09/dawkins-offers-delusion-removal
> > -service-for-bereaved-and-dying/>
> >
> > Dawkins offers delusion removal service for bereaved and dying
> >
> > 'Face Reality Now', a new 'delusion removal' service set up 
> by Richard 
> > Dawkins, offers the soon to be bereaved an opportunity to confront 
> > their dying friends and relations with their mortality.
> 
> Nice :-)

Emlyn I think the whole thing was a parody, sort of like the Onion.

> ...deathbed 
> conversions. He said that it happens, but that it was far 
> more common for people to lose their faith at the end... Emlyn

My personal observations go as deep as exactly one data point, and it was a
late realization that this particular fundamentalist religion was wrong.
That particular conversion was most dramatic however.  WW1 veteran gunner on
a US Navy submarine, volunteer.  He got religion while under the sea
(Seventh Day Adventist) and decided he couldn't fire the guns if ordered to
do so.  So he realized he must turn himself in to his commander and end up
in the brig, followed by a dishonorable discharge.  But before he could do
so, that mercifully short war came to an end.

60 years went by.  He was a church leader.  One day he was up front, made a
most remarkable speech.  Jesus was not coming.  We had been wrong.  He died
five weeks later.

spike

 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Dec 10 02:29:27 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:29:27 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <1947BA9A1CB740F0A1EFEB5C458BD549@spike>
References: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com><239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM><4B1E0E3E.5010708@rawbw.com><ee50357e0912091423m58240e2bi2d0209afcc4e1044@mail.gmail.com>	<710b78fc0912091623u3241e9a8jbaebd5a36f20de6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1947BA9A1CB740F0A1EFEB5C458BD549@spike>
Message-ID: <4B205D07.60301@satx.rr.com>

On 12/9/2009 7:17 PM, spike wrote:

> He was a church leader.  One day he was up front, made a
> most remarkable speech.  Jesus was not coming.  We had been wrong.  He died
> five weeks later.

That'll teach the bastard.


From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 10 02:35:13 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:35:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912091632hd38827awcc6275841b95377d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <138413.75832.qm@web59910.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Surely you don't; however many men, very many, are predators and do want to, if not 'smash'  their traditions & communities, then take advantage of them in some way. If you go by mens' behavior rather than what they say then you see they are capable of more than you would think at first. One might say though there isn't much of an interest in smashing their communities, there might be an interest in corrupting their traditions.

they think we want to smash their
traditions & communities. I don't think that's the case at all. I'm
happy to do christmas & easter and all that stuff (although I'm not
cool with consumerism, a separate issue). Just don't expect me to
*believe* this stuff; it's myth, culture, stories.



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091209/9449cff3/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 02:59:59 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:29:59 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <138413.75832.qm@web59910.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <710b78fc0912091632hd38827awcc6275841b95377d@mail.gmail.com>
	<138413.75832.qm@web59910.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912091859h64fe0c6dg3394ccdfefad7cf0@mail.gmail.com>

These sorts of people are far more likely to turn up in religious apparel,
literal or figurative, imho.

Emlyn

2009/12/10 Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com>

> Surely you don't; however many men, very many, are predators and do want
> to, if not 'smash' their traditions & communities, then take advantage of
> them in some way. If you go by mens' behavior rather than what they say then
> you see they are capable of more than you would think at first. One might
> say though there isn't much of an interest in smashing their communities,
> there might be an interest in corrupting their traditions.
>
>
> they think we want to smash their
> traditions & communities. I don't think that's the case at all. I'm
> happy to do christmas & easter and all that stuff (although I'm not
> cool with consumerism, a separate issue). Just don't expect me to
> *believe* this stuff; it's myth, culture, stories.<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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091210/677985fa/attachment.html>

From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 03:08:08 2009
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:08:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912091632hd38827awcc6275841b95377d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com>
	<239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM>
	<4B1E0E3E.5010708@rawbw.com>
	<ee50357e0912091423m58240e2bi2d0209afcc4e1044@mail.gmail.com>
	<e65701210912091528i5b7dd1cese2e5f782079c225b@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0912091632hd38827awcc6275841b95377d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0EDCF996-CFF8-405E-92CC-2C79EF71EE42@GMAIL.COM>

>> He aligns himself with ?cultural Christians,? and even goes along  
>> with
>> singing those treacly, annoying $$$mas carols.  Gads, there?s just no
>> accounting for some people?s taste.
>
> Me too, I guess!
>
> I think it's important to separate religion into culture +
> metaphysical beliefs; they're not as tightly bound together as it
> might seem. The metaphysical beliefs are the crazy stuff, culture is
> the tradition+ritual+values which live separately from the crazy
> beliefs, and are what underpins community.... I'm happy to do  
> christmas & easter and all that stuff (although I'm not cool with  
> consumerism, a separate issue). Just don't expect me to *believe*  
> this stuff; it's myth, culture, stories...
> Emlyn
I don't really like Easter, because I see no real point in the  
tradition in and of itself (I don't want to celebrate fertility or  
spring or the harvest, I enjoy fall and winter far more, myself). But  
I do celebrate Christmas. Generally don't do most of the religious  
carols, but some, depending on what they say and so forth (I generally  
just equate God with goodness and that's basically the same).

I celebrate Christmas because it serves as a special time to be with  
those you care about and show you care through the exchange of gifts.  
I happen to think its wonderful that it is consumeristic, because,  
provided you don't pile up debt in order to pay for your gifts, it is  
a display of how productive you've been. Its one big celebration of  
productivity and the trading of values (caring, gifts, etc.)! Just  
about as close to perfect a holiday as you can get, in my opinion.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 10 03:14:54 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:14:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912091859h64fe0c6dg3394ccdfefad7cf0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <972135.83783.qm@web59901.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

You might be correct. But taking 'predator' in the general sense, when you lock your door at night you are not trying to protect yourself from Christians, are you? 

I find Christians to be silly at worst, harmless at best.



These sorts of people are far more likely to turn up in religious apparel, literal or figurative, imho.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091209/4db2497a/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 03:21:17 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:51:17 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <0EDCF996-CFF8-405E-92CC-2C79EF71EE42@GMAIL.COM>
References: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com>
	<239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM>
	<4B1E0E3E.5010708@rawbw.com>
	<ee50357e0912091423m58240e2bi2d0209afcc4e1044@mail.gmail.com>
	<e65701210912091528i5b7dd1cese2e5f782079c225b@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0912091632hd38827awcc6275841b95377d@mail.gmail.com>
	<0EDCF996-CFF8-405E-92CC-2C79EF71EE42@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912091921w40f49331wd9350f94f1c342a1@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/10 JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com>:
>>> He aligns himself with ?cultural Christians,? and even goes along with
>>> singing those treacly, annoying $$$mas carols. ?Gads, there?s just no
>>> accounting for some people?s taste.
>>
>> Me too, I guess!
>>
>> I think it's important to separate religion into culture +
>> metaphysical beliefs; they're not as tightly bound together as it
>> might seem. The metaphysical beliefs are the crazy stuff, culture is
>> the tradition+ritual+values which live separately from the crazy
>> beliefs, and are what underpins community.... I'm happy to do christmas &
>> easter and all that stuff (although I'm not cool with consumerism, a
>> separate issue). Just don't expect me to *believe* this stuff; it's myth,
>> culture, stories...
>> Emlyn
>
> I don't really like Easter, because I see no real point in the tradition in
> and of itself (I don't want to celebrate fertility or spring or the harvest,
> I enjoy fall and winter far more, myself).

I'm a fan of chocolate eggs.

> But I do celebrate Christmas.
> Generally don't do most of the religious carols, but some, depending on what
> they say and so forth (I generally just equate God with goodness and that's
> basically the same).

Yes, same here, although there are some particularly God heavy,
onerous carols which drive me up the wall.

> I celebrate Christmas because it serves as a special time to be with those
> you care about and show you care through the exchange of gifts.

Exactly. There's the cultural aspect right there.

> I happen to
> think its wonderful that it is consumeristic, because, provided you don't
> pile up debt in order to pay for your gifts, it is a display of how
> productive you've been.

LOL! I'll have to disagree with you here. Consumerism is almost by
definition entirely detached from productivity. Really productive
people don't tend to me all that consumeristic in my experience, and
productivity and money definitely do not share a 1:1 relationship.
But, you know, if you want to show off your bank balance, you could
just email people a copy of your bank statement.

> Its one big celebration of productivity and the
> trading of values (caring, gifts, etc.)! Just about as close to perfect a
> holiday as you can get, in my opinion.

Shopping isn't productivity. Caring is something that doesn't have
much of a monetary component. Gifts are nice though.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 10 02:55:23 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:55:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <138413.75832.qm@web59910.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <248100.62284.qm@web59901.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Christmas appears silly, even infantile; worshiping a baby in a manger. But at one time it was more tradition, now it is more escapism than tradition.
To digress a bit, the greatest irony to me reviewing the last 40 years is how commercialized the counterculture has
  become. The whole idea was that they were supposed to offer an
  alternative to hyper-commercialized culture-- instead they ended
  up being even more tasteless, yet just as commercial, as the
  world they rejected. 
So, anyway, Christmas is as harmless as you can get.




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091209/18858bf3/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 03:24:05 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:54:05 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <972135.83783.qm@web59901.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <710b78fc0912091859h64fe0c6dg3394ccdfefad7cf0@mail.gmail.com>
	<972135.83783.qm@web59901.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912091924w5fdabcb1xb42967aa0e1dc0d7@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/10 Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com>

> You might be correct. But taking 'predator' in the general sense, when you
> lock your door at night you are not trying to protect yourself from
> Christians, are you?
>

Generally no, though I might be if I were a muslim in the wrong part of the
world.

But, equally I don't lock my door to protect myself from atheists!



> I find Christians to be silly at worst, harmless at best.


That's because nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

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

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091210/bdb0e319/attachment.html>

From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 10 03:46:37 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:46:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <638739.78756.qm@web59908.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Right, no reason to.? But somehow I'm sure more burglars are atheists than xians. A burglar might call himself an xian, but that's like Leon Kass calling himself a transhumanist. 
And since the Inquisition ended about 175 years ago, I'll sleep better-- 
with the d
But, equally I don't lock my door to protect myself from atheists!

?
I find Christians to be silly at worst, harmless at best.
That's because nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!.






      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091209/03311228/attachment.html>

From olga.bourlin at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 01:35:24 2009
From: olga.bourlin at gmail.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 17:35:24 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <830069.68211.qm@web59916.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <830069.68211.qm@web59916.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e65701210912091735h50764faexd97ee091659e6bf8@mail.gmail.com>

Post Futurist, at least porn is not divisive among cultural/religious
lines.  That in itself is an immediate improvement over $$$mas.

Of course, there are societies which are negative and repressive about sex
in general, and that's not a good thing.  It would be better for them if
they had no censorship regarding porn and sexually explicit materials.
What's obscene to me are women who are required to wear tents and veils.

In many cases, porn has practical purposes - but even if it didn't, I would
much prefer to live in a society that did not have censorship regarding
sexually explicit materials.

2009/12/9 Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com>

>   Christmas *is* quite silly, but most of its effluvia has more taste
> than, say, porn; which is no longer shocking for its sexuality, but for its
> general unimaginative tastelessness. As rote, stylized as Christmas. One
> silliness is traded for another.
> Secular culture isn't much of an improvement over the religious. People
> want to be young at heart, however they end up being silly in the head
> instead.
>
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 12/9/09, Olga Bourlin <olga.bourlin at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Olga Bourlin <olga.bourlin at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Tolerance
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 6:28 PM
>
>  Yep, satire.
>
>
>   But - and this is no satire -  Dawkins is a wuss. ;))
>
>
>
>  He aligns himself with ?cultural Christians,? and even goes along with
> singing those treacly, annoying $$$mas carols.  Gads, there?s just no
> accounting for some people?s taste.
>
>
>
>  http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2034
>
>
> *Pa Ra Pa* Pum Pum!
>
> Olga
>
>
>
>   On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:23 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com<http://us.mc599.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=pharos at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
>>  On 12/8/09, Lee Corbin wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >  But the strategy of alienating religious people yet further
>> >  isn't going to help, except in ways I would not condone.
>> >  They shouldn't be given any reason whatsoever to think
>> >  that life under the atheists has been as bad as (at many
>> >  times) life for us under the religious often was.
>> >
>> >  Alas, this is surely all wishful thinking on my part.
>> >  As soon as we are in the heavy majority, kids will
>> >  hear in school from their PC teachers that, so far
>> >  as religion goes, "there are the brights who don't
>> >  believe, and then, there are the others, less bright,
>> >  who do, and sadly some of you in this very class come
>> >  from disadvantaged homes..."
>> >
>> >
>> > > obviously I am not for declaring an intellectual war or anything. But
>> I do
>> > think that atheists need to not be wishy-washy and somehow give the
>> > religious the idea we think their ideas about the nature of reality have
>> > merit.
>> > >
>> >
>> >  Again, I agree.
>> >
>>
>> This new article seems relevant.........
>>
>> <
>> http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2009/12/09/dawkins-offers-delusion-removal-service-for-bereaved-and-dying/
>> >
>>
>> Dawkins offers delusion removal service for bereaved and dying
>>
>> ?Face Reality Now?, a new ?delusion removal? service set up by Richard
>> Dawkins, offers the soon to be bereaved an opportunity to confront
>> their dying friends and relations with their mortality.
>>
>> ?It?s a scandal that people continue to die unaware that really is
>> it,? explained Dr Dawkins. ?Now, for a small fee, my service will send
>> trained atheists to reassure the dying that they can forget about any
>> after life nonsense.?
>>
>> The service also offers a comprehensive after death option in which
>> the funeral cortege is followed by men with loudhailers shouting,
>> ?Stop comforting yourself with mumbo-jumbo. For God?s sake, he?s dead
>> ? deal with it!?
>>
>> But the Dawkins service has run into difficulties where some friends
>> of the dying are believers, but others aren?t. ?At a recent deathbed
>> scene,? admitted Dr Dawkins, ?my atheists turned up at the same time
>> as a Catholic priest. Things got a bit out of hand with a fight
>> breaking out around the dying man. Still, I?m pleased to say ?Face
>> Reality Now? won.?
>> -------------
>>
>>
>> BillK
>> (By the way, this is a satirical article)  :)
>>  _______________________________________________
>>
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org<http://us.mc599.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org<http://us.mc599.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091209/e7540f81/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu Dec 10 04:14:35 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:14:35 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912091921w40f49331wd9350f94f1c342a1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com><239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM><4B1E0E3E.5010708@rawbw.com><ee50357e0912091423m58240e2bi2d0209afcc4e1044@mail.gmail.com><e65701210912091528i5b7dd1cese2e5f782079c225b@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc0912091632hd38827awcc6275841b95377d@mail.gmail.com><0EDCF996-CFF8-405E-92CC-2C79EF71EE42@GMAIL.COM>
	<710b78fc0912091921w40f49331wd9350f94f1c342a1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <13DE9FAAF5FD4DACAAB5C1F2FE9A8EC4@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Emlyn
> ...
> But, you know, if you want to show off your bank balance, you 
> could just email people a copy of your bank statement...

Oh MAN why didn't we think of that sooner!  That is a GREAT idea!

I agree with your comments in this post about the disconnect between
consumer spending and productivity.

> 
> Shopping isn't productivity. Caring is something that doesn't 
> have much of a monetary component. Gifts are nice though.
> 
> --
> Emlyn

My wife's brothers and their wives started a little birthday tradition a
bunch of years ago where everyone was getting the number of dollars to match
the number of their birthday.  The problem is that the youngest was
continually on the losing end of that deal.  Somewhere along the line we
started failing to cash the checks.  So these never-cashed birthday checks
kited around in the mail for several years, but that made everyone's bank
statements mismatch, so then someone came up with the idea of using Monopoly
money.  The play money has been crossing the country for about the past ten
years or so.  I want to now change that to using Zimbabwe billion dollar
bills in the age appropriate quantities.  Lotsa fun, very little actual
investment.

spike









From olga.bourlin at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 05:16:02 2009
From: olga.bourlin at gmail.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:16:02 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <0EDCF996-CFF8-405E-92CC-2C79EF71EE42@GMAIL.COM>
References: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com>
	<239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM>
	<4B1E0E3E.5010708@rawbw.com>
	<ee50357e0912091423m58240e2bi2d0209afcc4e1044@mail.gmail.com>
	<e65701210912091528i5b7dd1cese2e5f782079c225b@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0912091632hd38827awcc6275841b95377d@mail.gmail.com>
	<0EDCF996-CFF8-405E-92CC-2C79EF71EE42@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <e65701210912092116h33fecc17i97cfd39787a8d6a4@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:08 PM, JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> wrote:

> But I do celebrate Christmas. Generally don't do most of the religious
carols, but some, depending on what they say and so forth (I generally just
equate God with goodness and that's basically the same).

Of course you do.  Because of the women, or because of the children, or
because - even if you may have left your religious moorings - you still want
to keep celebrating something you (I am guessing) were brought up to do.
The way Muslims celebrate Ramada.  The way Jews celebrate Hanukkah.

> I celebrate Christmas because it serves as a special time to be with those
you care about and show you care through the exchange of gifts.

And why can't you do this anytime you want?  (Who's in charge here?  You?
Or Stepford Village?)

>Just about as close to perfect a holiday as you can get, in my opinion.

Perfect for you, maybe ... but, during the holly jolly Christian Heat
Season, at the cost of excluding some other people.

My last husband was culturally Jewish.  In the early 1980s, I remember how
his Nieces - young girls of 7 or 8 or 9 at the time - were asked by a couple
of their Playmates:  "Have you gotten your Christmas tree yet?"

Nieces, being Jewish, said, "No - we don't celebrate Christmas."

The next day Nieces were told by their hitherto Playmates:  "We can't play
with you anymore."

Priceless.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091209/77d73697/attachment.html>

From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 05:28:33 2009
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:28:33 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <e65701210912092116h33fecc17i97cfd39787a8d6a4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com>
	<239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM>
	<4B1E0E3E.5010708@rawbw.com>
	<ee50357e0912091423m58240e2bi2d0209afcc4e1044@mail.gmail.com>
	<e65701210912091528i5b7dd1cese2e5f782079c225b@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0912091632hd38827awcc6275841b95377d@mail.gmail.com>
	<0EDCF996-CFF8-405E-92CC-2C79EF71EE42@GMAIL.COM>
	<e65701210912092116h33fecc17i97cfd39787a8d6a4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9BB1F07D-EAFE-43B8-91D0-A466F36A2715@GMAIL.COM>


On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:16 AM, Olga Bourlin wrote:
> > I celebrate Christmas because it serves as a special time to be  
> with those you care about and show you care through the exchange of  
> gifts.
>
> And why can't you do this anytime you want?  (Who's in charge here?   
> You?  Or Stepford Village?)
Well having a culturally define time of year to do this seems good.  
Its more fun if its a holiday then if its just random (condensing it  
seems to increase enjoyment). Of course you can do this any time, but  
you seem to be against the notion of holidays period. Which seems  
silly. Celebrations are important, even if it isn't commemorating an  
event so much as an idea.
> Perfect for you, maybe ... but, during the holly jolly Christian  
> Heat Season, at the cost of excluding some other people.
>
> My last husband was culturally Jewish.  In the early 1980s, I  
> remember how his Nieces - young girls of 7 or 8 or 9 at the time -  
> were asked by a couple of their Playmates:  "Have you gotten your  
> Christmas tree yet?"
>
> Nieces, being Jewish, said, "No - we don't celebrate Christmas."
>
> The next day Nieces were told by their hitherto Playmates:  "We  
> can't play with you anymore."
>
> Priceless.
Well, I am talking about is making Christmas a secular holiday, with  
no religious meaning whatsoever. I choose to do it on the 25th because  
that's when everyone else does it, and it is simply easier to do it  
then (its the same reason Christmas is on the 25th in the first  
place-- it was the same time as an earlier pagan holiday). You don't  
have to call it Christmas, but its the same sort of thing. My  
celebration of Christmas is totally divorced from religion. I don't  
praise Jesus, or talk about the manger thing, or any of that. I simply  
celebrate the people I value and all the values I've produced over the  
year which allows me to share that part of myself (my property is a  
part of myself, since I devoted part of my life to it) with them as a  
token of my appreciation of them.

It would be a lot harder to get people to be atheists if it meant they  
aren't allowed to celebrate anything around this time of year because  
it happens to be the same time of year as mainstream religious  
celebrations. That strategy is almost certainly going to cut off huge  
portions of the population, and set atheists apart as these weird,  
anti-happiness freaks who piss all over everyone's fun (actual fun, as  
opposed to their murder people and destroy lives sort of fun).


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 10 05:04:26 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:04:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <466950.41860.qm@web59909.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

No problem. You are preaching to the choir. But censorship on the web, say? where?, save for censorship directed at child porn. I'm not defending fundamentalists at all. But let's glance at
the world: is China, with its 1.3 or so billion ruled by
religious fundamentalists? Russia? India? Today, fundamentalism might be a secondary or tertiary threat, but only because fundamentalists
are on the defensive. And they aren't too bright, most of them; they
are basically rubes worried about their families. 
In their position, I
would worry too.


at least porn is not divisive among cultural/religious lines.  That in itself is an immediate improvement over $$$mas.  
 
Of course, there are societies which are negative and repressive
about sex in general, and that's not a good thing. It would be better
for them if they had no censorship regarding porn and sexually explicit
materials. What's obscene to me are women who are required to wear
tents and veils.

 
In many cases, porn has practical purposes - but even if it
didn't, I would much prefer to live in a society that did not have
censorship regarding sexually explicit materials.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091209/65bc2c7d/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 06:04:05 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:34:05 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <638739.78756.qm@web59908.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <638739.78756.qm@web59908.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912092204j682f8b03r4b31ef3cdc8ec8ff@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/10 Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com>

> Right, no reason to.  But somehow I'm sure more burglars are atheists than
> xians. A burglar might call himself an xian, but that's like Leon Kass
> calling himself a transhumanist.
>

Atheism is a considered position. People with dodgy morals are more likely
to be "don't know, haven't thought about it" in my opinion. In some cases
they might mistakenly report that as Atheist, possibly.

You clearly have a belief that atheists are less moral in some way. Can you
explain that position in more detail?

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091210/7618776e/attachment.html>

From eschatoon at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 06:59:20 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco (2nd email))
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:59:20 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <4B1C99DB.3040605@satx.rr.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1C99DB.3040605@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90912092259v743837e4kf18a743612a216c9@mail.gmail.com>

Fundamentalists, of any persuasions, are those intolerant bigots who
cannot accept that others favor ideas and lifestyles different from
their own. "Atheist fundamentalists" are people whose worldview and
behavior are uniquely colored by their atheism, which they make a
religion of. They focus on bashing believers even when believers leave
them in peace and mind their own business.

They want to ban crosses and other religious symbols anywhere, not
only in public buildings and schools, but also in private homes. Like
other fundamentalists they have no sense of humor and will start their
self-righteous whining at the first mention of religion and
spirituality. And they cannot tolerate difference.

They are not better than religious fundamentalists. Actually, they are
worse because they claim to act in the name of reason.

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> On 12/6/2009 11:51 PM, Giulio Prisco (2nd email) wrote:
>>
>> Both theist and atheist fundamentalists
>> have a right to speak their mind, of course, but I am not very
>> interested in discussing with them in their terms.
>
> I take the term "fundamentalist" to apply to one who embraces the literal
> and unalterable truth of some written revelation from one or more deities.
> Since an atheist is one who declines to accept such revelations as the basis
> for knowledge claims, I'm puzzled by how you define an "atheist
> fundamentalist". Would this be one who holds that one or more gods has
> revealed the unalterable truth that no deity exists?
>
> Damien Broderick
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco
aka Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon


From eschatoon at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 07:19:46 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco (2nd email))
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:19:46 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <190ADF20-92BF-42D5-BB67-1BDB55CAA150@bellsouth.net>
References: <887413.26405.qm@web110404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<31136E73-DA7D-48AA-8BF3-CFA09635D87D@bellsouth.net>
	<580930c20912090950t37dbf0b0s55f4633eaa69296b@mail.gmail.com>
	<190ADF20-92BF-42D5-BB67-1BDB55CAA150@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90912092319g4f7405ffmb88d4dfd7012cd4e@mail.gmail.com>

One can be a very good surgeon, operating strictly within the
boundaries of the current scientific understanding of his area, in his
professional life, and a believer in his private life.

I will judge his professional expertise on the basis of the available
evidence. Does he save lives? Does he recommend the best course of
action to his patients? Does he make his best effort to maintain his
expertise and staying current?

I will not judge his belief in Allah, or Vishnu, or God, because it is
not my business.

And I can have a pleasant dinner with him, talking of things we are
both interested in. I don't need to think of his belief, crazy as it
may appear to me, as long as I don't try to convert me.

I trust fundamentalist feminists will forgive my using "he", it has
one letter less to type and I am pressed for time.

2009/12/9 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> On Dec 9, 2009, ?Stefano Vaj wrote:
>
> I think stupid may plausibly mean, depending the circumstances, both
> somebody believing in naive and crazy ideas *and* the contrary of
> astute and clever.
>
> Crazy, not just odd but crazy ideas are pretty close to?the contrary
> of?astute and clever. And I think one can decide to be stupid, as in a
> surgeon who doesn't believe in the cornerstone of the biological sciences,
> Evolution; or a structural engineer who doesn't believe in Newton's theory
> of gravitation. Actually such things are possible provided you put your
> ideas in little airtight compartments and refuse to let them interact, but
> that's just a longwinded way of saying the word stupid.
>
> ?I am inclined to consider the supporters of the religions
> of the Book as "stupid" in the first sense, but not necessarily nor
> always in the second. Far from it...
>
> Oh come now Stefano, we both know its really not that far.
> ?John K Clark
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-- 
Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco
aka Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Dec 10 07:20:09 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:20:09 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90912092259v743837e4kf18a743612a216c9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20912061342v182b517x487442771b6e066e@mail.gmail.com>	<1fa8c3b90912062151o1bc1718cob09224fd57e0bff6@mail.gmail.com>	<4B1C99DB.3040605@satx.rr.com>
	<1fa8c3b90912092259v743837e4kf18a743612a216c9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B20A129.8080008@satx.rr.com>

On 12/10/2009 12:59 AM, Giulio Prisco (2nd email) wrote:

> Fundamentalists, of any persuasions, are those intolerant bigots who
> cannot accept that others favor ideas and lifestyles different from
> their own.

But "fundamentalist" already has a customary denotation:

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

<The term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly 
defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the 
Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th 
century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist 
Controversy of that time. Until 1950, there was no entry for 
fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary;[5] the derivative 
fundamentalist was added only in its second 1989 edition.[6]

The term has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set 
of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and 
large retained religious connotations.>

So you might be better off using the term "bigot" or even "intolerant 
bigot" which seems to have a less narrow flavor.

It's odd that you feel no discomfort in describing "their atheism, which 
they make a
religion of," since that characterization in itself seems to be a 
disparagement of religion. For those people who approve of religion, 
this might sound like an endorsement rather than a condemnation--unless 
the religious person is a sectarian fundamentalist, of course.

Damien Broderick


From moulton at moulton.com  Thu Dec 10 07:54:00 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 10 Dec 2009 07:54:00 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <20091210075400.19351.qmail@moulton.com>


On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 19:46 -0800, Post Futurist wrote:
> Right, no reason to.  But somehow I'm sure more burglars are
> atheists than xians. 

Have you done any study on the issue?  How about some evidence.

Fred



From moulton at moulton.com  Thu Dec 10 08:32:04 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 10 Dec 2009 08:32:04 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <20091210083204.62221.qmail@moulton.com>


On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 07:59 +0100, Giulio Prisco (2nd email) wrote:
> Fundamentalists, of any persuasions, are those intolerant bigots who
> cannot accept that others favor ideas and lifestyles different from
> their own. 

I see that Damien has already commented on the term Fundamentalism and 
how your use of the term Fundamentalist is not correct; so let us skip 
down to this:

> They want to ban crosses and other religious symbols anywhere, not
> only in public buildings and schools, but also in private homes. 

I have read many books and periodicals by and about Atheists and Atheism.
I am now and have been for many years a member and/or participant in
various Atheist and Freethought groups, email lists, meetups and 
organizations and have attended many events sponsored or organized by 
these groups.  I have never met or read about an Atheist who wants to ban 
crosses or other religious symbols in private homes.  Not One. Now it
might be possible that you can find one or maybe even a few but I really
doubt that you can find a significant fraction of Atheists who want to
band crosses or religious symbols in private homes.  So if you claim
that there are Atheists who want to ban crosses or other religious
symbols from private homes then provide the details of who, when, where
and with citation information so it can be checked and verified.

So either provide the information or retract your statement.

Fred



From sparge at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 12:04:38 2009
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:04:38 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <9BB1F07D-EAFE-43B8-91D0-A466F36A2715@GMAIL.COM>
References: <4B1DB07C.1080802@rawbw.com>
	<239EE9B1-9C33-4D30-8D97-4796B3F41CAE@GMAIL.COM> 
	<4B1E0E3E.5010708@rawbw.com>
	<ee50357e0912091423m58240e2bi2d0209afcc4e1044@mail.gmail.com> 
	<e65701210912091528i5b7dd1cese2e5f782079c225b@mail.gmail.com> 
	<710b78fc0912091632hd38827awcc6275841b95377d@mail.gmail.com> 
	<0EDCF996-CFF8-405E-92CC-2C79EF71EE42@GMAIL.COM>
	<e65701210912092116h33fecc17i97cfd39787a8d6a4@mail.gmail.com> 
	<9BB1F07D-EAFE-43B8-91D0-A466F36A2715@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0912100404m57cb8746le8cfc0efb1e29f70@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:28 AM, JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well having a culturally define time of year to do this seems good. Its more
> fun if its a holiday then if its just random (condensing it seems to
> increase enjoyment). Of course you can do this any time, but you seem to be
> against the notion of holidays period. Which seems silly. Celebrations are
> important, even if it isn't commemorating an event so much as an idea

Exactly. That's why I celebrate Festivus:

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

-Dave


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 10 14:47:34 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:47:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1260446403.28319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <186947.82497.qm@web32003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

> From: JOSHUA JOB <nanite1018 at gmail.com> assumed:
> 
> ...
> It would be a lot harder to get people to be atheists if it
> meant they? 
> aren't allowed to celebrate anything around this time of
> year because?... 

???

And what Atheist Authority, exactly, would or could forbid them from celebrating anything they damn well like?

Ben Zaiboc
Wishes people would stop thinking that atheism is just another religion.



      


From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 15:03:16 2009
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:03:16 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <186947.82497.qm@web32003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <186947.82497.qm@web32003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2175F822-9F7A-478F-83CD-8D695852EA5B@GMAIL.COM>

> ???
>
> And what Atheist Authority, exactly, would or could forbid them from  
> celebrating anything they damn well like?
>
> Ben Zaiboc
> Wishes people would stop thinking that atheism is just another  
> religion.
People seem to be arguing that celebrating Christmas leaves out people  
and somehow supports Christianity, even if you don't celebrate it as  
any sort of religious/mystical sort of holiday at all. My point is  
that this is nonsense, and that its perfectly fine to do so. I was  
arguing against this idea that atheists shouldn't celebrate Christmas,  
which I believe from the above is something you support.

Atheism isn't a religion, it doesn't have special holidays, and I  
think Christmas is awesome.

Joshua Job
Says "Friendly fire is fairly humorous." haha


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 10 14:39:48 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:39:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1260446403.28319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <546901.79974.qm@web32002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

> From: Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com> opined:
> 
> somehow I'm sure more burglars
> are atheists than xians. 

Hmm.

According to this (statistics for America in March 1997):
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
there were about 50 times less atheists in prison than there were in the population at large.  It would be interesting to see more up-to-date statistics on this.

In the UK, I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, however, because most people here are atheists.

Ben Zaiboc


      


From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Thu Dec 10 15:44:15 2009
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:44:15 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <186947.82497.qm@web32003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20091210154416.O37HN.430246.root@hrndva-web11-z02>

---- Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote: 

> Wishes people would stop thinking that atheism is just another religion.

Ben is seriously confused on this point, and he's not alone.

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

James Choate
jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at twcable.com
512-657-1279
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Thu Dec 10 15:50:12 2009
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:50:12 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <2175F822-9F7A-478F-83CD-8D695852EA5B@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <20091210155013.3K8WV.430397.root@hrndva-web11-z02>

I've a more fundamental question, how are you defining 'tolerance'?

Definition of Society

        -       The cornerstones of any society are
                -       toleration
                -       self-defense
        -       A set of rules, codified or not, and expectations,
                expressed or not, which regulate both the individual
                and inter-personal activities of same
        -       Societies may be radically different in content and
                yet share the same geography
        -       The statics and dynamics of a society are governed by
                the physics of reality and the psychology of the
                individual (and it's absolute range)
        -       The expectations of societies can be in direct opposition
        -       Violence does not ensue from opposition but from lack
                of toleration of opposition
        -       This applies to all levels of societies and seems to be
                psychology independent (in other words, all life
                seems to follow it)
        -       As a result, stability can be looked upon as a measure
                of tolerance

http://www.mail-archive.com/cypherpunks at minder.net/msg04459.html

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

James Choate
jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at twcable.com
512-657-1279
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Dec 10 15:56:55 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:56:55 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <20091210154416.O37HN.430246.root@hrndva-web11-z02>
References: <20091210154416.O37HN.430246.root@hrndva-web11-z02>
Message-ID: <4B211A47.7040808@satx.rr.com>

On 12/10/2009 9:44 AM, jameschoate at austin.rr.com wrote:

> ---- Ben Zaiboc:
>> >  Wishes people would stop thinking that atheism is just another religion.

> Ben is seriously confused on this point, and he's not alone.

Yes, because surely it's obvious that not believing in unicorns is just 
another way of believing in unicorns. Oh, wait.

Damien Broderick



From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 10 16:02:03 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <20091210075400.19351.qmail@moulton.com>
Message-ID: <696354.82168.qm@web59909.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

No genuine Christian would burglarize a home, just as no real doctor would practice quack medicine. 
It does happen, but is anomalous.
?
?
Have you done any study on the issue?? How about some evidence.

Fred



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091210/40ff783c/attachment.html>

From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 10 16:52:44 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:52:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <821320.4437.qm@web59914.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>


No, the elastic situational ethics of many atheists might actually be higher than ancient rigid morals of the traditional religious, but they aren't based on conventions; like when you celebrate the holidays you are?complicit in?celebrating traditional mores with family. 
Don't you think you might have one foot planted in religious tradition, and one foot in atheism or agnosticism?

You clearly have a belief that atheists are less moral in some way. Can you explain that position in more detail?
Emlyn


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091210/f897aa31/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Dec 10 16:41:15 2009
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:41:15 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <186947.82497.qm@web32003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1.1260446403.28319.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<186947.82497.qm@web32003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <26C1095D00144590A711958C85ED4E6D@DFC68LF1>

 
Ben Zaiboc "Wishes people would stop thinking that atheism is just another
religion."

Yes.  That is why I don't categorizes myself as an atheist.  I simply say
that I have values and ethics that are not located in the domain of
religion.  (Not sure this gets across, but at least it causes 'em to think a
little.)

Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Thu Dec 10 17:18:22 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:18:22 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912091924w5fdabcb1xb42967aa0e1dc0d7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0912091859h64fe0c6dg3394ccdfefad7cf0@mail.gmail.com>
	<972135.83783.qm@web59901.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<710b78fc0912091924w5fdabcb1xb42967aa0e1dc0d7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8287C1FD-97D5-4D91-8E81-E571EEC5C1FF@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 9, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Post Futurist wrote:

> Christmas appears silly, even infantile; worshiping a baby in a manger.


Fortunately for most people Christmas has more to due with Santa Claus than it does to that other fictional character, Jesus Christ. My only problem with Christmas is that it hasn't been commercialized enough.

  John K Clark



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091210/4e2ee77f/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Dec 10 17:24:23 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:24:23 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <821320.4437.qm@web59914.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <821320.4437.qm@web59914.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B212EC7.7030702@satx.rr.com>

On 12/10/2009 10:52 AM, Post Futurist wrote:

> *Don't you think you might have one foot planted in religious tradition,
> and one foot in atheism or agnosticism?*

One huge problem with this rather disjointed thread is the confusion 
between "religion" and "belief in a god or gods". An atheist, just from 
the derivation of the word, is a person who has no belief in deity. But 
of course there are many godless religions. Animist religions seem to 
have no gods, per se, but see the world as suffused with and shaped by 
personified forces and passions. The Australian aboriginal Dreaming is a 
vast ancient integral cosmology in which the seasonal landscape and its 
inhabitants are representations of volitional Ancestors; there's nothing 
remotely like an Abrahamic God--but it would seem absurd not to call 
this all-encompassing worldview "religious." In our dominant cultures 
the religious impulse happens to be hopelessly confounded with notions 
of a rewarding and punishing god, but it can probably be disentangled in 
such a way that an honest atheist can participate without compromise in 
religious celebrations, holidays, etc, or come up with some of our own. 
Not easily, though, if the conventionally religious insist that their 
theistic activities of worship and petition are mandatory.

Damien Broderick



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Thu Dec 10 17:44:12 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:44:12 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <466950.41860.qm@web59909.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <466950.41860.qm@web59909.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A6FDC64D-D3ED-458F-8FDF-E8215FD2F6D4@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 10, 2009,  Post Futurist wrote:

> is China, with its 1.3 or so billion ruled by religious fundamentalists? Russia?

Both China and the old USSR were atheistic but that was incidental, none of the terrible things they did was done in the name of atheism. Can you think of any good thing done by a religious person that couldn't have been done by a goodhearted atheist? I can't. Can you think of any evil act done by a religious person that could only have been done by a religious person? Of course you can. With or without religion good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things, but for good people to do bad things you need religion. 

> India?

The modern countries of both India and Pakistan were born in a sea of blood instigated by fanatical religious fundamentalists. And even today it is entirely possible that the first thermonuclear war will be a religious war between vegetarians and teetotalers.

 John K Clark  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091210/b5a33bd6/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Thu Dec 10 18:00:29 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:00:29 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <972135.83783.qm@web59901.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <972135.83783.qm@web59901.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <774CFE37-FB84-4448-8A0C-CCC2E428DAF1@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 9, 2009, at 10:14 PM, Post Futurist wrote:

> when you lock your door at night you are not trying to protect yourself from Christians, are you?

Yes I am. Of the inmates in American prisons about .2% are atheists, far less than outside the prison
walls.

 John K Clark

  



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091210/749aca9d/attachment.html>

From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Thu Dec 10 18:02:26 2009
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:02:26 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <4B211A47.7040808@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20091210180227.7PGZX.450980.root@hrndva-web02-z02>

---- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote: 
> On 12/10/2009 9:44 AM, jameschoate at austin.rr.com wrote:
> 
> > ---- Ben Zaiboc:
> >> >  Wishes people would stop thinking that atheism is just another religion.
> 
> > Ben is seriously confused on this point, and he's not alone.
> 
> Yes, because surely it's obvious that not believing in unicorns is just 
> another way of believing in unicorns. Oh, wait.

You, and most others, confuse two different things here. The issue is 'faith' not unicorns. Whether the unicorns exist is irrelevant to the question of faith.

http://www.waythingsare.com/news/what/religion/a-pantheist-s-manifesto.htm

Atheism, like science, are religions and philosophies. The only difference is the axioms you put your faith in.

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

James Choate
jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at twcable.com
512-657-1279
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Thu Dec 10 18:09:01 2009
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:09:01 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <696354.82168.qm@web59909.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20091210180901.VPT26.451159.root@hrndva-web02-z02>

---- Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> No genuine Christian would burglarize a home, just as no real doctor would practice quack medicine. 
> It does happen, but is anomalous.

Malarky.

With regard to 'genuine Christian' what does that mean? Strictly one who follows the words of Christ in the 4 gossipals? You're asking us to accept such a broad generalization without justification the conclusion begs the question.

With regard to doctors practicing quack medicine, define quack medicine? At some point just about every medical procedure and drug was quackery if for no other reason than the general accepted norms didn't include it. Consider longevity research (members of such a list as this should be familiar with it) where there are many, if not most, doctors who consider it quackery to take it seriously. Yet we have people gobbling down reverasol and other drugs at an astonishing rate for something that has no clinical trials to actually back it up. Such is the power of faith.

> Have you done any study on the issue?? How about some evidence.

Seems to me you're the one making the exception claims, therefore the exceptional evidence lays on your shoulders.

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

James Choate
jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at twcable.com
512-657-1279
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Thu Dec 10 18:15:37 2009
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:15:37 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <A6FDC64D-D3ED-458F-8FDF-E8215FD2F6D4@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <20091210181537.A4G8S.451298.root@hrndva-web02-z02>

---- John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote: 
>I can't. Can you think of any evil act done by a religious person that could only have been done by a religious person? Of course you can. With or without religion good
> people will do good things and bad people will do bad things, but for good people to do bad things you need religion. 

First, your use of good/bad is presumptive and has a host of implicit considerations, some which directly contradict your assertion.

With regard to needing religion, not hardly. What you need is fear. People do what they do because of two and only two classes of motives. They are convinced they will gain something, or they are convinced they will lose something.

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

James Choate
jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at twcable.com
512-657-1279
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Thu Dec 10 18:16:25 2009
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:16:25 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
Message-ID: <20091210181625.AB59F.451309.root@hrndva-web02-z02>

---- John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote: 
>I can't. Can you think of any evil act done by a religious person that could only have been done by a religious person? Of course you can. With or without religion good
> people will do good things and bad people will do bad things, but for good people to do bad things you need religion. 

First, your use of good/bad is presumptive and has a host of implicit considerations, some which directly contradict your assertion.

With regard to needing religion, not hardly. What you need is fear. People do what they do because of two and only two classes of motives. They are convinced they will gain something, or they are convinced they will lose something.

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

James Choate
jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at twcable.com
512-657-1279
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 21:22:02 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:22:02 -0700
Subject: [ExI] 5 materials that will make the world as we know it obsolete
Message-ID: <2d6187670912101322u1d1e977ct1c219134428a2be@mail.gmail.com>

I realize much of this is already known here, but it's still an interesting
and entertaining article.  I wish the future would hurry up and get here!
LOL

http://www.cracked.com/article/212_5-materials-that-will-make-world-as-we-know-it-obsolete/

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091210/f1a57ef4/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Dec 10 22:47:55 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:17:55 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <20091210180227.7PGZX.450980.root@hrndva-web02-z02>
References: <4B211A47.7040808@satx.rr.com>
	<20091210180227.7PGZX.450980.root@hrndva-web02-z02>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912101447q13eb84ddx664a8d875c427d65@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/11  <jameschoate at austin.rr.com>:
> ---- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2009 9:44 AM, jameschoate at austin.rr.com wrote:
>>
>> > ---- Ben Zaiboc:
>> >> > ?Wishes people would stop thinking that atheism is just another religion.
>>
>> > Ben is seriously confused on this point, and he's not alone.
>>
>> Yes, because surely it's obvious that not believing in unicorns is just
>> another way of believing in unicorns. Oh, wait.
>
> You, and most others, confuse two different things here. The issue is 'faith' not unicorns. Whether the unicorns exist is irrelevant to the question of faith.
>
> http://www.waythingsare.com/news/what/religion/a-pantheist-s-manifesto.htm
>
> Atheism, like science, are religions and philosophies. The only difference is the axioms you put your faith in.

This idea that atheism is just another religion is beginning to shit
me. It's wrong.

Atheism has no shared culture, ritual, tradition.
It doesn't even have metaphysical belief, it has a lack of
metaphysical belief. Unless you think that not believing in Santa
Claus is a religion, you cannot also call not believing in
supernatural entities a religion.

Science is probably rightly called a world view or philosophy.
Materialism, or a naturalistic world view, similar. But Atheism?
There's just not enough to it, to call it a philosophy, let alone a
religion.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 10 23:27:26 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:27:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <852444.45072.qm@web59903.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

?IMO any doctor who would violate their Hippocratic oath would be similar in spirit if not letter to a "Christian" who would commit a felony, such as burglary.
?
?


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091210/d632cf83/attachment.html>

From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 10 23:19:49 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:19:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <155046.24158.qm@web59906.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Fundamentalist in America today only have an?unavoidable grip in the Deep South; in?all other regions they can't?have at you unless you make the mistake of?communicating with?them. The only?inescapable fundamentalists?I've?met so far are the Campus Crusade For Christ volunteers, who travel around the nation inflicting mental torture on?students. 
?
Fundamentalists were a grave threat in the past, but?I?am not aware that such is still the case.?Aside from the Mideast and the Subcontinent, where are fundamentalists a primary?threat?


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091210/961a87cb/attachment.html>

From moulton at moulton.com  Fri Dec 11 01:02:57 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 11 Dec 2009 01:02:57 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <20091211010257.17048.qmail@moulton.com>


On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 12:09 -0600, jameschoate at austin.rr.com wrote:
---- Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> > No genuine Christian would burglarize a home, just as no real doctor 
> >  would practice quack medicine.
> > It does happen, but is anomalous.
> 
> Malarky.
> 
> With regard to 'genuine Christian' what does that mean? Strictly one 
> who follows the words of Christ in the 4 gossipals? You're asking us 
> to accept such a broad generalization without justification the 
> conclusion begs the question.
  
I think I see the problem with what Post Futurist has written.  While the term "Christian" has a variety of definitions the common and traditional meaning is that a Christian is one who accepts Jesus as their personal savior.  Note this is not dependent on future behavior; thus if a person who is a Christian breaks a commandment the person does not stop being a Christian.

Actually this possible eventuality is built into the standard Christian theology; if a Christian breaks a commandment such as burglary then the Christian needs to repent, pray, confess, ask forgiveness and try to improved their behavior.  Note the during the entire process from the burglary through repentance, prayer and all of the rest the person is still a Christian.  Thus we can see the conceptual error of Post Futurist in his usage of the term "Christian" since even using term "Genuine Christian" does not change the situation since there is no more or less of being in the state of being a "Christian"; a person either is or is not.

However note that individual Christians may vary from person to person in whether they resist committing burglary and thus if there is a population of Christians and some of them commit burglary then we can work on developing a statistical model.  We can also work on a statistical model for Hindus and for Buddhists and for Taoists and so on.

Now we go to a formatting problem.
  
Actually I (Fred) wrote the following line not Post Futurist.
> > Have you done any study on the issue?  How about some evidence.

The problem is that messages from Post Futurist tend not to follow any quoting standard with which I am familiar. Thus the confusion.  Actually I was trying to ask Post Futurist for some evidence just as you (James) are asking.  The absence of any evidence is conspicuous.  Basically Post Futurist does not appear to know what he is talking about.

> Seems to me you're the one making the exception claims, therefore the 
>  exceptional evidence lays on your shoulders.





From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 01:23:18 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:23:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <20091211010257.17048.qmail@moulton.com>
Message-ID: <404677.66886.qm@web59905.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Here we are all in agreement for once :)
My question is: isn't there an undeniable distinction made in Christianity and most orthodox faiths between a petty transgression not dealt with in a court of law, and an outright felony such as burglary?
But what I wonder most is: can most or even possibly virtually all xians be convinced that eternal life can be obtained through non-mystical means as well as by faith? Given enough time to convince them (a few decades) it does appear the answer is yes.


?The absence of any evidence is conspicuous.? Basically Post Futurist does not appear to know what he is talking about.



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091210/551cb84d/attachment.html>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Fri Dec 11 01:57:40 2009
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:57:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <20091211010257.17048.qmail@moulton.com>
References: <20091211010257.17048.qmail@moulton.com>
Message-ID: <34575.12.77.169.43.1260496660.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>

>
> The problem is that messages from Post Futurist tend not to follow any quoting
> standard with which I am familiar.

Thank you! I thought it was something my software was not rendering correctly.  :)

Regards,
MB



From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 01:40:45 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:40:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912091517o364fecc2y8db65120760701e1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <370107.70551.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

-- On Wed, 12/9/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

>> And Searle says this beast called intentionality
> cannot live inside S/H systems. That's what his Chinese Room
> Argument is all about.
>
> And the counterargument is that of course the Chinese Room
> would have semantics and intentionality and all the other
> good things that the brain has.

If you formulate a good counter-argument to support that counter-thesis then I hope you will post it here! 

> Only if consciousness were a side-effect of intelligent behaviour
> would it have evolved.

I don't understand your meaning. Lots of non-adaptive traits have evolved as side-effects of adaptive traits. Do you count consciousness as such a non-adaptive trait, one that evolved alongside the adaptive trait of intelligence? Or do you mean to say that consciousness increases or aids intelligence, an adaptive trait?

In any case Searle rejects epiphenomenonalism -- the view that subjective mental events act only as "side-effects" and do not cause physical events. Searle thinks they do; that if you consciously will to raise your arm, and it rises, your conscious willing had something to do with the fact that it rose. (In this example the philosophical concept of intentionality corresponds with the ordinary meaning.)

>> Now then, IF we first come to understand those causal
> powers of brains and IF we then find a way to duplicate
> those powers in something other than brains, THEN we will
> create strong AI. On that day, pigs will fly.
>
> IF we simulate the externally observable behaviour of
> brains THEN we will create strong AI.

Do you mean to say that if something behaves exactly as if it has human intelligence, it must have strong AI? If so then we mean different things by strong AI.

-gts




      


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Dec 11 03:38:10 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:38:10 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912101447q13eb84ddx664a8d875c427d65@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B211A47.7040808@satx.rr.com>	<20091210180227.7PGZX.450980.root@hrndva-web02-z02>
	<710b78fc0912101447q13eb84ddx664a8d875c427d65@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B21BEA2.9020209@rawbw.com>

Emlyn wrote:

> This idea that atheism is just another religion [is] wrong.
> 
> Atheism has no shared culture, ritual, tradition.
> It doesn't even have metaphysical belief, it has a lack of
> metaphysical belief. Unless you think that not believing in Santa
> Claus is a religion, you cannot also call not believing in
> supernatural entities a religion.
> 
> Science is probably rightly called a world view or philosophy.
> Materialism, or a naturalistic world view, similar. But Atheism?

Well, don't spell it with a capital letter, for God's sake.

> There's just not enough to it, to call it a philosophy, let alone a
> religion.

Absolutely. Well said, in all parts.

Now here's a good analogy, one that even won't even dismay
the losing side:

Atheism is like darkness, and religion is like light. Atheism
is not just another color of light, it's the absence of light.
You may ask for the frequencies of light, but not for that of
darkness.

If there is no light---and in this case there just isn't---one
ought to prefer seeing nothing.

Lee


From moulton at moulton.com  Fri Dec 11 03:46:08 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 11 Dec 2009 03:46:08 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Faith, Religion, Science and PCR [was Re:  Tolerance]]
Message-ID: <20091211034608.97168.qmail@moulton.com>



I have changed the Subject since we are drifting from the original subject.

On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 18:02 +0000, jameschoate at austin.rr.com wrote:
---- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote: 
> > 
> > Yes, because surely it's obvious that not believing in unicorns is 
> > just another way of believing in unicorns. Oh, wait.
> 
> You, and most others, confuse two different things here. The issue
> is 'faith' not unicorns. Whether the unicorns exist is irrelevant to
> the question of faith.
> 
> http://www.waythingsare.com/news/what/religion/a-pantheist-s-manifesto.htm
> 
> Atheism, like science, are religions and philosophies. The only
> difference is the axioms you put your faith in.
 
First thanks for giving the URL; it helps put your comments in perspective.  However I still disagree but based on reading the webpage I think I know why there is a disagreement.

The difficulty stems from the usages of the word "faith"; so let me contrast two different usages:
1. Faith as being confident and having (at least implicitly) doubt and acknowledging the possibility of error
2. Faith as being without doubt usually or often coupled with denial of the possibility of error

My experience that "faith" in the second usage is often (but not always) associated with religion; particularly (but not exclusively) Monotheism.  Thus for example a Christian (particularly a Fundamentalist Protestant) might declare faith in the second sense by saying their Faith in the Trinity is absolute and there is no doubt about Christianity.  For that Christian that is the meaning of faith, there is no doubt or "let us put all this to a critial examination".

Now compare that to the usage of a scientist commenting (to use your example) if two hydrogen atoms had been exchanged.  Would the scientist be more clear if she said "I have faith that the two hydrogen atoms have not been exchanged" or if she said "I have confidence that the two hydrogen atoms not not been exchanged; of course this confidence is subject to further testing and attempts at falsification since there is the possibility of error and we need to maintain the appropriate doubt and skepticism".  Particularly if the scientist was aware of PCR Pan Critical Rationalism.  Well actually the scientist would most likely say "I have confidence that the two hydrogen atoms have not been exchanged" and leave off the rest because it is implicit.

My point is that using the term "faith" in relation to science often leads people to get confused and can cause a real impasse in communications.  There is no need to use the term "faith" in relation to science; it does not add anything to the understanding of science and it can cause major problems.  Now at this point someone will usually say "But you need to have ultimate faith in the scientic method or testing or falsifiability or something".  And the response is "No, an uncritical faith in some ultimate something is not necessary; Bartley has shown us a set useful tools".

Many on this list will be aware of Pan Critical Rationalism and will have noticed how I used certain phrases and sentence structures to make my argument lead to this recommendation of the book The Retreat to Commitment written by W. W. Bartley.  I highly recommend the book although it is rather dense and contains a lot of detail on the historical conflicts between science and religion.  If you do not have time to read the book then you might want to read the essay on PCR by Max More which I also highly recommend:
http://www.maxmore.com/pcr.htm

To summarize: Science (and by science I include all scholarly inquiry) must contain doubt and continual testing to refute error.  To use a term such as "faith" which has as one of its common usages "the absence of doubt" seems to me to be counter-productive.  In discussing science one can say "confidence with continual testing and criticism" and be more accurate and less confusing than saying "faith".  That is why personally I try to only use the word "faith" when discussing religion; I have found doing so eliminates a lot of misunderstanding.

Fred



From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Dec 11 05:10:43 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:10:43 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <370107.70551.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912091517o364fecc2y8db65120760701e1@mail.gmail.com> 
	<370107.70551.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912102110y2cd0d8f2o483d45f21c23f6af@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/11 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:

>> And the counterargument is that of course the Chinese Room
>> would have semantics and intentionality and all the other
>> good things that the brain has.
>
> If you formulate a good counter-argument to support that counter-thesis then I hope you will post it here!

Perhaps you could do the work for me and prove that *you* have
semantics and intentionality and aren't just a zombie computer
program.

>> Only if consciousness were a side-effect of intelligent behaviour
>> would it have evolved.
>
> I don't understand your meaning. Lots of non-adaptive traits have evolved as side-effects of adaptive traits. Do you count consciousness as such a non-adaptive trait, one that evolved alongside the adaptive trait of intelligence? Or do you mean to say that consciousness increases or aids intelligence, an adaptive trait?

I suppose it's possible that nature could have given rise to zombies
that behave like humans, but it seems unlikely.

> In any case Searle rejects epiphenomenonalism -- the view that subjective mental events act only as "side-effects" and do not cause physical events. Searle thinks they do; that if you consciously will to raise your arm, and it rises, your conscious willing had something to do with the fact that it rose. (In this example the philosophical concept of intentionality corresponds with the ordinary meaning.)

I find the whole idea of epiphenomenalism muddled and unhelpful. Why
don't we discuss whether intelligence is an epiphenomenon rather than
consciousness? It's not my intelligence that makes me writes this, it
is motor impulses to my hands, intelligence being a mere side-effect
of this sort of neural activity with no causal role of its own.

>>> Now then, IF we first come to understand those causal
>> powers of brains and IF we then find a way to duplicate
>> those powers in something other than brains, THEN we will
>> create strong AI. On that day, pigs will fly.
>>
>> IF we simulate the externally observable behaviour of
>> brains THEN we will create strong AI.
>
> Do you mean to say that if something behaves exactly as if it has human intelligence, it must have strong AI? If so then we mean different things by strong AI.

No, I mean that if you replace the brain a neuron at a time by
electronic analogues that function the same, i.e. same output for same
input so that the neurons yet to be replaced respond in the same way,
then the resulting brain will not only display the same behaviour but
will also have the same consciousness. Searle considers the neural
replacement scenario and declares that the brain will behave the same
outwardly but will have a different consciousness. The aforementioned
paper by Chalmers shows why this is impossible.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From moulton at moulton.com  Fri Dec 11 06:17:41 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 11 Dec 2009 06:17:41 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <20091211061741.83045.qmail@moulton.com>


On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 19:38 -0800, Lee Corbin wrote:

> Now here's a good analogy, one that even won't even dismay
> the losing side:
> 
> Atheism is like darkness, and religion is like light. Atheism
> is not just another color of light, it's the absence of light.
> You may ask for the frequencies of light, but not for that of
> darkness.
> 
> If there is no light---and in this case there just isn't---one
> ought to prefer seeing nothing.
 
Very interesting analogy; particularly since the Light versus Dark
dualism that has historical roots in many areas from India to the
Mediterranean area and is seen in many religious traditions.

Fred


From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Fri Dec 11 07:41:10 2009
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 7:41:10 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912101447q13eb84ddx664a8d875c427d65@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091211074111.JH70D.448202.root@hrndva-web11-z02>

---- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote: 


> This idea that atheism is just another religion is beginning to shit
> me. It's wrong.

Atheism is nothing more than faith, that makes it a religion. This is irrespective of how the practitioners may wish to distinguish themselves from all others.

This desire of separation is a weakness, not a strength.
 
> Atheism has no shared culture, ritual, tradition.
> It doesn't even have metaphysical belief, it has a lack of
> metaphysical belief. Unless you think that not believing in Santa
> Claus is a religion, you cannot also call not believing in
> supernatural entities a religion.

Irrelevant, religion has nothing to do with some conceptual metric of distance in a religious phase space. Whether one believes in Santa Clause is irrelevant, you are confusing the the with the name for the thing. A serious conceptual error.

 
> Science is probably rightly called a world view or philosophy.
> Materialism, or a naturalistic world view, similar. But Atheism?
> There's just not enough to it, to call it a philosophy, let alone a
> religion.

That's probably the silliest conceptual construct I've seen in a while. You're basically saying atheism isn't a religion because it consist of a set of ideals that are asymptotic to nothing. How do you measure this 'something' you're using to compare?

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

James Choate
jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at twcable.com
512-657-1279
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Dec 11 08:45:16 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:45:16 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <20091211074111.JH70D.448202.root@hrndva-web11-z02>
References: <710b78fc0912101447q13eb84ddx664a8d875c427d65@mail.gmail.com>
	<20091211074111.JH70D.448202.root@hrndva-web11-z02>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912110045p50565158g3655a4798847a900@mail.gmail.com>

On 11/12/2009, jameschoate at austin.rr.com <jameschoate at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> ---- Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Atheism has no shared culture, ritual, tradition.
> > It doesn't even have metaphysical belief, it has a lack of
> > metaphysical belief. Unless you think that not believing in Santa
> > Claus is a religion, you cannot also call not believing in
> > supernatural entities a religion.
>
> Irrelevant, religion has nothing to do with some conceptual metric of distance in a religious phase space. Whether one believes in Santa Clause is irrelevant, you are confusing the the with the name for the thing. A serious conceptual error.

Do you believe in Santa Claus? Santa Claus is a minor deity in the
Christian pantheon, so if you don't believe in him, you are a Santa
Claus atheist. Is that a religious belief? If so, then your definition
of religious belief is very broad, and perhaps atheists should not
take offense when you apply it to them.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Dec 11 10:38:38 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:38:38 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912101447q13eb84ddx664a8d875c427d65@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B211A47.7040808@satx.rr.com>
	<20091210180227.7PGZX.450980.root@hrndva-web02-z02>
	<710b78fc0912101447q13eb84ddx664a8d875c427d65@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091211103838.GX17686@leitl.org>

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 09:17:55AM +1030, Emlyn wrote:

> > Atheism, like science, are religions and philosophies. The only difference is the axioms you put your faith in.
> 
> This idea that atheism is just another religion is beginning to shit
> me. It's wrong.

The whole thread stinks. All threads about religion do.
Nothing good will come out of it. I suggest we kill it.
 
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


From dharris at livelib.com  Fri Dec 11 10:29:14 2009
From: dharris at livelib.com (David C. Harris)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:29:14 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <20091211061741.83045.qmail@moulton.com>
References: <20091211061741.83045.qmail@moulton.com>
Message-ID: <4B221EFA.5070204@livelib.com>

moulton at moulton.com wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 19:38 -0800, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>   
>> Now here's a good analogy, one that even won't even dismay
>> the losing side:
>>
>> Atheism is like darkness, and religion is like light. Atheism
>> is not just another color of light, it's the absence of light.
>> You may ask for the frequencies of light, but not for that of
>> darkness.
>>
>> If there is no light---and in this case there just isn't---one
>> ought to prefer seeing nothing.
>>     
>  
> Very interesting analogy; particularly since the Light versus Dark
> dualism that has historical roots in many areas from India to the
> Mediterranean area and is seen in many religious traditions.
>
> Fred
>   
Fred, do  you know of other sources of that dualism (and resurrection of 
bodies and a Final Judgment), beside the Zoroastrian religion being 
promoted by the Persian empire?  I'm intrigued by and want to evaluate a 
claim that the Persians spread that religion to encourage loyalty in the 
surrounding colonial territories, such as Israel after the Israelis were 
freed from Babylon and the Persians financed building of the 2nd Temple.

   -  David Harris, Palo Alto


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Fri Dec 11 11:24:50 2009
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:24:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] Faith, Religion, Science and PCR [was Re:  Tolerance]]
In-Reply-To: <20091211034608.97168.qmail@moulton.com>
References: <20091211034608.97168.qmail@moulton.com>
Message-ID: <34596.12.77.169.78.1260530690.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>

Fred Moulton writes:
>
> To summarize: Science (and by science I include all scholarly inquiry) must contain
> doubt and continual testing to refute error.  To use a term such as "faith" which
> has as one of its common usages "the absence of doubt" seems to me to be
> counter-productive.  In discussing science one can say "confidence with continual
> testing and criticism" and be more accurate and less confusing than saying "faith".
> That is why personally I try to only use the word "faith" when discussing religion;
> I have found doing so eliminates a lot of misunderstanding.

The word "believe" has many similar connotative drawbacks for me.  I frequently see
it used where "think" might be more appropriate.

Not to be confused with the meaningless uses such as "I believe in this town" as a
political comment....

Regards,
MB



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri Dec 11 12:15:17 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:15:17 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <4B212EC7.7030702@satx.rr.com>
References: <821320.4437.qm@web59914.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<4B212EC7.7030702@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912110415pb4d90feuab4bcefe0e4b9449@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/10 Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>

> One huge problem with this rather disjointed thread is the confusion
> between "religion" and "belief in a god or gods". An atheist, just from the
> derivation of the word, is a person who has no belief in deity. But of
> course there are many godless religions. Animist religions seem to have no
> gods, per se, but see the world as suffused with and shaped by personified
> forces and passions. The Australian aboriginal Dreaming is a vast ancient
> integral cosmology in which the seasonal landscape and its inhabitants are
> representations of volitional Ancestors; there's nothing remotely like an
> Abrahamic God--but it would seem absurd not to call this all-encompassing
> worldview "religious."
>

Yes, this is fundamental point. And I suspect that even our understanding of
pre-christian or non-European gods are nowadays strongly influenced by
monotheistic views (including for some of their followers).

For instance, ancient Greeks used not to see any especially dramatic
contradictions in the fact that very different and incompatible versions of
the same myth were widespread. Chronology thereof was also quite vague.

It has been persuasively contended that this shows that they did not
consider statements concerning everyday life ("there is a stone in this
basket") on the same basis as statements concerning mythical facts ("Pallas
Athena was wounded during the Troy siege").

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/7ec44ae4/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 13:27:19 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:27:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912102110y2cd0d8f2o483d45f21c23f6af@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <802912.95517.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Fri, 12/11/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps you could do the work for me and prove that *you*
> have semantics and intentionality and aren't just a zombie
> computer program.

That tactic of the sceptic leads to a sort of solipsism, but I agree we could go down that rabbit hole if we really want to...

<here we sit now in the sceptic's rabbit hole>
Say there, Stathis. I notice that I have intentionality even down here in the sceptic's rabbit hole. I find it hard to hold in mind the idea that I don't have it because to hold anything whatsoever in mind is to have it. How about you? Do you have anything whatsoever in mind? :-)
<exiting the rabbit hole>

> Why don't we discuss whether intelligence is an epiphenomenon
> rather than consciousness? It's not my intelligence that makes me
> writes this, it is motor impulses to my hands, intelligence being 
> a mere side-effect of this sort of neural activity with no causal 
> role of its own.

Well, from where I sit it sure seems that your hands write intelligent emails in the physical world and that something exhibiting intelligence must account for that fact. I don't mind if you choose not to call it your own intelligence. Call it whatever you please, but whatever you do choose to call it, I cannot consider it epiphenomenal. Epiphenomenal things cannot affect the physical world.


> No, I mean that if you replace the brain a neuron at a time
> by electronic analogues that function the same, i.e. same
> output for same input so that the neurons yet to be replaced 
> respond in the same way, then the resulting brain will not only 
> display the same behaviour but will also have the same consciousness. 

How will you know this?

> Searle considers the neural replacement scenario and declares that 
> the brain will behave the same outwardly but will have a different 
> consciousness. The aforementioned
> paper by Chalmers shows why this is impossible.

Chalmers is a functionalist, (or at least he sometimes wears that hat), and yes Searle disagrees with functionalism and its close relative behaviorism.

In a nutshell, we might speculate and hope that a functional analogue of the brain will have consciousness, but until we understand why biological brains have it, we will never know if anything else has it. 

Without that knowledge of the brain, functionalism has some serious problems: some philosophers have shown, for example, that we could construct a functional analogue of the brain out of beer cans and toilet paper. Pretty hard to imagine that contraption having anything like semantics, but in principle that contraption acts no different from the one Chalmers has in mind. 

No matter how you construct that brain-like contraption, you won't find anything inside it to explain semantics/intentionality. On the inside it will look just like any other contraption. Actually Leibniz first figured this out hundreds of years ago.


-gts


      


From painlord2k at libero.it  Fri Dec 11 14:35:59 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:35:59 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <580930c20912110415pb4d90feuab4bcefe0e4b9449@mail.gmail.com>
References: <821320.4437.qm@web59914.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>	<4B212EC7.7030702@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20912110415pb4d90feuab4bcefe0e4b9449@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B2258CF.9000308@libero.it>

Il 11/12/2009 13.15, Stefano Vaj ha scritto:

> Yes, this is fundamental point. And I suspect that even our
> understanding of pre-christian or non-European gods are nowadays
> strongly influenced by monotheistic views (including for some of their
> followers).
>
> For instance, ancient Greeks used not to see any especially dramatic
> contradictions in the fact that very different and incompatible versions
> of the same myth were widespread. Chronology thereof was also quite vague.
>
> It has been persuasively contended that this shows that they did not
> consider statements concerning everyday life ("there is a stone in this
> basket") on the same basis as statements concerning mythical facts
> ("Pallas Athena was wounded during the Troy siege").

Agree.
This, in change, limited their ability think in terms that we give for 
granted.
For example, the belief that unchanging natural laws exist and can be 
discovered was not their. This came with Christianity, where God is 
described as a creator that follows its own laws.
Believing in many, litigious and capricious deities don't help in 
believing there are universal rules for all things.

The same thing can be see with Islam, where Allah is a capricious god, 
so the idea of discovering unchangeable laws is see as a blasphemy as it 
is like affirming that Allah have limits imposed to him. And blasphemy 
is meet with death.

It is of interest that this idea of unfixed natural laws and 
"post-normal" science is appealing to some atheists. Not many, for now.
But what would prevent people to accept more and more this way of 
thinking if the grater majority don't believe or is influenced to 
believe in single creator with a single set of rules always binding for all?

The existence of a god is not important, it is the idea of a god that 
want be know, that love his creation, that give fixed rules for all the 
creation that can not be changed that can be discovered and understood.

What could use an atheist as an anchor for continuing to believe in a 
universe with fixed rules that can be know and understood and that is 
good to know and understand them. Because without some anchor, the 
belief will change with he time, as they always do when there is nothing 
to anchor them.

Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.103/2557 -  Data di rilascio: 12/10/09 21:19:00

From saefir at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 08:41:23 2009
From: saefir at yahoo.com (flemming)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:41:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] atheism
Message-ID: <287486.21264.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

To be an atheist is exactly just another religion. You can believe that there is no god, but you can not prove it. Therefore atheism is a religion based on belief. If you want to distance yourself from religion the right ism is agnostisism. To be an agnostisc is to decclare that there is not enough data to settle the question if there is or is not a god.
Most natural scientist, if not religious, are agnostics, the late Carl Sagan is one example.
Flemming


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/8da7f532/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: --static--liam_crowdsurfer_bottom.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 21362 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/8da7f532/attachment.gif>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 15:24:07 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:24:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <mailman.836.1260508270.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <499872.95108.qm@web32004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

> http://www.waythingsare.com/news/what/religion/a-pantheist-s-manifesto.htm

I'll see your pantheism and raise you infinity:

http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnitheism

Ben Zaiboc



      


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 15:55:16 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:55:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1260532801.444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <432003.90571.qm@web32002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

<jameschoate at austin.rr.com> declaimed:
> 
> Atheism is nothing more than faith, that makes it a
> religion. This is irrespective of how the practitioners may
> wish to distinguish themselves from all others.


The whole point of atheism is that it is emphatically *not* a faith.  It's certainly not a 'faith in there being no gods', if that's what you're thinking.  

It's a position of taking nothing on faith.  "I don't believe there are any gods" is a different thing to "I believe there are no gods".  In the first, you are not stating a faith in something, in the second, you are.

The first is atheism, and is simply a result of there being no evidence for gods.  The second is a faith-based stance, a belief (I don't know what you'd call it), and could well persist in the face of any evidence to the contrary.  You might want to call this 'belief in no gods' a religion. I wouldn't object. But it's not atheism.

Ben Zaiboc






      


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 16:01:20 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:01:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] 5 materials that will make the world as we know it
	obsolete
In-Reply-To: <mailman.836.1260508270.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <391651.16919.qm@web32003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>

> I realize much of this is already known here, but it's
> still an interesting
> and entertaining article.? I wish the future would
> hurry up and get here!
> LOL
> 
> http://www.cracked.com/article/212_5-materials-that-will-make-world-as-we-know-it-obsolete/
> 

Holy Shit! With What?

:D

Ben Zaiboc


      


From max at maxmore.com  Fri Dec 11 16:06:40 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:06:40 -0600
Subject: [ExI]  atheism
Message-ID: <200912111606.nBBG6sWu022978@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Flemming
>To be an atheist is exactly just another religion. You can believe 
>that there is no god, but you can not prove it. Therefore atheism is 
>a religion based on belief.

Atheism is a-theism -- an absence of belief in a god. The absence of 
belief *cannot* be a religion. In addition, as others have pointed 
out, atheism has none of the rituals or other marks of religions. 
It's absurd to call atheism a religion.

I cannot prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, but I don't 
believe in a Tooth Fairy. Not only do I lack belief in the TF, I 
would pretty confidently say there is no TF. Does that make me part 
of the A-TF religion? If you answer "yes", then you are committed to 
saying I am part of an infinite number of religions, since I lack 
belief in an infinite number of other claims.

>  If you want to distance yourself from religion the right ism is 
> agnostisism. To be an agnostisc is to decclare that there is not 
> enough data to settle the question if there is or is not a god.

That is one form of agnosticism -- the weak version. In that sense, 
you can be an agnostic atheist. It's also possible to be an agnostic 
theist if you choose to believe despite acknowledging that you don't 
really know. (This might seem weird, but many religious people's 
brains probably are doing something like this at a level below the 
conscious... just my speculation.)

The other, strong, form of agnosticism says that you *cannot* know 
whether or not there is a god. That's an equally legitimate form of 
agnosticism: it is a-gnosticism -- a lack of knowledge. You can lack 
knowledge because (a) you don't have sufficient information or 
haven't given it sufficient thought, or (b) you believe that you 
cannot know -- gods are not possible objects of knowledge.

Atheism and agnosticism are not -- or need not -- be distinct 
alternatives. The former is simply a statement about a lack of 
belief; the latter may be a statement about what you think it's 
possible to believe, or what you think you have *reason* to believe. 
Unfortunately, not everyone bases their beliefs on what they have 
reason to believe.

But, whichever way you take the meaning of "agnostic" or "atheist", 
atheism is clearly *not* a religion. You can't have religion without 
a set of beliefs (not lack-of-beliefs) and some accompanying markers 
(typically rituals and the like).

Flemming and James Choate do seem to be seriously confused on this 
issue. I second Fred's recommendation to study pancritical 
rationalism. It might help.

This should be 101 on the Extropy-Chat list. We have plenty of 
genuinely controversial and difficult issues to discuss. Can we now 
get back to them?

Max


-------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
Extropy Institute Founder
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com
------------------------------------- 



From max at maxmore.com  Fri Dec 11 16:10:33 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:10:33 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Does caloric restriction work for humans?
Message-ID: <200912111610.nBBGAhnZ024026@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

I've been skeptical about drastic CR for humans for years. One 
reason, mentioned in the following article, is that we don't live in 
cages in a lab. Lacking any spare muscle or fat makes us highly 
vulnerable to traumas of various kinds. (Many of us know of -- or are 
-- people who have lost 30 pounds or more in hospital due to 
illness). Recently, Aubrey has given a specific reason (also 
mentioned in the article) why the life extension from even severe 
caloric restriction is likely to be very small.

So, here's the article. I would like to hear your thoughts on it, pro 
and con. If CR advocates have directly addressed all the points, I'd 
appreciate a pointer.

Calorie restrictive eating for longer life? The story we didn't hear 
in the news
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/07/calorie-restrictive-eating-for-longer.html

Onward!

Max


-------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
Extropy Institute Founder
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com
------------------------------------- 



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri Dec 11 17:05:07 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:05:07 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <4B2258CF.9000308@libero.it>
References: <821320.4437.qm@web59914.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<4B212EC7.7030702@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20912110415pb4d90feuab4bcefe0e4b9449@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B2258CF.9000308@libero.it>
Message-ID: <580930c20912110905t752bd92ek312bf714ce341db@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/11 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>

> This, in change, limited their ability think in terms that we give for
> granted.
> For example, the belief that unchanging natural laws exist and can be
> discovered was not their. This came with Christianity, where God is
> described as a creator that follows its own laws.
>

Why, things obviously happen to exhibit a perverse consistency, because as a
good atheist/neopagan/idealist/skeptic/whatever, I am inclined on the
contrary to believe that "natural laws" have nothing to do with immutable
decrees of an entity (be it God, or even "Mother Nature") establishing how
things must go, in more or less the same fashion the human legislators try
and regulate social affairs, but simply with our way of understanding and
describing how they actually do...

So, while I think that adopting one view or the other is more of a
philosophical stance than a matter of fact, I am needless to say much more
at ease with the Greek (say, Eraklit or Democritus) than with the biblical
worldview (say, the Genesis or Saint Thomas). And I suspect that modern
science and epistemology, especially since the quantum mechanics revolution,
have an easier and more elegant coexistence with the former.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/c8460699/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri Dec 11 17:11:08 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:11:08 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <432003.90571.qm@web32002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.1.1260532801.444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<432003.90571.qm@web32002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912110911p26c601a3h1ff7d1ca733d374a@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/11 Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com>

> It's a position of taking nothing on faith.  "I don't believe there are any
> gods" is a different thing to "I believe there are no gods".  In the first,
> you are not stating a faith in something, in the second, you are.
>

If you are a transhumanist, you should anyway rephrase it in "I believe
there are no gods (yet)". ;-)

There again, and trying to steer the thread more on subject, something which
risks to make transhumanism impresentable in some quarters (e.g., academic
posthumanism) is the idea that the future coming of gods is something to be
taken for granted or inscribed in some cosmological necessity, rather than a
possibility - and probably a possibility that would have to be actively
pursued if it ever were to take place...

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/97bc40e8/attachment.html>

From max at maxmore.com  Fri Dec 11 17:58:10 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:58:10 -0600
Subject: [ExI] =?iso-8859-1?q?Forecasting_experts=92_simple_model_leaves__?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?expensive_climate_models_cold?=
Message-ID: <200912111758.nBBHwM3O017606@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Another interesting piece from Armstrong and Green:

Forecasting experts? simple model leaves expensive climate models cold

A simple model was found to be produce forecasts 
that are over seven times more accurate than 
forecasts from the procedures used by the United 
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

This important finding is reported in an article 
titled ?Validity of climate change forecasting 
for public policy decision making? 
(http://kestencgreen.com/gas-2009-validity.pdf) 
in the latest issue of the International Journal 
of Forecasting. It is the result of a 
collaboration among forecasters J. Scott 
Armstrong of the Wharton School, Kesten C. Green 
of Monish University, and climate scientist 
Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

In an earlier, paper 
(http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf), 
Armstrong and Green found that the IPCC?s 
approach to forecasting climate violated 72 
principles of forecasting. To put this in 
context, would you put your children on a 
trans-Atlantic flight if you knew that the plane 
had failed engineering checks for 72 out of 127 
relevant items on the checklist?

The IPCC violations of forecasting principles 
were partly due to their use of models that were 
too complex for the situation. Contrary to 
everyday thinking, complex models provide 
forecasts that are less accurate than forecasts 
from simple models when the situation is complex and uncertain.

Confident that a forecasting model that followed 
scientific forecasting principles would provide 
forecasts that were more accurate than those 
provided by the IPCC, Green, Armstrong and Soon 
used a model that was more consistent with 
forecasting principles and knowledge about climate.

The forecasting model was the so-called ?na?ve? 
model. It assumes that things will remain the 
same. It is such a simple model that people are 
generally not aware of its power. In contrast to 
the IPCC?s central forecast that global mean 
temperatures will rise by 3 C over a century, the 
na?ve model simply forecasts that temperatures 
next year and for each of 100 years into the 
future would remain the same as the last years?.

The na?ve model approach is confusing to 
non-forecasters who are aware that temperatures 
have always varied. Moreover, much has been made 
of the observation that the temperature series 
that the IPCC uses shows a broadly upward trend 
since 1850 and that this is coincident with 
increasing industrialization and associated 
increases in manmade carbon dioxide gas emissions.

In order to test the na?ve model, annual 
forecasts were made from one to 100 years in the 
future starting with 1850?s global average 
temperature as the forecast for the years 1851 to 
1950. This process was repeated by updating for 
each year up through 2007. This produced 10,750 
annual average temperature forecasts for all 
horizons. It was the first time that the IPCC?s 
forecasting procedures had been subject to a 
large-scale test of the accuracy of the forecasts that they produce.

Over all the forecasts, the IPCC error was 7.7 
times larger than the error from the na?ve model.

While the superiority of the na?ve model was 
modest for one- to ten-year-ahead forecasts 
(where the IPCC error was 1.5 times larger), its 
superiority was enormous for the 91- to 
100-year-ahead forecasts, where the IPCC error was 12.6 times larger.

Is it proper to conduct validation tests? In many 
cases, such as the climate change situation, 
people claim that: ?Things have changed! We 
cannot use the past to forecast.? While they may 
think that their situation is unique, there is no 
logic to this argument. The only way to forecast 
the future is by learning from the past. In fact, 
the warmers claims are also based on their analyses of the past.

Could one improve upon the na?ve model? The na?ve 
model violates some principles. For example, it 
violates the principle that one should use as 
long a time series as possible, because it bases 
all forecasts on simply the global average 
temperature for the single year just prior to 
making the forecasts. It also fails to combine 
forecasts from different reasonable methods. The 
authors planned to start simple with this 
self-funded project and to then obtain funding to 
undertake a more ambitious forecasting effort to 
ensure that all principles were followed. This 
would no doubt improve accuracy. However, the 
forecasts from the na?ve model were very 
accurate. For example, the mean absolute error 
for the 108 fifty-year ahead forecasts was only 
0.24 C. It is difficult to see any economic value 
to reducing such a small forecast error.

For further information contact J.  Scott 
Armstrong (http://jscottarmstrong.com or Kesten 
C. Green (http://kestencgreen.com/)]

  



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Fri Dec 11 17:38:24 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:38:24 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <370107.70551.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <370107.70551.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <EAB182A4-0CF5-4679-A877-36332DB396EE@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 10, 2009,  Gordon Swobe wrote:

> Searle rejects epiphenomenonalism -- the view that subjective mental events act only as "side-effects" and do not cause physical events. Searle thinks they do; that if you consciously will to raise your arm, and it rises, your conscious willing had something to do with the fact that it rose. 

This is the sort of thing that gives philosophy a bad name. It's a completely empty argument, its like debating if pressure caused the balloon to pop or if it popped because too many air molecules were hitting the inside of the balloon.

> Do you mean to say that if something behaves exactly as if it has human intelligence, it must have strong AI?

Certainly.

>  If so then we mean different things by strong AI.

I don't use the term "strong AI" myself because if it has any meaning at all it means programing a soul. I don't believe in the soul, it's a useless concept.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/c40fb22a/attachment.html>

From painlord2k at libero.it  Fri Dec 11 18:17:33 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:17:33 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <580930c20912110905t752bd92ek312bf714ce341db@mail.gmail.com>
References: <821320.4437.qm@web59914.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>	<4B212EC7.7030702@satx.rr.com>	<580930c20912110415pb4d90feuab4bcefe0e4b9449@mail.gmail.com>	<4B2258CF.9000308@libero.it>
	<580930c20912110905t752bd92ek312bf714ce341db@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B228CBD.5020208@libero.it>

Il 11/12/2009 18.05, Stefano Vaj ha scritto:
> 2009/12/11 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it

> Why, things obviously happen to exhibit a perverse consistency,

The "obvious" is the problem.
It is obvious to you because you are trained to think so and probably 
near all your education (like mine) support this and experience 
(filtrated by education) confirm it.
For other fellow humans it is not so obvious. They believe in one or 
many capricious gods or spirits that must be pleased or bribed.
Do major religions like Buddhism or Hinduism believe there is a set of 
immutable laws governing humans, gods, spirits and the nature?

> because
> as a good atheist/neopagan/idealist/skeptic/whatever, I am inclined on
> the contrary to believe that "natural laws" have nothing to do with
> immutable decrees of an entity (be it God, or even "Mother Nature")
> establishing how things must go, in more or less the same fashion the
> human legislators try and regulate social affairs, but simply with our
> way of understanding and describing how they actually do...

The existence of God is not a problem, we could agree that it doesn't 
exist, for the sake of the discussion.
What I was trying to discus is the effect of believing in a specific 
type of God. A god that set laws, never change them and made them so 
they are understandable.
In this, he set an high standard for human legislators as human laws 
always change and are not always understandable from other humans (and 
often from the same legislators). It occur to me that many legislators 
don't know the laws they enact and are surprised and outraged when 
someone ask them if they have red the text of the law before enacting it 
(as recent episodes in the US show - but surely Italy and other places 
are not so different).

> So, while I think that adopting one view or the other is more of a
> philosophical stance than a matter of fact, I am needless to say much
> more at ease with the Greek (say, Eraklit or Democritus) than with the
> biblical worldview (say, the Genesis or Saint Thomas). And I suspect
> that modern science and epistemology, especially since the quantum
> mechanics revolution, have an easier and more elegant coexistence with
> the former.

 From my, very limited, understanding of QM I think it is entirely 
compatible with Christian views.
Albeit I can not know what atomic nucleus will be the next to naturally 
decade, I know the probability of this to happen in a time period and it 
will not change.

Could be interesting to ask some Odinist what their religion say about this.

Mirco

-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.103/2558 -  Data di rilascio: 12/11/09 11:06:00

From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 17:53:13 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:53:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Atheism
Message-ID: <96941.80966.qm@web59904.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>






Atheism can be termed a de facto religion/faith. It does, for instance,?include academic rituals. Those of you at colleges?& universities know that nonscience academia is filled with rituals and tens-- or is?it hundreds--?of thousands?of intellectual-priests disguised as professors.
?But that is not to reject what atheists/agnostics here are writing. Religion is nothing more than escapism; albeit necessary, because the great masses are so dumb?& dumber they couldn't raise families without faith and?even churches; they are rebelling against the Darwinist food-chain by trading it?for?religious hierarchy.
However, having written that,?IMO commodified religious culture is no worse than commodified secular trash culture. Why is two hours in a dopey church worse than two hours watching a dopey film? 
Entertainment, religion (and religion is entertainment) are harmless now, dime-a-dozen. Porn isn't threatening anymore -- it is merely millions of bored apes rutting in cheap sets. And the really good news is that since no one ever goes broke underestimating taste the economy will pick up nicely. You all got it made in the shade.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/0d47799d/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Fri Dec 11 18:25:06 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:25:06 -0500
Subject: [ExI] atheism
In-Reply-To: <287486.21264.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <287486.21264.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F7F2443E-AA16-4D98-94FD-C38F02F85290@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 11, 2009, at 3:41 AM, flemming wrote:

> You can believe that there is no god, but you can not prove it. Therefore atheism is a religion based on belief. If you want to distance yourself from religion the right ism is agnostisism.

I'll bet you are a atheist regarding Zeus and Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as Dawkins says he just goes one god further. Agnostics make the logical error of assuming that if there is no evidence that something exists and no evidence that it does not then there is a 50% chance its real.

 John K Clark




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/8d3062de/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Fri Dec 11 18:29:21 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:29:21 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Atheism
In-Reply-To: <96941.80966.qm@web59904.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <96941.80966.qm@web59904.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AA6CA570-DD60-4350-90A2-B046BF8B903C@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 11, 2009,  Post Futurist wrote:

> Atheism can be termed a de facto religion/faith. It does, for instance, include academic rituals. 

For a word to be useful you need contrast, if everything has the Klognee property then it's not a useful concept. Can you pleas tell me something that is NOT a religion?

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/494a0cf8/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri Dec 11 18:34:44 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:34:44 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Does caloric restriction work for humans?
In-Reply-To: <200912111610.nBBGAhnZ024026@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912111610.nBBGAhnZ024026@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912111034k53bd57c5x96bc087c20a72f7c@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/11 Max More <max at maxmore.com>:
> So, here's the article. I would like to hear your thoughts on it, pro and
> con. If CR advocates have directly addressed all the points, I'd appreciate
> a pointer.

I have very anedoctical evidence in my family history of extreme
longevity coupled with a choosen (or dictated) caloric restriction
regime.

I suspect however that in very rough terms the (limited) extension of
one's life span so achievable may depend, at least in part,
i) on thelife style caloric restriction imposes;
ii) on the fact that one is living longer because living slower (both
in a metaphoric and metabolical sense).

All in all, the question that immediately arises is: what's the point?

Especially taking into account that while a few people adapt pretty
easily (my grandmother, for instance), for many other it may be
applicable for Dr. Atkins used to say (citing by heart): "I do not
know whether caloric restriction substantially increases your chances
or living 100+ years, but I can assure you that it will feel much
longer...". Not in any positive sense, obviously.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Fri Dec 11 18:09:22 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:09:22 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <802912.95517.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <802912.95517.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3647C7BA-B503-4AB4-B86C-B9343C513A5B@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 11, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> In a nutshell, we might speculate and hope that a functional analogue of the brain will have consciousness, but until we understand why biological brains have it, we will never know if anything else has it. 

You don't know how biological brains work and yet you think human beings are conscious, or at least you do when they are not asleep or dead. You make this distinction by observing their behavior. And I think it would be useful if philosophers took a freshman course in biology because if consciousness is not a byproduct of intelligence, if it is not the feeling data has when it is being processed then there is no way evolution could have produced it and I know for a fact that it has at least once

> some philosophers have shown, for example, that we could construct a functional analogue of the brain out of beer cans and toilet paper.

So what?

> Pretty hard to imagine that contraption having anything like semantics

But it's easy to imagine 3 pounds of grey goo having semantics?

> No matter how you construct that brain-like contraption, you won't find anything inside it to explain semantics/intentionality.

As I said before in the history of the world the study of the concept of the soul has never produced one useful insight.

> On the inside it will look just like any other contraption.

In other words you will be unable to find a soul, not even if you look with an electron microscope.

> Actually Leibniz first figured this out hundreds of years ago.

The Identity of Indiscernibles supports my ideas not yours, it says that if I exchange you with an exact copy of you NOTHING has changed.

 John K Clark





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/24f823e2/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Fri Dec 11 18:41:10 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:41:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <20091211061741.83045.qmail@moulton.com>
References: <20091211061741.83045.qmail@moulton.com>
Message-ID: <960D1616-4C24-4AA2-A008-C536B9C116EC@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 11, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> In a nutshell, we might speculate and hope that a functional analogue of the brain will have consciousness, but until we understand why biological brains have it, we will never know if anything else has it. 

You don't know how biological brains work and yet you think human beings are conscious, or at least you do when they are not asleep or dead. You make this distinction by observing their behavior. And I think it would be useful if philosophers took a freshman course in biology because if consciousness is not a byproduct of intelligence, if it is not the feeling data has when it is being processed then there is no way evolution could have produced it and I know for a fact that it has at least once

> some philosophers have shown, for example, that we could construct a functional analogue of the brain out of beer cans and toilet paper.

So what?

> Pretty hard to imagine that contraption having anything like semantics

But it's easy to imagine 3 pounds of grey goo having semantics?

> No matter how you construct that brain-like contraption, you won't find anything inside it to explain semantics/intentionality.

As I said before in the history of the world the study of the concept of the soul has never produced one useful insight.

> On the inside it will look just like any other contraption.

In other words you will be unable to find a soul, not even if you look with an electron microscope.

> Actually Leibniz first figured this out hundreds of years ago.

The Identity of Indiscernibles supports my ideas not yours, it says that if I exchange you with an exact copy of you NOTHING has changed.

 John K Clark



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/a20ccbc8/attachment.html>

From painlord2k at libero.it  Fri Dec 11 18:42:23 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:42:23 +0100
Subject: [ExI] atheism
In-Reply-To: <F7F2443E-AA16-4D98-94FD-C38F02F85290@bellsouth.net>
References: <287486.21264.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<F7F2443E-AA16-4D98-94FD-C38F02F85290@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <4B22928F.2010000@libero.it>

Il 11/12/2009 19.25, John Clark ha scritto:
> On Dec 11, 2009, at 3:41 AM, flemming wrote:
>
>> You can believe that there is no god, but you can not prove it.
>> Therefore atheism is a religion based on belief. If you want to
>> distance yourself from religion the right ism is agnostisism.
>>
>
> I'll bet you are a atheist regarding Zeus and Thor and the Flying
> Spaghetti Monster, as Dawkins says he just goes one god further.
> Agnostics make the logical error of assuming that if there is no
> evidence that something exists and no evidence that it does not then
> there is a 50% chance its real.

Even if the chance to be real is only 0.00000000000000000000000001%
It don't make it unreal, only improbable.
Atheists make the error to believe that something very improbable is 
impossible.
Given they are not able to prove their claim, their claim is based on 
faith. I never see an atheist claim that the existence of god is 
improbable. I don't remember if someone make the thesis it is 
impossible. They simply claim it don't exist. Without proof. So theirs 
is faith.

Mirco

p.s.
We could also talk about the problem that an god possible only in one 
infinitesimal probability, given enough time would become to exist.
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.103/2558 -  Data di rilascio: 12/11/09 11:06:00

From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Dec 11 18:43:46 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:43:46 -0800
Subject: [ExI] atheism
In-Reply-To: <287486.21264.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <287486.21264.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <B2CBC18A-B50E-47A9-AA4C-4FC8053B0325@mac.com>


On Dec 11, 2009, at 12:41 AM, flemming wrote:

> 
> To be an atheist is exactly just another religion. You can believe that there is no god, but you can not prove it.
> 
> 
>  Therefore atheism is a religion based on belief. If you want to distance yourself from religion the right ism is agnostisism. To be an agnostisc is to decclare that there is not enough data to settle the question if there is or is not a god.
> Most natural scientist, if not religious, are agnostics, the late Carl Sagan is one example.
> Flemming
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

This is dumb.  Some asserts there are invisible pink unicorns all around us and that it is right and proper to worship them.   I assert that I have no evidence of any such and thus do not believe in them and thus thing such worship is bullocks.  And you come along and say both parties are equally religious!  Clearly you have no firm grasp on the meaning of the word "belief" or "religion".  They are not the same btw else belief in anything, say gravity, would be "religion".  Clearly stating disbelief that X is true is not the same as belief that X is true.     

Saying "well I can't really say whether there are invisible pink unicorns or not" is a cop-out, at best technically true since they are defined as being impossible to prove or disprove.  But hopefully we have all grown beyond such sophomore BS rhetorical games.

-  samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/44f89c43/attachment.html>

From painlord2k at libero.it  Fri Dec 11 18:46:24 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:46:24 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Nobel homeschooled until 9th grade
Message-ID: <4B229380.5000502@libero.it>

I tripped over this:
http://homeschooling-network.com/NewsArticles/Default.aspx
http://www.science.ca/scientists/scientistprofile.php?pID=129&pg=3

> Homeschooled Physics Nobel Prize Winner Without Dr. Boyle, there
> would be no digital photography
>
> Homeschooling Swede The 2009 Nobel Prize Winners were announced
> recently, and includes a homeschooled Physics Nobel Prize Winner: Dr.
> Willard S. Boyle. He received the prize principally for the invention
> of the Charged Coupled Device (CCD) that captures digital images used
> in digital cameras and cellular/handheld phones, as well as numerous
> other applications such as the Hubble Telescope.
>
> Dr. Boyle was born in 1924 In Nova Scotia Canada, where he was
> homescholed by his mother up to ninth grade. He studied at Lower
> Canada College in Montreal, and graduated at McGill University with
> his Batchelor's degree. He credits his success to his stated number
> one mentor: his mother who homeschooled him. After his Batchelor's
> degree he received: an MS, and a PhD in Physics. He was later the
> executive director of Communications Sciences Division, Bell Labs in
> New Jersey. He is described as: "Adventurous, clever, curious" on the
> candian science website: www.science.ca
>
> He received the Nobel prize jointly with Dr. George E. Smith,
> principally for inventing the Charged Coupled Device (CCD). These are
> used today to take digital photographs, and can be found in hand-held
> phones, digital cameras, as well as in telescopes such as the Hubble
> Telescope. The MegaPixel number we know about on digital cameras and
> phones, is the number of how many million pixels are on the CCD that
> Dr. Boyle jointly invented. Without the CCD, digitial phootograhy
> would not exist.
>
> He is famously quoted as saying: "Know how to judge when to persevere
> and when to quit. If you?re going to do something, do it well. You
> don?t have to be better than everyone else, but you ought to do your
> personal best.?
>
> Dr. Boyle shows the major contribution that homeschooled people can
> make in the world, even though we are few in number. Why not tell
> your friends that their digital camera wouldn't haven't been invented
> without the work of a homeschooled Physicist!

Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.103/2558 -  Data di rilascio: 12/11/09 11:06:00

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri Dec 11 18:50:35 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:50:35 +0100
Subject: [ExI] atheism
In-Reply-To: <F7F2443E-AA16-4D98-94FD-C38F02F85290@bellsouth.net>
References: <287486.21264.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<F7F2443E-AA16-4D98-94FD-C38F02F85290@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <580930c20912111050w1ea97edwfcfad349018b41b@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/11 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>

> I'll bet you are a atheist regarding Zeus and Thor and the Flying Spaghetti
> Monster, as Dawkins says he just goes one god further. Agnostics make the
> logical error of assuming that if there is no evidence that something exists
> and no evidence that it does not then there is a 50% chance its real.
>

Yes. I also think that a difference exists between belief and faith.

Do I believe that my cat is sleeping right now? Yes, and to form such an
opinion I need not a incontrovertible demonstration that the opposite is not
true. This is just an assumption I make.

Monotheistic relgions are about the idea that not only does God empirically
exists in the same sense of you and me, and has certain features, but that
you have a moral duty to believe it, and/or that all this can be
demonstrated or otherwise recognised as "evident".

Now, I think that on the contrary I may be entitled to believe that the
christian God does not exist simply because I see no reasons to believe
otherwise and because the concept has been innumerable times deconstructed
as a cultural  artifact rather than as a philosophical necessity.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/32452618/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Dec 11 18:51:02 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:51:02 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <580930c20912110905t752bd92ek312bf714ce341db@mail.gmail.com>
References: <821320.4437.qm@web59914.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<4B212EC7.7030702@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20912110415pb4d90feuab4bcefe0e4b9449@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B2258CF.9000308@libero.it>
	<580930c20912110905t752bd92ek312bf714ce341db@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E0CAC55D-B5F5-4A42-A885-E5F5F96AED3E@mac.com>


On Dec 11, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote:

> 2009/12/11 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>
> This, in change, limited their ability think in terms that we give for granted.
> For example, the belief that unchanging natural laws exist and can be discovered was not their. This came with Christianity, where God is described as a creator that follows its own laws.
> 
> Why, things obviously happen to exhibit a perverse consistency, because as a good atheist/neopagan/idealist/skeptic/whatever, I am inclined on the contrary to believe that "natural laws" have nothing to do with immutable decrees of an entity (be it God, or even "Mother Nature") establishing how things must go, in more or less the same fashion the human legislators try and regulate social affairs, but simply with our way of understanding and describing how they actually do...

It is much more than an "inclination".  There is no evidence whatsoever of this "Law Giver".  To believe despite this lack is intellectually perverse and shows a quite corrupt epistemological structure.  

> 
> So, while I think that adopting one view or the other is more of a philosophical stance than a matter of fact,

If you understand what it is "to know" then it is a lot more than a mere "philosophical stance" as that is usually construed.


> I am needless to say much more at ease with the Greek (say, Eraklit or Democritus) than with the biblical worldview (say, the Genesis or Saint Thomas). And I suspect that modern science and epistemology, especially since the quantum mechanics revolution, have an easier and more elegant coexistence with the former.


Saying it is a merely a matter of preference is giving much to much power to every demon haunted notion that ever arose in the human mind.   It is a capitulation that is quite harmful.

- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/c2cf6ccf/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Dec 11 18:54:23 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:54:23 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <580930c20912110911p26c601a3h1ff7d1ca733d374a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1260532801.444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<432003.90571.qm@web32002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<580930c20912110911p26c601a3h1ff7d1ca733d374a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7F25143D-9404-402A-A62E-3498E10727E2@mac.com>


On Dec 11, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote:

> 2009/12/11 Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com>
> It's a position of taking nothing on faith.  "I don't believe there are any gods" is a different thing to "I believe there are no gods".  In the first, you are not stating a faith in something, in the second, you are.
> 
> If you are a transhumanist, you should anyway rephrase it in "I believe there are no gods (yet)". ;-)

What does that mean exactly?  If you mean a Mind so powerful it can create an entire universe as we know it within itself I have no idea if such exists now or not.   I have no evidence to believe that one does.    I am fairly certain that such a Mind is possible however.

> 
> There again, and trying to steer the thread more on subject, something which risks to make transhumanism impresentable in some quarters (e.g., academic posthumanism) is the idea that the future coming of gods is something to be taken for granted or inscribed in some cosmological necessity, rather than a possibility - and probably a possibility that would have to be actively pursued if it ever were to take place...

I agree there are *much* easier ways to sell transhumanism than some high-falutin Cosmic Imperative.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/60fc588a/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri Dec 11 18:55:43 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:55:43 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <960D1616-4C24-4AA2-A008-C536B9C116EC@bellsouth.net>
References: <20091211061741.83045.qmail@moulton.com>
	<960D1616-4C24-4AA2-A008-C536B9C116EC@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <580930c20912111055r398847b4q8723fe86dd443716@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/11 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> You don't know how biological brains work and yet you think human beings are
> conscious, or at least you do when they are not asleep or dead.

Yes. We should really abandon the idea that "conscience" may be
anything that a phenomenical reality based on a pure projection of our
own psychological statuses...

And yet the essentialist view, which brings us into the territory of
inescapable paradoxes as far as uploading, teleport, resurrection,
copying, etc., are concerned keeps re-emerging and re-emerging even in
our ranks.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 18:59:19 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:59:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Atheism
In-Reply-To: <AA6CA570-DD60-4350-90A2-B046BF8B903C@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <893501.32272.qm@web59905.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Extropy-chat is not a religion because in 2 decades it has stood the test of non-mysticism. 
Thank God for small favors.

the future belongs to the strong-- of stomach

--- On Fri, 12/11/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:


From: John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Atheism
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 1:29 PM




On Dec 11, 2009, ?Post Futurist wrote:

Atheism?can?be termed a de facto religion/faith. It does, for instance,?include academic rituals.?

For a word to be useful you need contrast, if everything has the Klognee property then it's not a useful concept. Can you pleas tell me something that is NOT a religion?


?John K Clark

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/1444cc00/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Dec 11 19:00:17 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:00:17 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <580930c20912111055r398847b4q8723fe86dd443716@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091211061741.83045.qmail@moulton.com>
	<960D1616-4C24-4AA2-A008-C536B9C116EC@bellsouth.net>
	<580930c20912111055r398847b4q8723fe86dd443716@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43C01D4B-811D-4218-B6A6-54B782AF4540@mac.com>


On Dec 11, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote:

> 2009/12/11 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
>> You don't know how biological brains work and yet you think human beings are
>> conscious, or at least you do when they are not asleep or dead.
> 
> Yes. We should really abandon the idea that "conscience" may be
> anything that a phenomenical reality based on a pure projection of our
> own psychological statuses...

LOL.  How does an unconscious being have "psychological statuses"?   Oh, was that the joke? :)




From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri Dec 11 19:04:06 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:04:06 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <4B228CBD.5020208@libero.it>
References: <821320.4437.qm@web59914.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<4B212EC7.7030702@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20912110415pb4d90feuab4bcefe0e4b9449@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B2258CF.9000308@libero.it>
	<580930c20912110905t752bd92ek312bf714ce341db@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B228CBD.5020208@libero.it>
Message-ID: <580930c20912111104x2bd38ce8p3af38cd42dab68fd@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/11 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>:
> Il 11/12/2009 18.05, Stefano Vaj ha scritto:
>> Why, things obviously happen to exhibit a perverse consistency,
>
> The "obvious" is the problem.

No, sorry, I explained myself poorly. What I actually meant is: as I
am a good atheist/neopagan/idealist/skeptic/whatever I also have some
problems with "natural laws".

In other words: you may be right that monotheism introduced the
concept, but my views remain consistent from your POV, because I fully
agree myself that by rejecting the former I also call into discussion
the latter, and do both things.

And of course one can do good science even irrespective of the fact
that he considers "natural laws" to be the fruit of divine decrees or
a bad, albeit time-honoured, metaphor of something entirely different
from any kind of "laws", which really refers more than anything to our
own way to perceive the world.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From sparge at gmail.com  Fri Dec 11 19:07:56 2009
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:07:56 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Atheism
In-Reply-To: <893501.32272.qm@web59905.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <AA6CA570-DD60-4350-90A2-B046BF8B903C@bellsouth.net> 
	<893501.32272.qm@web59905.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0912111107x6d30fc98of1c274a17fc44aa3@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/11 Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com>
>
> Extropy-chat is not a religion because in 2 decades it has stood the test of non-mysticism.
> Thank God for small favors.

But atheism, which is nothing if not a rejection of mysticism, is a religion?

:rolleyes:

-Dave


From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 19:19:43 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:19:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Atheism
In-Reply-To: <E0CAC55D-B5F5-4A42-A885-E5F5F96AED3E@mac.com>
Message-ID: <268484.51957.qm@web59904.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Why on God's green earth are religious schools worse than public skools? 
No, you probably cannot teach students to think, but you can teach them not to think. 

And that is it exactly.










the future belongs to the strong-- of stomach




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/61730393/attachment.html>

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Fri Dec 11 19:30:55 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:30:55 +0100
Subject: [ExI]
	=?windows-1252?q?Forecasting_experts=92_simple_model_leaves?=
	=?windows-1252?q?_expensive_climate_models_cold?=
In-Reply-To: <200912111758.nBBHwM3O017606@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912111758.nBBHwM3O017606@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912111130o673ce645qb54f7d58fdd1f523@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:

> Another interesting piece from Armstrong and Green:
>
> Forecasting experts? simple model leaves expensive climate models cold
>
> A simple model was found to be produce forecasts that are over seven times
> more accurate than forecasts from the procedures used by the United Nations
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
>


> This important finding is reported in an article titled ?Validity of
> climate change forecasting for public policy decision making? (
> http://kestencgreen.com/gas-2009-validity.pdf) in the latest issue of the
> International Journal of Forecasting. It is the result of a collaboration
> among forecasters J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School, Kesten C. Green
> of Monish University, and climate scientist Willie Soon of the
> Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
>

I don't understand this paper. They first develop a simple "temperature
constant" model and compare it with observations. Well, they show right in
the second graph, and also in the text, that their model has an average
error of 0.4C when "forecasting" from 1850 to a time horizon of one hundred
years, and, surprise, the error grows larger with the time horizon. That
means that a temperature trend is at work. Eyeballing the GISS temperature
graph, I derived an observed rate of 0.6 degrees from 1900 to 2000, so it's
in the ballpark. The observed warming is thus compatible with the error in
their model at the right timescales. In other words, temperature is not
constant.

They go on comparing an hypothetical IPCC-like prediction (linear warming of
0.03C/year) from 1850 on, but changing the metric (which is sufficiently
obscure that I didn't understand in the few minutes I dedicated to the
subject). They find little agreement between prediction and observations,
conveniently forgetting that IPCC predictions are for the next century, when
CO2 forcing will be substantially higher than in the 1800s.

And look at their conclusion:

"The benchmark forecast is that the global mean temperature for each year
for the rest of this century will be within 0.5 ? C of the 2008 figure."

I could say so just looking at the GISTEMP graph and extrapolating a line
for the next century! And this is already a more complex model then their,
which is a flat line from 2008 on. What they show is simply that last
century worth's of global warming was on the order of 0.5C. Well, we already
know that. So I don't understand what they are trying to demonstrate.

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/b55b2f8d/attachment.html>

From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 19:06:55 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:06:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <7F25143D-9404-402A-A62E-3498E10727E2@mac.com>
Message-ID: <102640.19486.qm@web59911.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Easy? Who said it will be easy? Easy is prayer nd meditation ;)
I am very cynical, but cynical doesn't always mean wrong. Perhaps philosophy is basically. gobbledygook. Is economics a science? doesn't appear to be. I'm going to concentrate on 'culture', however a construct it is. 
Frankly, the worst religion today seems better than any politics-- only thing worse than a politician is an attorney.
?
?

--- On Fri, 12/11/09, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:


From: Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Tolerance
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 1:54 PM





On Dec 11, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote:


2009/12/11 Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com>

It's a position of taking nothing on faith. ?"I don't believe there are any gods" is a different thing to "I believe there are no gods". ?In the first, you are not stating a faith in something, in the second, you are.

If you are a transhumanist, you should anyway rephrase it in "I believe there are no gods (yet)". ;-)


What does that mean exactly? ?If you mean a Mind so powerful it can create an entire universe as we know it within itself I have no idea if such exists now or not. ? I have no evidence to believe that one does. ? ?I am fairly certain that such a Mind is possible however.



There again, and trying to steer the thread more on subject, something which risks to make transhumanism impresentable in some quarters (e.g., academic posthumanism) is the idea that the future coming of gods is something to be taken for granted or inscribed in some cosmological necessity, rather than a possibility - and probably a possibility that would have to be actively pursued if it ever were to take place...


I agree there are *much* easier ways to sell transhumanism than some high-falutin Cosmic Imperative.


- samantha


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/86ac9e30/attachment.html>

From max at maxmore.com  Fri Dec 11 20:21:16 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:21:16 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Structured analogies analysis of climate alarmism
Message-ID: <200912112021.nBBKLNel013184@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Another Armstrong & Green paper:

History shows manmade global warming alarm to be 
false ? and that harmful policies will persist
http://kestencgreen.com/green&armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf
  



From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Fri Dec 11 20:33:26 2009
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:33:26 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Does caloric restriction work for humans?
In-Reply-To: <200912111610.nBBGAhnZ024026@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912111610.nBBGAhnZ024026@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <441A73BF-5381-4E5E-950B-089DC4F8E8F5@GMAIL.COM>

> Calorie restrictive eating for longer life? The story we didn't hear  
> in the news
> http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/07/calorie-restrictive-eating-for-longer.html
This was a very interesting article. I had been considering trying out  
CR, but given this news, I don't see the point. Being healthy, not  
calorie restricted, is a much more important goal in order to extend  
life.

Not that I think it will be a problem for me anyway, since I'm 19. I  
think I'm young enough I'll probably get an indefinite lifespan  
barring accidents.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Fri Dec 11 20:51:46 2009
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:51:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Structured analogies analysis of climate alarmism
In-Reply-To: <200912112021.nBBKLNel013184@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912112021.nBBKLNel013184@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <4F24E86C-6A6F-4BBA-8CAE-D4D242E8C5DB@GMAIL.COM>

> Another Armstrong & Green paper:
>
> History shows manmade global warming alarm to be false ? and that  
> harmful policies will persist
> http://kestencgreen.com/green&armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf
Very interesting article. I am not convinced that man-made global  
warming does not exist, but I acknowledge it is not proven.

More importantly, I have no idea whether the global warming predicted  
by the IPCC would be bad. Obviously it might be (if snow melts become  
far scarcer because of it, then there may be water shortages and  
resource conflicts in Asia, for instance), but longer growing seasons  
might be beneficial.

If people feel it will be a problem, then they should fix it. Buy  
"carbon credits" or whatever, and invest in companies along the lines  
of the fictional Earth, Inc. from Stephen Baxter's novel  
"Transcendent" (they use genetically engineered bacteria to clean up  
oil spills and dump sites, use gen-en algae to absorb CO2 and build  
coral reefs, etc. all for a profit). Such companies exist now, and I  
see no reason why there should be government action when private  
action will do just as well.

I enjoyed that they brought up the case of DDT. Malaria was a disease  
which we were in the process of wiping off the face of the Earth in  
the 60s, and which now kills slews of people in the developing world.  
The costs of banning it clearly outweigh what small "benefits" might  
have been gained.

My favorite part of this is that the very same people who cried out  
about DDT now cry about the spread of malaria from global warming!  
Haha... *cough*, oh I'm sorry, I'm choking on irony.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 21:46:09 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:46:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Atheism
Message-ID: <552909.63393.qm@web59907.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Someone else wrote that atheism is a religion. Atheism/agnosticism is rational-- while religion is not. But since most men have acted like apes, religion/faith was needed to prevent them from being even more apelike than they would have been if
religion hadn't been so prevalent. Since religion has existed for
thousands of years it is a long time before rationality on earth-- only Marxists now think otherwise. But if you could colonize the Moon with atheists it would
be a good deal. 

In what way is the slop ladled out in churches worse today than on TV, in skools, etc?

>But atheism, which is nothing if not a rejection of mysticism, is a religion?

rolleyes:
Dave





      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/c4996ad1/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 22:18:15 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:18:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <3647C7BA-B503-4AB4-B86C-B9343C513A5B@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <970258.26185.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Fri, 12/11/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> You don't know how biological brains work and yet
> you think human beings are conscious, or at least you do
> when they are not asleep or dead. You make this distinction
> by observing their behavior. 

No, I simply notice that my brain has this feature called consciousness. My consciousness seems very much part of the physical world; it goes away temporarily if I get whacked in the head by a baseball bat, or fall asleep and don't dream, or if any number of other things happen. 

I notice that other people have brains too. I can only infer those other brains have consciousness, but if I don't make that inference then I have fallen into solipsism. 

> And I think it would be useful if philosophers took a freshman course 
> in biology because if consciousness is not a byproduct of intelligence, > if it is not the feeling data has when it is being processed

I don't know about "byproduct of intelligence" (depends on what you mean by the word byproduct -- see my conversation with Stathis) but clearly consciousness does indeed have something to do with "the feeling data has when it is being processed". So I don't know with whom you think you have a disagreement. Certainly not Searle or me.

> As I said before in the history of the world the
> study of the concept of the soul has never produced one
> useful insight.

What soul? 

If you hope to refute Searle's position then you need first to understand him. Like most naturalists, he respects science and the scientific method. He makes no mystical claims about consciousness except in your misinformed imagination.

> The Identity of Indiscernibles supports my ideas not
> yours, it says that if I exchange you with an exact copy of
> you NOTHING has changed.

Nobody here has claimed that a clone of a human brain does not have the same properties as the original. 

-gts


      


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 11 23:30:34 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:30:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <EAB182A4-0CF5-4679-A877-36332DB396EE@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <862990.85250.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Fri, 12/11/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> I don't use the term "strong AI" myself because if it has any meaning 
> at all it means programing a soul. 

If you had in mind any beliefs about strong AI, programming and souls as you wrote that sentence then you had at that moment what I mean by strong AI. 

If you have something else in mind now as you read this sentence then you still have it.

-gts


      


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 00:31:45 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:31:45 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Nobel homeschooled until 9th grade
In-Reply-To: <4B229380.5000502@libero.it>
References: <4B229380.5000502@libero.it>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912111631r506984ecy64a4068529798322@mail.gmail.com>

But the mother of the person who wrote the article for
homeschooling-network.com didn't teach him or her how to spell
"bachelor".

2009/12/12 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>:
> I tripped over this:
> http://homeschooling-network.com/NewsArticles/Default.aspx
> http://www.science.ca/scientists/scientistprofile.php?pID=129&pg=3
>
>> Homeschooled Physics Nobel Prize Winner Without Dr. Boyle, there
>> would be no digital photography
>>
>> Homeschooling Swede The 2009 Nobel Prize Winners were announced
>> recently, and includes a homeschooled Physics Nobel Prize Winner: Dr.
>> Willard S. Boyle. He received the prize principally for the invention
>> of the Charged Coupled Device (CCD) that captures digital images used
>> in digital cameras and cellular/handheld phones, as well as numerous
>> other applications such as the Hubble Telescope.
>>
>> Dr. Boyle was born in 1924 In Nova Scotia Canada, where he was
>> homescholed by his mother up to ninth grade. He studied at Lower
>> Canada College in Montreal, and graduated at McGill University with
>> his Batchelor's degree. He credits his success to his stated number
>> one mentor: his mother who homeschooled him. After his Batchelor's
>> degree he received: an MS, and a PhD in Physics. He was later the
>> executive director of Communications Sciences Division, Bell Labs in
>> New Jersey. He is described as: "Adventurous, clever, curious" on the
>> candian science website: www.science.ca
>>
>> He received the Nobel prize jointly with Dr. George E. Smith,
>> principally for inventing the Charged Coupled Device (CCD). These are
>> used today to take digital photographs, and can be found in hand-held
>> phones, digital cameras, as well as in telescopes such as the Hubble
>> Telescope. The MegaPixel number we know about on digital cameras and
>> phones, is the number of how many million pixels are on the CCD that
>> Dr. Boyle jointly invented. Without the CCD, digitial phootograhy
>> would not exist.
>>
>> He is famously quoted as saying: "Know how to judge when to persevere
>> and when to quit. If you?re going to do something, do it well. You
>> don?t have to be better than everyone else, but you ought to do your
>> personal best.?
>>
>> Dr. Boyle shows the major contribution that homeschooled people can
>> make in the world, even though we are few in number. Why not tell
>> your friends that their digital camera wouldn't haven't been invented
>> without the work of a homeschooled Physicist!
>
> Mirco
>
> Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
> Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com
> Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.103/2558 - ?Data di rilascio:
> 12/11/09 11:06:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Dec 12 00:38:28 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:38:28 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Nobel homeschooled until 9th grade
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912111631r506984ecy64a4068529798322@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B229380.5000502@libero.it>
	<f21c22e30912111631r506984ecy64a4068529798322@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B22E604.5080902@satx.rr.com>

On 12/11/2009 6:31 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> But the mother of the person who wrote the article for
> homeschooling-network.com didn't teach him or her how to spell
> "bachelor".

"homescholed" is fun too...


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 02:33:48 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:33:48 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <802912.95517.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912102110y2cd0d8f2o483d45f21c23f6af@mail.gmail.com> 
	<802912.95517.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912111833i82524fcxf1ce0ae4212e657@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/12 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:

>> No, I mean that if you replace the brain a neuron at a time
>> by electronic analogues that function the same, i.e. same
>> output for same input so that the neurons yet to be replaced
>> respond in the same way, then the resulting brain will not only
>> display the same behaviour but will also have the same consciousness.
>
> How will you know this?

Searle believes that consciousness is a special property of brains,
and that although it may be possible (if technically difficult) to
simulate the behaviour of a neuron electronically, the artificial
neuron will lack qualia.

Suppose we replace some of the neurons in your visual cortex. The
artificial neurons will behave just the same as the original neurons,
sending the appropriate signals to their neighbours, which in turn
send signals to their neighbours so that all of the biological parts
of your brain behave the same as if the replacement had not been made.
The experimenters confirm this by taking readings from neurons in
different parts of your brain before and after the replacement, and
finding that they are unchanged. Your motor cortex will therefore send
signals to your vocal cords and you will declare that the page of
writing put in front of you looks exactly the same as it did before,
and to prove it you correctly read out what it says.

However, if Searle is right all is not well, because you have just
gone blind! Your vision has undergone zombification: you behave as if
you can see, but you lack visual qualia. So either you are blind
without noticing that you are blind, which makes a mockery of the idea
of consciousness, or you do notice that you are blind but can't do
anything about it, locked into behaving normally while struggling in
vain to communicate your terror. The latter nightmarish scenario would
mean that you are doing your thinking with your immaterial soul, since
your brain activity would be the same as if nothing unusual had
happened.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 04:28:43 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:28:43 -0500
Subject: [ExI] atheism
In-Reply-To: <200912111606.nBBG6sWu022978@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912111606.nBBG6sWu022978@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240912112028t3467ca99sdb2702c1c28e77f4@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:

>
> But, whichever way you take the meaning of "agnostic" or "atheist", atheism
> is clearly *not* a religion. You can't have religion without a set of
> beliefs (not lack-of-beliefs) and some accompanying markers (typically
> rituals and the like).
>
> This should be 101 on the Extropy-Chat list. We have plenty of genuinely
> controversial and difficult issues to discuss. Can we now get back to them?
>

If we're attacking the meaning of words and their use, can I point out that
religion and spirituality are different ideas too?  Inasmuch as religion is
a group behavior of people professing to feel the same kind of spirituality,
I would claim that devout atheists (an observation of the group) seem
compelled to defend the inherently anti-religious nature of their core
principle.  I find it to be a boring topic.  I understand Max to be making a
different point, but arriving at the same conclusion:  it really doesn't
matter.  For the only commonality of a population of people that they do not
share a single idea that is believed those outside their group do share is
not really much of an identity.  As an indistinct label with almost no
expressive power to convey a specific import, why the obsession with
professing "atheism" as anything at all?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091211/b5ce90a1/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 04:59:56 2009
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:59:56 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Atheism
In-Reply-To: <552909.63393.qm@web59907.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <552909.63393.qm@web59907.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0912112059g4ace5a88w1feed91362c67ffd@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/11 Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com>
>
> In what way is the slop ladled out in churches worse today than on TV, in skools, etc?

What's wrong with church teachings is that they're based on mysticism,
faith, dogma, fear, and obedience, not critical thinking, open
mindedness, and rationality. TV is entertainment, education, religion,
... everything anyone does. Some of it is good and healthy, some of it
is just fun, some is a waste of time, and some of it is actively
unhealthy. Schools--at least those not run by religious entities--are
generally good, focusing on the rational.

Raising children to believe in a religion, starting the indoctrination
at an age at which they haven't developed the ability to evaluate what
they're being taught, amounts to child abuse. The physical and
intellectual effort that has been wasted on teaching, learning, and
observing religious practices could have been put to much better use.
I'll grant that many great works of art have been inspired by
religion, but I think most of those talents would have been expressed
equally well on non-religious subjects. But the great minds that were
wasted pursuing idiotic theological problems could have solved real,
major problems. I think that's tragic.

-Dave


From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 08:25:54 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:25:54 +0000
Subject: [ExI] atheism
In-Reply-To: <62c14240912112028t3467ca99sdb2702c1c28e77f4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912111606.nBBG6sWu022978@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<62c14240912112028t3467ca99sdb2702c1c28e77f4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0912120025o569dfea8y5b385ffa8653af79@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/12/09, Mike Dougherty wrote:
> For the only commonality of a population of people that they do not
> share a single idea that is believed those outside their group do share is
> not really much of an identity.  As an indistinct label with almost no
> expressive power to convey a specific import, why the obsession with
> professing "atheism" as anything at all?
>
>


Because it is important to tell people that you are part of the group
that doesn't follow a soccer team, have no interest in soccer and
consider it to be a complete waste of time.

This may help those people who are soccer fanatics to reconsider the
time and money they spend, if they realize that there is a life
outside of soccer.


BillK


From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Sat Dec 12 10:14:01 2009
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:14:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <102640.19486.qm@web59911.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <675540.43766.qm@web110405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

This is tolerance..lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-u5WLJ9Yk4

--- On Fri, 12/11/09, Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Tolerance
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Received: Friday, December 11, 2009, 2:06 PM
> Easy? Who said it will be
> easy? Easy is prayer nd meditation ;)
> I am very cynical, but cynical doesn't always mean
> wrong. Perhaps philosophy is basically. gobbledygook. Is
> economics a science? doesn't appear to be. I'm going
> to concentrate on 'culture', however a construct it
> is. 
> Frankly, the worst religion today seems better than
> any politics-- only thing worse than a politician is an
> attorney.
> ?
> ?
> 
> --- On Fri, 12/11/09, Samantha Atkins
> <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Tolerance
> To: "ExI chat list"
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 1:54 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 11, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Stefano Vaj
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 2009/12/11 Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com>
> 
> It's a position of taking nothing on
> faith. ?"I don't believe there are any
> gods" is a different thing to "I believe there are
> no gods". ?In the first, you are not stating a
> faith in something, in the second, you are.
> 
> If you are a transhumanist, you should anyway rephrase it
> in "I believe there are no gods (yet)". ;-)
> 
> 
> What does that mean exactly? ?If you mean a Mind
> so powerful it can create an entire universe as we know it
> within itself I have no idea if such exists now or not.
> ? I have no evidence to believe that one does. ?
> ?I am fairly certain that such a Mind is possible
> however.
> 
> 
> 
> There again, and trying to steer the thread more on
> subject, something which risks to make transhumanism
> impresentable in some quarters (e.g., academic posthumanism)
> is the idea that the future coming of gods is something to
> be taken for granted or inscribed in some cosmological
> necessity, rather than a possibility - and probably a
> possibility that would have to be actively pursued if it
> ever were to take place...
> 
> 
> I agree there are *much* easier ways to sell
> transhumanism than some high-falutin Cosmic
> Imperative.
> 
> 
> - samantha
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 
> 
> 
>       
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 


      __________________________________________________________________
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com


From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Dec 12 11:06:53 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:06:53 +0100
Subject: [ExI] atheism
In-Reply-To: <B2CBC18A-B50E-47A9-AA4C-4FC8053B0325@mac.com>
References: <287486.21264.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<B2CBC18A-B50E-47A9-AA4C-4FC8053B0325@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20091212110653.GH17686@leitl.org>

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:43:46AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> Saying "well I can't really say whether there are invisible pink unicorns
> or not" is a cop-out, at best technically true since they are defined as
> being impossible to prove or disprove.  But hopefully we have all grown
> beyond such sophomore BS rhetorical games.

Some Sphex wasps drop a paralyzed insect near the opening of the nest. Before
taking provisions into the nest, the Sphex first inspects the nest, leaving
the prey outside. During the wasp's inspection of the nest an experimenter
can move the prey a few inches away from the opening of the nest. When the
Sphex emerges from the nest ready to drag in the prey, it finds the prey
missing. The Sphex quickly locates the moved prey, but now its behavioral
"program" has been reset. After dragging the prey back to the opening of the
nest, once again the Sphex is compelled to inspect the nest, so the prey is
again dropped and left outside during another stereotypical inspection of the
nest. This iteration can be repeated again and again, with the Sphex never
seeming to notice what is going on, never able to escape from its programmed
sequence of behaviors. Dennett's argument quotes an account of Sphex behavior
from Wooldridge's Machinery of the Brain (1963). Douglas Hofstadter and
Daniel Dennett have used this mechanistic behavior as an example of how
seemingly thoughtful behavior can actually be quite mindless, the opposite of
free will (or, as Hofstadter described it, antisphexishness).



From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Dec 12 11:19:45 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:19:45 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Does caloric restriction work for humans?
In-Reply-To: <441A73BF-5381-4E5E-950B-089DC4F8E8F5@GMAIL.COM>
References: <200912111610.nBBGAhnZ024026@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<441A73BF-5381-4E5E-950B-089DC4F8E8F5@GMAIL.COM>
Message-ID: <20091212111945.GI17686@leitl.org>

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 03:33:26PM -0500, JOSHUA JOB wrote:

> Not that I think it will be a problem for me anyway, since I'm 19. I  
> think I'm young enough I'll probably get an indefinite lifespan  
> barring accidents.

If you're really really lucky you will get a decent cryopreservation.
I would not count on it.

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


From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Dec 12 11:47:31 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:47:31 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Nobel homeschooled until 9th grade
In-Reply-To: <4B22E604.5080902@satx.rr.com>
References: <4B229380.5000502@libero.it>
	<f21c22e30912111631r506984ecy64a4068529798322@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B22E604.5080902@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20091212114731.GQ17686@leitl.org>

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 06:38:28PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote:

> "homescholed" is fun too...

They probably meant homeshoaled.

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


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 12:52:04 2009
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:52:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912102110y2cd0d8f2o483d45f21c23f6af@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30912091517o364fecc2y8db65120760701e1@mail.gmail.com>
	<370107.70551.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30912102110y2cd0d8f2o483d45f21c23f6af@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <242821.40742.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

----- Original Message ----
> From: Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
> To: gordon.swobe at yahoo.com; ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Thu, December 10, 2009 9:10:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.

> No, I mean that if you replace the brain a neuron at a time by
> electronic analogues that function the same, i.e. same output for same
> input so that the neurons yet to be replaced respond in the same way,
> then the resulting brain will not only display the same behaviour but
> will also have the same consciousness. Searle considers the neural
> replacement scenario and declares that the brain will behave the same
> outwardly but will have a different consciousness. The aforementioned
> paper by Chalmers shows why this is impossible.

I don't think we understand the functioning of neurons enough to buy either Searle or Chalmer's argument. Your neuron by neuron brain replacement assumes that neurons are functionally degenerate. That one neuron is?equivalent to?any other. By the logic of this thought experiment, if you were to replace your neurons one by one with Gordon's neurons, at the end you would still be you. But you could just as easily become Gordon or at least Gordon-esque. At least that's what I take from the neuroscience experiment described in this Time article:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986057,00.html

Of course how much of Stathis,?or Gordon for that matter,?is a learned trait?as opposed to a hardwired one?is a matter for debate. But still, it gives you food for thought.


Stuart LaForge 


"Science has not yet mastered prophecy. We predict too much for the next year and yet far too little for the next ten." - Neil Armstrong


      


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Dec 12 13:27:13 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:27:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] atheism
In-Reply-To: <4B22928F.2010000@libero.it>
References: <287486.21264.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<F7F2443E-AA16-4D98-94FD-C38F02F85290@bellsouth.net>
	<4B22928F.2010000@libero.it>
Message-ID: <8F4B49F3-ECE3-4CD2-A855-E9BC79644573@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 11, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Mirco Romanato wrote:

> Even if the chance to be real is only 0.00000000000000000000000001%
> It don't make it unreal, only improbable. Atheists make the error to believe that something very improbable is impossible. Given they are not able to prove their claim, their claim is based on faith. I never see an atheist claim that the existence of god is improbable.

You can't, or at least shouldn't, be absolutely certain about anything (I think) therefore if it is inappropriate to use the word "atheist" it is also inappropriate to utter any simple declarative sentence about anything because there is a chance, however unlikely, that you could be wrong.

> I never see an atheist claim that the existence of god is improbable. 

Then you lead a very sheltered life.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/490123d9/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Dec 12 13:33:37 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:33:37 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <580930c20912111055r398847b4q8723fe86dd443716@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091211061741.83045.qmail@moulton.com>
	<960D1616-4C24-4AA2-A008-C536B9C116EC@bellsouth.net>
	<580930c20912111055r398847b4q8723fe86dd443716@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <61EF07F3-9858-4C39-83A0-6D209AC258CA@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 11, 2009,  Stefano Vaj wrote:

> And yet the essentialist view, which brings us into the territory of
> inescapable paradoxes as far as uploading, teleport, resurrection,
> copying, etc., are concerned keeps re-emerging and re-emerging even in
> our ranks.

I am unaware of any such paradoxes, it all seems logical to me. If you keep running into paradoxes then you basic axioms must be wrong.

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/ad164e67/attachment.html>

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 14:13:44 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:13:44 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <242821.40742.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912091517o364fecc2y8db65120760701e1@mail.gmail.com>
	<370107.70551.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30912102110y2cd0d8f2o483d45f21c23f6af@mail.gmail.com>
	<242821.40742.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912120613s66e6b11bq547f6f5722e54790@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:52 PM, The Avantguardian <
avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
> > To: gordon.swobe at yahoo.com; ExI chat list <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> > Sent: Thu, December 10, 2009 9:10:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
>
> > No, I mean that if you replace the brain a neuron at a time by
> > electronic analogues that function the same, i.e. same output for same
> > input so that the neurons yet to be replaced respond in the same way,
> > then the resulting brain will not only display the same behaviour but
> > will also have the same consciousness. Searle considers the neural
> > replacement scenario and declares that the brain will behave the same
> > outwardly but will have a different consciousness. The aforementioned
> > paper by Chalmers shows why this is impossible.
>
> I don't think we understand the functioning of neurons enough to buy either
> Searle or Chalmer's argument. Your neuron by neuron brain replacement
> assumes that neurons are functionally degenerate. That one neuron
> is equivalent to any other.


I interpret the replacement as using a different electronic equivalent for
each neuron, so that their specific functions (if any) will be preserved.
Understanding the neurons' inner working is not needed if you can exactly
replace their input/output functions (not an easy feat anyway...) Whether
consciousness resides inside single neurons is another matter. In that case,
inner workings will need to be replicated too.

Searle's arguments remind me of good old-fashioned dualism: there is
something in our brain cells that can't be replicated in a mechanical or
electronic equivalent. But without knowing what this "something" is, that's
just an article of faith.

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/18797df2/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Dec 12 14:16:28 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:16:28 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <970258.26185.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <970258.26185.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AB32BDAF-EA71-45EB-BE99-7C2A81BD4E27@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 11, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

>> You don't know how biological brains work and yet
>> you think human beings are conscious, or at least you do
>> when they are not asleep or dead. You make this distinction
>> by observing their behavior. 
> 
> No, I simply notice that my brain has this feature called consciousness.

I'm not talking about your brain, how did you notice that MY brain has this feature called consciousness? Children know nothing about brains but they still think other people are conscious except when they are asleep or dead or otherwise ACT like they aren't. We do not think other people are conscious because of our knowledge of biology, the very idea that brains are important is a modern consept, but the idea that other people are often conscious is not. The Egyptians carefully preserved every part of the body EXCEPT the brain. Aristotle thought the brain was a minor organ that just cooled the blood and the heart was the heart of our being. But in spite of all this, solipsism has never been very popular in any age.

> So I don't know with whom you think you have a disagreement. Certainly not Searle or me.

Searle in his Chinese room thinks he has demonstrated that intelligence without consciousness is possible, but I am conscious and you probably are too. How did I come to be? It can't be evolution because it only sees intelligence, it only sees actions and Searle thinks intelligent actions doesn't need consciousness. So either Darwin was wrong or Searle was a fool. I don't think Darwin was wrong. 

> He makes no mystical claims about consciousness except in your misinformed imagination.

Its like the air, Searle's mysticism is so ubiquitous that he doesn't even notice it. He assumes his Chinese room is not conscious and expects us to make the same assumption.  

> Nobody here has claimed that a clone of a human brain does not have the same properties as the original. 
 
Bullshit. Almost everyone around here thinks an exact copy of you would have vastly different properties, one would be you and one would not. I cannot think of any property more important.

 John K Clark





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/938c6bd3/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 14:32:35 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 06:32:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <AB32BDAF-EA71-45EB-BE99-7C2A81BD4E27@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <151924.66474.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> I'm not talking about your brain, how did
> you notice that MY brain has this feature called
> consciousness??

I answered that question about other minds, John, and apparently you ignored my answer.

Once again: I have a choice either to 1) infer that because my brain has consciousness, others also have it, or 2) consign myself to a dead end solipsistic philosophy in which you and everyone I know have the mental life of vegetables. I choose 1) by reductio ad absurdum.

> The Egyptians carefully preserved every part of the body EXCEPT the 
> brain.

Well then perhaps you should take your argument to the Egyptians. 

-gts


      


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 14:16:57 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 06:16:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
Message-ID: <213414.18992.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Fri, 12/11/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Suppose we replace some of the neurons in your visual
> cortex. The artificial neurons will behave just the same as the
> original neurons, sending the appropriate signals to their neighbours,
> which in turn send signals to their neighbours so that all of the
> biological parts of your brain behave the same as if the replacement 
> had not been made.

So goes the functionalist theory, just one of many in the philosophy of mind, but one which you seem here to take for granted.

On that theory it matters only that the artificial brain and its parts "act" like a real brain -- that the artificial neurons, as you say, "behave" like the originals. 

But you'll notice first that functionalism amounts to behaviorism at the level of the neuron -- it ignores the subjective first person ontology of mental states; and second, it relies on the shaky assumption that substance does not matter -- only function matters.

If only function matters then we could, as others have pointed out, construct a giant artificial brain out of beer cans and toilet paper. Do you think such a monstrosity would have semantics? 

-gts



      


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 14:46:53 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:46:53 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <242821.40742.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912091517o364fecc2y8db65120760701e1@mail.gmail.com> 
	<370107.70551.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30912102110y2cd0d8f2o483d45f21c23f6af@mail.gmail.com> 
	<242821.40742.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912120646t7e63c85fg1545742e59926724@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/12 The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>:

>> No, I mean that if you replace the brain a neuron at a time by
>> electronic analogues that function the same, i.e. same output for same
>> input so that the neurons yet to be replaced respond in the same way,
>> then the resulting brain will not only display the same behaviour but
>> will also have the same consciousness. Searle considers the neural
>> replacement scenario and declares that the brain will behave the same
>> outwardly but will have a different consciousness. The aforementioned
>> paper by Chalmers shows why this is impossible.
>
> I don't think we understand the functioning of neurons enough to buy either Searle or Chalmer's argument. Your neuron by neuron brain replacement assumes that neurons are functionally degenerate. That one neuron is?equivalent to?any other. By the logic of this thought experiment, if you were to replace your neurons one by one with Gordon's neurons, at the end you would still be you. But you could just as easily become Gordon or at least Gordon-esque. At least that's what I take from the neuroscience experiment described in this Time article:
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986057,00.html
>
> Of course how much of Stathis,?or Gordon for that matter,?is a learned trait?as opposed to a hardwired one?is a matter for debate. But still, it gives you food for thought.

The replacement would have to involve artificial neurons that are
*functionally equivalent*. Quail neurons are apparently not
functionally equivalent replacements for chicken neurons, going on the
evidence in the article you cited, and it wouldn't be surprising if
one human's neurons are not functionally equivalent to another's
either.

I've never accepted simplistic notions of mind uploading that hold
that all the information needed is a map of the neural connections. To
properly model a brain you may need go down all the way to the
molecular level, which would of course require extremely fine scanning
techniques and a fantastic amount of computing power. Nevertheless,
unless there is something fundamentally non-computable in the brain, a
computer model should be possible, and this is sufficient to make the
case for functionalism.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 15:03:36 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:03:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912120646t7e63c85fg1545742e59926724@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <633777.83284.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> The replacement would have to involve artificial neurons
> that are *functionally equivalent*. 

I.e., functionalism.

> To properly model a brain you may need go down all the way to
> the molecular level, which would of course require...

Now here you and Searle may almost agree. To create an artificial brain modeled "down all the way to the molecular level", we would need essentially to create a real brain.

-gts





      


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Dec 12 15:12:32 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:12:32 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <213414.18992.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <213414.18992.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <30E7D0EB-A544-484E-8DA0-4DCD6248FC8C@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 12, 2009,  Gordon Swobe wrote:

> So goes the functionalist theory, just one of many in the philosophy of mind, but one which you seem here to take for granted.

I take it for granted that science works better than mystical crap.

> But you'll notice first that functionalism amounts to behaviorism at the level of the neuron

So what?

> it ignores the subjective first person ontology of mental states

I see no evidence that a neuron has a mental state. Do you?

> it relies on the shaky assumption that substance does not matter -- only function matters.

What the hell is shaky about that? If substance has no function then it doesn't matter. Evolution is blind to substance, it only sees function, and yet I am conscious and you are too probably. Can't you see that fact is telling you something?

> If only function matters then we could, as others have pointed out, construct a giant artificial brain out of beer cans and toilet paper.

True.

> Do you think such a monstrosity would have semantics? 

Certainly!

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/791f674a/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Dec 12 15:18:54 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:18:54 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <633777.83284.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <633777.83284.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A6AAB11A-1C09-4B7C-93B3-63166D9B4ABD@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 12, 2009, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> To create an artificial brain modeled "down all the way to the molecular level", we would need essentially to create a real brain.

Most of the things a neuron does is routine housekeeping stuff no different from what a cell in you large intestine needs to do just to keep alive. There would be no need to duplicate all that stuff to make a functionally equivalent electronic brain.

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/eab1c8dc/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Dec 12 14:55:47 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:55:47 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <151924.66474.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <151924.66474.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <26B90D0C-813D-41C5-9ECD-7BDC66ECFACF@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 12, 2009, Gordon Swobe wrote:

>  I have a choice either to 1) infer that because my brain has consciousness, others also have it, 

Are you telling me that if you'd never had a course in biology and learned the importance of brains you'd think you were the only conscious being in the universe? And you don't think other people are conscious all the time, not when they don't act like they are such as when they are asleep. 

> or 2) consign myself to a dead end solipsistic philosophy in which you and everyone I know have the mental life of vegetables. I choose 1) by reductio ad absurdum.

Then why isn't it also absurd to think that an intelligent computer has the mental life of a vegetable?

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/8cb7b479/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 15:42:00 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:42:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <A6AAB11A-1C09-4B7C-93B3-63166D9B4ABD@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <156049.62557.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Most of the things a neuron does is routine
> housekeeping stuff no different from what a cell in you
> large intestine needs to do just to keep alive. There would
> be no need to duplicate all that stuff to make a
> functionally equivalent electronic brain.

You've taken a leap of faith there if you think it will have consciousness. That's fine, provided you understand the difference between faith and knowledge.

Philosophers like Searle investigate what we can actually know. And what we can know is this: 1) real biological brains have consciousness, 2) we know of nothing else in the universe that has it, 3) if we want to create it artificially and *know for certain* that we've done so then we need first to understand exactly how it happens in real biological brains.

Searle scolds neuroscientists for not working harder on this all important question. He blames their complacency on the mystical dualistic mind/matter philosophy handed down to us from the likes of Descartes, a philosophy which made mental phenomena seem somehow outside the scope of natural science.

-gts


      


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 16:37:22 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:37:22 +0100
Subject: [ExI] atheism
In-Reply-To: <4B22928F.2010000@libero.it>
References: <287486.21264.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<F7F2443E-AA16-4D98-94FD-C38F02F85290@bellsouth.net>
	<4B22928F.2010000@libero.it>
Message-ID: <580930c20912120837t50c5633bu6bfd62a24e8fe54a@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/11 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>:
> Il 11/12/2009 19.25, John Clark ha scritto:
>> I'll bet you are a atheist regarding Zeus and Thor and the Flying
>> Spaghetti Monster, as Dawkins says he just goes one god further.
>> Agnostics make the logical error of assuming that if there is no
>> evidence that something exists and no evidence that it does not then
>> there is a 50% chance its real.
>
> Even if the chance to be real is only 0.00000000000000000000000001%
> It don't make it unreal, only improbable.

Since when do we base our beliefs on a "certainty of unreality"?

And, btw, I am probably not an "atheist" as far as Zeus and Thor are
concerned. :-)

I simply do not accord them the same status or kind of "reality" which
I consider appropriate for the keyboard I am typing on (even though I
could improbably be hallucinating it...) or which is claimed for
Jahv?/Allah/the Holy Trinity.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 16:45:48 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:45:48 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance.
In-Reply-To: <61EF07F3-9858-4C39-83A0-6D209AC258CA@bellsouth.net>
References: <20091211061741.83045.qmail@moulton.com>
	<960D1616-4C24-4AA2-A008-C536B9C116EC@bellsouth.net>
	<580930c20912111055r398847b4q8723fe86dd443716@mail.gmail.com>
	<61EF07F3-9858-4C39-83A0-6D209AC258CA@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <580930c20912120845t2a522fcbqd2fae26f5dcd8696@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/12 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> On Dec 11, 2009, ?Stefano Vaj wrote:
> And yet the essentialist view, which brings us into the territory of
> inescapable paradoxes as far as uploading, teleport, resurrection,
> copying, etc., are concerned keeps re-emerging and re-emerging even in
> our ranks.
>
> I am unaware of any such paradoxes, it all seems logical to me. If you keep
> running into paradoxes then you basic axioms must be wrong.

Aren't we say the same thing? If we run into paradoxes by adopting an
"essentialist" view of conscience and identity, then probably such
view can be considered as "wrong" (or, at least, not operationally
very useful...).

If we refrain to consider conscience and identity anything else than
phenomena - so if something swims, walks and quacks like a duck there
is nothing else to be said on the subject of whether it is "really" a
duck - all paradoxes go away.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 16:29:43 2009
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:29:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912120613s66e6b11bq547f6f5722e54790@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30912091517o364fecc2y8db65120760701e1@mail.gmail.com>
	<370107.70551.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30912102110y2cd0d8f2o483d45f21c23f6af@mail.gmail.com>
	<242821.40742.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<4902d9990912120613s66e6b11bq547f6f5722e54790@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87104.69727.qm@web65613.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

>From: Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Sent: Sat, December 12, 2009 6:13:44 AM
>Subject: Re: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
>
>
>I interpret the replacement as using a different electronic equivalent for each neuron, so that their specific functions (if any) will be preserved.

Even so, how could you map that function over the domain of inputs and range of outputs? How precisely is "close enough"??Does the function even remain the same over the life of a neuron? For a simple mathematical?example of the problem,?consider the?functions?y=x+13 and y=(x^2-169)/(x-13). Over all of the infinite possible values of inputs x?they are "functionally equivalent" and give rise to the same output. . . *except* where x=13. When you *know*?the functions, the difference is obvious. But if the functions were hidden within a "black box" and all you could do was plug in random values of x?and look at the output, would you notice a difference between the two?

>
>?Understanding the neurons' inner working is not needed if you can exactly replace their input/output functions (not an easy feat anyway...) Whether consciousness resides inside single neurons is another matter. In that case, inner workings will need to be replicated too.
>
>Searle's arguments remind me of good old-fashioned dualism: there is something in our brain cells that can't be replicated in a mechanical or electronic equivalent. But without knowing what this "something" is, that's just an article of faith.

Forget brains or neurons for the moment. Sodium is a metal that spontaneously burns when it contacts water. Chlorine is a deadly poisonous gas. When you combine the two in a test tube, you get salt. What does the electronic or mechanical equivalent of salt taste like?

?
Stuart LaForge 

"Science has not yet mastered prophecy. We predict too much for the next year and yet far too little for the next ten." - Neil Armstrong


      


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Dec 12 17:11:16 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:11:16 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <156049.62557.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <156049.62557.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <87B4BA7A-5C00-44F5-8B1A-6EAABEDE3455@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 12, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

>> Most of the things a neuron does is routine
>> housekeeping stuff no different from what a cell in you
>> large intestine needs to do just to keep alive. There would
>> be no need to duplicate all that stuff to make a
>> functionally equivalent electronic brain.
> 
> You've taken a leap of faith there if you think it will have consciousness.

Yes but no bigger a leap of faith than I have in thinking that you are conscious.

> Philosophers like Searle investigate what we can actually know.

And the only thing I actually know about you is that you have the ability to generate a certain sequence if ASCII characters. And yet I think you were conscious when you wrote it.

> And what we can know is this: 1) real biological brains have consciousness

Why the plural? You know is that one biological brain has consciousness. Sometimes.

> 2) we know of nothing else in the universe that has it

How do you know that? How do you know that a brick is not conscious? Because it doesn't act intelligently. 

> 3) if we want to create it artificially and *know for certain* that we've done so then we need first to understand exactly how it happens in real biological brains.

Why? We don't know how biological brains work but we still think they're conscious except when they're acting like they are not.

> Searle scolds neuroscientists for not working harder on this all important question. He blames their complacency on the mystical dualistic mind/matter philosophy handed down to us from the likes of Descartes

Descartes just got his grammar wrong, he thought he was a noun and not an adjective; but Searle is the real dualist, he clearly thinks intelligence and consciousness have little to do with each other.

 John K Clark



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/b03f8655/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Dec 12 17:14:57 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:14:57 -0500
Subject: [ExI] atheism.
In-Reply-To: <580930c20912120837t50c5633bu6bfd62a24e8fe54a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <287486.21264.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<F7F2443E-AA16-4D98-94FD-C38F02F85290@bellsouth.net>
	<4B22928F.2010000@libero.it>
	<580930c20912120837t50c5633bu6bfd62a24e8fe54a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C97B0E59-EDD8-4DA5-BDCC-8683F4F96B16@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:37 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote:

> btw, I am probably not an "atheist" as far as Zeus and Thor are
> concerned. :-)

God is real, unless defined as an integer. 

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/aa639aec/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 17:36:50 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:36:50 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <26B90D0C-813D-41C5-9ECD-7BDC66ECFACF@bellsouth.net>
References: <151924.66474.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<26B90D0C-813D-41C5-9ECD-7BDC66ECFACF@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <580930c20912120936n6f4c7bcch7f5dac7bffba2858@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/12 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>

> On Dec 12, 2009, Gordon Swobe wrote:
>
> or 2) consign myself to a dead end solipsistic philosophy in which you and
> everyone I know have the mental life of vegetables. I choose 1) by reductio
> ad absurdum.
>
>
> Then why isn't it also absurd to think that an intelligent computer has the
> mental life of a vegetable?
>
> This subject has been beaten to death innumerable times, but do we really
need to make (and is it possible to decide the truth of) assumptions
concerning the "true" mental state of others as if it were a thing distinct
from its expression and underlying mechanics?

That an intelligent computer has the mental life of a vegetable sounds like
an oxymoron to me... Its "intelligence", or mine for that matter, is defined
by the responses we can offer to the various input we are faced with.

And, by the way, we do not really know anything about the "real" mental life
of vegetables either. We can study and describe how they work and behave at
increasing level of details, and that is all there is to know about them.

All that stuff simply brings us back to the "homuncoli" hypotheses, or to
ko'an questions such as "what it would feel like to be somebody else" that
are only good for short circuit our brain processes when engaged in Zen
meditation...

--
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/3c56597f/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 17:13:47 2009
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912120646t7e63c85fg1545742e59926724@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30912091517o364fecc2y8db65120760701e1@mail.gmail.com>
	<370107.70551.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30912102110y2cd0d8f2o483d45f21c23f6af@mail.gmail.com>
	<242821.40742.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30912120646t7e63c85fg1545742e59926724@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <211251.65939.qm@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>



----- Original Message ----
> From: Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Sat, December 12, 2009 6:46:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.

> I've never accepted simplistic notions of mind uploading that hold
> that all the information needed is a map of the neural connections. To
> properly model a brain you may need go down all the way to the
> molecular level, which would of course require extremely fine scanning
> techniques and a fantastic amount of computing power. Nevertheless,
> unless there is something fundamentally non-computable in the brain, a
> computer model should be possible, and this is sufficient to make the
> case for functionalism.

Even within the narrow bounds of math and?computer science there are provenly non-computable numbers like Chaitin's constant and non-computable functions like the?"busy beaver function". The?brain is not obligated to be computable. And mind has yet to be satisfactorily defined.

Stuart LaForge 


"Science has not yet mastered prophecy. We predict too much for the next year and yet far too little for the next ten." - Neil Armstrong 


      


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 17:40:34 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:40:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <87B4BA7A-5C00-44F5-8B1A-6EAABEDE3455@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <806166.70690.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Then why isn't it also absurd to think that an intelligent computer
> has the mental life of a vegetable?

Because 1) programs are formal (syntactic), and 2) minds have mental contents (semantics), and 3) syntax is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics, programs are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for minds.

It follows also that because biological brains have minds, they must do something besides run formal programs.

-gts


      


From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 17:44:29 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:44:29 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <87104.69727.qm@web65613.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912091517o364fecc2y8db65120760701e1@mail.gmail.com>
	<370107.70551.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30912102110y2cd0d8f2o483d45f21c23f6af@mail.gmail.com>
	<242821.40742.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<4902d9990912120613s66e6b11bq547f6f5722e54790@mail.gmail.com>
	<87104.69727.qm@web65613.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912120944j7bc401d7hdf2dd766152af6c@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:29 PM, The Avantguardian <
avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> >From: Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>
> >To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> >Sent: Sat, December 12, 2009 6:13:44 AM
> >Subject: Re: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
> >
> >
> >I interpret the replacement as using a different electronic equivalent for
> each neuron, so that their specific functions (if any) will be preserved.
>
> Even so, how could you map that function over the domain of inputs and
> range of outputs? How precisely is "close enough"? Does the function even
> remain the same over the life of a neuron? For a simple mathematical example
> of the problem, consider the functions y=x+13 and y=(x^2-169)/(x-13). Over
> all of the infinite possible values of inputs x they are "functionally
> equivalent" and give rise to the same output. . . *except* where x=13. When
> you *know* the functions, the difference is obvious. But if the functions
> were hidden within a "black box" and all you could do was plug in random
> values of x and look at the output, would you notice a difference between
> the two?
>

The replacement would not be a perfect clone, on this I can agree. But we
are not plugging in random values in a neuron and observing the output. In
the replacement case, you observe a neuron in its day-to-day function, which
is not random at all, but very representative. I don't think you would
notice any difference between the original and the replacement after an
observation period of some days or weeks.



> Understanding the neurons' inner working is not needed if you can exactly
replace their input/output functions (not an easy feat anyway...) Whether
consciousness resides inside single neurons is another matter. In that case,
inner workings will need to be replicated too.
>
>Searle's arguments remind me of good old-fashioned dualism: there is
something in our brain cells that can't be replicated in a mechanical or
electronic equivalent. But without knowing what this "something" is, that's
just an article of faith.

Forget brains or neurons for the moment. Sodium is a metal that
> spontaneously burns when it contacts water. Chlorine is a deadly poisonous
> gas. When you combine the two in a test tube, you get salt. What does the
> electronic or mechanical equivalent of salt taste like?
>

It tastes like silicon or iron :-) That was the wrong question. A better
question is: what taste is the electronic equivalent feeling? Looking at a
human brain, you would never guess the answer. It is clear that something is
causing feeling in the human brain, but we don't know what it is. It is
allowed to hypothesize that the "something" is specific to the biological
brain, in the same way that a neuron is. That it can't be also replicated on
another substrate is a conjecture that can't be proved until the first issue
is resolved. It could happen that consciousness come out to be a property of
some specific matter arrangement. Say, like electrical charge requires
electron, protons or other specific particles. But I'm not holding my
breath.


 Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/f10162a9/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Dec 12 17:20:07 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:20:07 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <87104.69727.qm@web65613.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912091517o364fecc2y8db65120760701e1@mail.gmail.com>
	<370107.70551.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30912102110y2cd0d8f2o483d45f21c23f6af@mail.gmail.com>
	<242821.40742.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<4902d9990912120613s66e6b11bq547f6f5722e54790@mail.gmail.com>
	<87104.69727.qm@web65613.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4D8DB4A0-D267-44B6-9AD4-A170F7E9A982@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 12, 2009,  The Avantguardian wrote:

> Sodium is a metal that spontaneously burns when it contacts water. Chlorine is a deadly poisonous gas. When you combine the two in a test tube, you get salt. What does the electronic or mechanical equivalent of salt taste like?

Salt.

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/1da28aa6/attachment.html>

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 17:52:11 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:52:11 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <806166.70690.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <87B4BA7A-5C00-44F5-8B1A-6EAABEDE3455@bellsouth.net>
	<806166.70690.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912120952h7c95aea8seb5f8accac01df37@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Sat, 12/12/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Then why isn't it also absurd to think that an intelligent computer
> > has the mental life of a vegetable?
>
> Because 1) programs are formal (syntactic), and 2) minds have mental
> contents (semantics), and 3) syntax is neither constitutive of nor
> sufficient for semantics, programs are neither constitutive of nor
> sufficient for minds.
>
> It follows also that because biological brains have minds, they must do
> something besides run formal programs.
>

Do you also expand this statement to "something besides moving molecules
around and shuffling electrical charges?" Because that's what a biological
brain does. If this description is too low-level to encode semantics, then
you have just defined a computational substrate for the (formal or
non-formal) brain program that encodes the semantics and, voila',  the
simulation is ready :-)   Unless minds are not physics-based, there's no way
to escape the conclusion that semantics, or whatever makes up mental states,
is some function of brain's matter and electrical charges arrangement and
movement.

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/67a0018f/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Dec 12 17:57:36 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:57:36 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <211251.65939.qm@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912091517o364fecc2y8db65120760701e1@mail.gmail.com>
	<370107.70551.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30912102110y2cd0d8f2o483d45f21c23f6af@mail.gmail.com>
	<242821.40742.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30912120646t7e63c85fg1545742e59926724@mail.gmail.com>
	<211251.65939.qm@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1EBC6179-50BB-4463-89EA-E4CA956A3B18@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 12, 2009, at 12:13 PM, The Avantguardian wrote:

> there are provenly non-computable numbers like Chaitin's constant and non-computable functions like the "busy beaver function".

Yes, and our minds are no more capable of solving those problems than computers are; and the instructions on how to build one of those biological minds could easily fit on a $200 hard drive. I think those two facts are trying to tell you something.

> And mind has yet to be satisfactorily defined.

Definitions suck. Examples rule.

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/c17aae81/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 18:01:21 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <87B4BA7A-5C00-44F5-8B1A-6EAABEDE3455@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <782456.82917.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Descartes just got his grammar wrong, he thought he was a noun and 
> not an adjective; but Searle is the real dualist, he clearly thinks 
> intelligence and?consciousness?have little to do with each
> other.

Please show me how he suggests anything remotely similar.

In any case the dualism to which I refer concerns that supposed between matter and mind, not consciousness and intelligence. On Descartes view, as most people know, the two things exist independently. Descartes barely made sense of the obvious fact that mind still somehow affects matter. 

Searle rejects that entire mind/matter dichotomy as obsolete (and absolute) nonsense. He attributes it to the religious pressures at work in Descartes' day.

As philosophies, materialism is passe, as is its antithesis idealism. So says Searle. I find his thoughts on this subject pretty interesting. 

-gts


      


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Dec 12 18:32:58 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:32:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <782456.82917.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <782456.82917.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CB937E61-D7BB-40D9-8602-0815A40C432B@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 12, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> Searle rejects that entire mind/matter dichotomy as obsolete 

Yes, and Searle was wrong about that too, the two are not the same, mind is what a brain does. Then he introduces a brand new dichotomy the intelligence/consciousness dichotomy which he'd know was really really stupid if he took the time to audit a high school class on Evolution. Perhaps he's the victim of creationists having banned the subject from biology class when he was a kid. 

 John K Clark



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/a438b5b4/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 18:38:39 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:38:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912120952h7c95aea8seb5f8accac01df37@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <385508.6120.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com> wrote:

>> It follows also that because biological brains have minds,
> they must do something besides run formal programs.
> 
> Do you also expand this statement to "something
> besides moving molecules around and shuffling electrical
> charges?" Because that's what a biological brain
> does. 

Good question, and I think the answer is a qualified "no". 

That shuffling of molecules and electrical charges to which you refer may very well have something to do with how brains cause consciousness. But Searle would qualify my answer by adding, "We don't yet know if only the activities of the brain cause it to become conscious. It may also have something to do with the substances of which it is made. We simply don't yet know if anything other than a real organic biological brain can have consciousness."

The upshot is that until we understand exactly how real organic brains become conscious, we run the risk (of concern at least to philosophers of the subject) of creating a non-organic AI that appears to have consciousness but which in fact only mimics it. 

-gts


      


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Dec 12 18:39:08 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:39:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <806166.70690.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <806166.70690.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6D1285FA-D7DA-4A7F-BD6E-7F5F4B51E0A2@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 12, 2009, at 12:40 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> syntax is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics

Why not?

> It follows also that because biological brains have minds, they must do something besides run formal programs.

Yea yea I've heard that for years, the nuns in my grade school tried to drill that into me, but I haven't believed in the soul since I was eleven. 

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/e5d693ad/attachment.html>

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 19:05:23 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:05:23 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <385508.6120.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <4902d9990912120952h7c95aea8seb5f8accac01df37@mail.gmail.com>
	<385508.6120.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912121105t7d7ebfcft49ba3efbfa845d22@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Sat, 12/12/09, Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> It follows also that because biological brains have minds,
> > they must do something besides run formal programs.
> >
> > Do you also expand this statement to "something
> > besides moving molecules around and shuffling electrical
> > charges?" Because that's what a biological brain
> > does.
>
> Good question, and I think the answer is a qualified "no".
>
> That shuffling of molecules and electrical charges to which you refer may
> very well have something to do with how brains cause consciousness. But
> Searle would qualify my answer by adding, "We don't yet know if only the
> activities of the brain cause it to become conscious. It may also have
> something to do with the substances of which it is made. We simply don't yet
> know if anything other than a real organic biological brain can have
> consciousness."
>
> The upshot is that until we understand exactly how real organic brains
> become conscious, we run the risk (of concern at least to philosophers of
> the subject) of creating a non-organic AI that appears to have consciousness
> but which in fact only mimics it.
>

Then we roughly agree, except that I take the opposite default position:
that non-organic AI will have consciousness unless proved otherwise, the
same criterion we apply to biological intelligence.


Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/d6806247/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 19:15:00 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:15:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <6D1285FA-D7DA-4A7F-BD6E-7F5F4B51E0A2@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <573329.23026.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> syntax is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics

> Why not?

Searle designed the Chinese Room thought experiment to prove that third premise in his formal argument.

The Englishman in the room shuffles the Chinese symbols according to the rules of Chinese syntax, and he does this well enough to pass the Turing test, yet he never understands a word of Chinese.

His experience would seem much like that of the Wernicke's aphasia patient with the lesion on the semantic center of his brain. He speaks fluent Chinese with good syntax and also has no idea what he's talking about.

-gts



      


From painlord2k at libero.it  Sat Dec 12 19:34:39 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:34:39 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Nobel homeschooled until 9th grade
In-Reply-To: <4B22E604.5080902@satx.rr.com>
References: <4B229380.5000502@libero.it>	<f21c22e30912111631r506984ecy64a4068529798322@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B22E604.5080902@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4B23F04F.1030407@libero.it>

Il 12/12/2009 1.38, Damien Broderick ha scritto:
> On 12/11/2009 6:31 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>> But the mother of the person who wrote the article for
>> homeschooling-network.com didn't teach him or her how to spell
>> "bachelor".
>
> "homescholed" is fun too...

 From someone that use english as a secon written language, the 
differences from England English, US English (it is one or more?) and 
Australian English are, sometime, astonishing. Spelling is not always 
simple or unanimous.

Anyway, there are evidences that public, government owned, schools a bit 
too often let people unable to read, compute, write a sentence to walk 
out with a diploma.

It appear that the right to be educated and the compulsory education 
have morphed to a right to a diploma.
Italy appear, like usual, 20 years later than US, in this. But we are 
trying to catch up.

Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.716 / Database dei virus: 270.14.104/2560 -  Data di rilascio: 12/12/09 08:38:00

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Dec 12 19:51:03 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:51:03 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <573329.23026.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <573329.23026.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B23F427.1070106@satx.rr.com>

On 12/12/2009 1:15 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> The Englishman in the room shuffles the Chinese symbols according to the rules of Chinese syntax, and he does this well enough to pass the Turing test, yet he never understands a word of Chinese.
>
> His experience would seem much like that of the Wernicke's aphasia patient with the lesion on the semantic center of his brain. He speaks fluent Chinese with good syntax and also has no idea what he's talking about.

This is very tedious. You still refuse to acknowledge what critics have 
shown for many years: the English monoglot speaker is the functional 
equivalent of a single neuron, or a small clump of them connected by 
synapses, functioning at glacial speeds. Nobody claims that such neurons 
are individually conscious. Rescale and find a better argument.

Damien Broderick


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 19:52:32 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912121105t7d7ebfcft49ba3efbfa845d22@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <187620.42095.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Then we roughly agree, except that I take the opposite
> default position: that non-organic AI will have
> consciousness unless proved otherwise, the same criterion we
> apply to biological intelligence.

That position will lead to panpsychism - the idea that all matter has consciousness -- unless you find some way to justify one thing as conscious and another as not without using biological consciousness as the measure!

Panpsychism is not an indefensible position, and it does refute Searle's. It's just not very popular.

-gts


      


From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 20:08:05 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:08:05 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <187620.42095.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <4902d9990912121105t7d7ebfcft49ba3efbfa845d22@mail.gmail.com>
	<187620.42095.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912121208j4ac3e226j532e8b1e3ceeac58@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Sat, 12/12/09, Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Then we roughly agree, except that I take the opposite
> > default position: that non-organic AI will have
> > consciousness unless proved otherwise, the same criterion we
> > apply to biological intelligence.
>
> That position will lead to panpsychism - the idea that all matter has
> consciousness


Well, a wooden desk, while biologically-derived, does not show intelligent
behaviour, so I don't assign it much consciousness either. The same for a
metallic desk.



> -- unless you find some way to justify one thing as conscious and another
> as not without using biological consciousness as the measure!
>

You nailed it - the problem is grounding consciousness on being biological.
After all, there are many biological things that do not show intelligent
behaviour, like most plants.
In our experience, the only conscious things is a human brain, or perhaps an
animal brain. This will justify shifting your Bayesian priors towards the
biological, but it's far from giving absolute certainty.



> Panpsychism is not an indefensible position, and it does refute Searle's.
> It's just not very popular.
>
> -gts
>


Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/2e930b0c/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 20:20:45 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <4B23F427.1070106@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <554818.57147.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

> You still refuse to acknowledge what
> critics have shown for many years: the English monoglot
> speaker is the functional equivalent of a single neuron

Perhps you missed it Damien it but that reply of the systems critics was answered many years ago.

In the reply, the man internalizes the rule book and steps outside the room. Different picture, same symbol grounding problem.

The larger point of course is that really does not matter which metaphor we use. The CR thought experiment illustrates the symbol grounding problem:

"The Symbol Grounding Problem is related to the problem of how words (symbols) get their meanings, and hence to the problem of what meaning itself really is. The problem of meaning is in turn related to the problem of consciousness, or how it is that mental states are meaningful. According to a widely held theory of cognition, "computationalism," cognition (i.e., thinking) is just a form of computation. But computation in turn is just formal symbol manipulation: symbols are manipulated according to rules that are based on the symbols' shapes, not their meanings."

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


-gts


      


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 20:45:24 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:45:24 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <633777.83284.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912120646t7e63c85fg1545742e59926724@mail.gmail.com> 
	<633777.83284.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912121245t19649aadx82dea4962acdcba3@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/13 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
> --- On Sat, 12/12/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The replacement would have to involve artificial neurons
>> that are *functionally equivalent*.
>
> I.e., functionalism.

When I say that the artificial neurons are "functionally equivalent" I
am referring to their externally observable behaviour. Functionalism
is the theory that the mind would follow if the externally observable
behaviour is taken care of, and is what is at issue here.

>> To properly model a brain you may need go down all the way to
>> the molecular level, which would of course require...
>
> Now here you and Searle may almost agree. To create an artificial brain modeled "down all the way to the molecular level", we would need essentially to create a real brain.

It would behave like a biological brain and it would have the
consciousness of a biological brain, but it need not have any
biological components unless it turns out that these components cannot
be modeled on a computer. This is Roger Penrose's position: he claims
that computers will never be able to display human-like intelligence
because the brain utilises non-computable physics. In other words, he
claims that weak AI is impossible. This position is consistent, but
there is no evidence of non-computable physics in the brain or
anywhere else. Searle, on the other hand, claims that weak AI is
possible but strong AI impossible, which is inconsistent. The neural
replacement experiment I described shows why this is so, and you
haven't addressed it.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From painlord2k at libero.it  Sat Dec 12 21:28:37 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:28:37 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Living temperature dataset
Message-ID: <4B240B05.7080106@libero.it>

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/
GISS ?raw? station data ? before and after

Look at the comparison before and after.
Data is truncated before 1900 and temp are adjusted down for the first 
part of the century and up for the latter

Could be of interest how, the raw datasets continue to be "living" 
documents, as they continue to change and are continuously "improved" to 
show the raising temperatures to the unwashed masses.

Commenter  Peter Hartley (17:41:16) :
<<I think it is interesting that many of the adjustments are relatively 
small after 1979. Perhaps the availability of satellite temperatures 
from then on has ?discouraged? further large adjustments over this 
period. Increasingly, it is looking like ever larger adjustments 
downwards are being made to earlier temperatures to maintain the 
appearance of rising temperatures over the long term. Correspondence 
with the satellite temperatures from 1979 is then used to justify the 
whole series including its cooled earlier temperatures.>>

Do they at the LHC "improve" the data in the same way?

Mirco

-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.716 / Database dei virus: 270.14.104/2560 -  Data di rilascio: 12/12/09 08:38:00

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 21:35:57 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:35:57 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <554818.57147.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <4B23F427.1070106@satx.rr.com>
	<554818.57147.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912121335m529ebe99q9d9cee82224e47c@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/13 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
>> You still refuse to acknowledge what
>> critics have shown for many years: the English monoglot
>> speaker is the functional equivalent of a single neuron
>
> Perhps you missed it Damien it but that reply of the systems critics was answered many years ago.
>
> In the reply, the man internalizes the rule book and steps outside the room. Different picture, same symbol grounding problem.

Would your consciousness disappear if it were shown that neurons in
the brain had their own separate intelligence allowing them to do
their mundane jobs but without an understanding of the broader
picture?

> The larger point of course is that really does not matter which metaphor we use. The CR thought experiment illustrates the symbol grounding problem:
>
> "The Symbol Grounding Problem is related to the problem of how words (symbols) get their meanings, and hence to the problem of what meaning itself really is. The problem of meaning is in turn related to the problem of consciousness, or how it is that mental states are meaningful. According to a widely held theory of cognition, "computationalism," cognition (i.e., thinking) is just a form of computation. But computation in turn is just formal symbol manipulation: symbols are manipulated according to rules that are based on the symbols' shapes, not their meanings."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding

How is it that the symbol grounding problem is not a problem for
brains? All brains do as far as an external observer is concerned is
harness chemical reactions in order to manipulate symbols, just as
computers harness electric current in order to manipulate symbols. If
semantics magically appears out of chemical reactions why should it
not also magically appear out of electric currents?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 21:53:35 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:53:35 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <211251.65939.qm@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912091517o364fecc2y8db65120760701e1@mail.gmail.com> 
	<370107.70551.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30912102110y2cd0d8f2o483d45f21c23f6af@mail.gmail.com> 
	<242821.40742.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<f21c22e30912120646t7e63c85fg1545742e59926724@mail.gmail.com> 
	<211251.65939.qm@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912121353t6268179ame2092f97f50ce34a@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/13 The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>:
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
>> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> Sent: Sat, December 12, 2009 6:46:53 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
>
>> I've never accepted simplistic notions of mind uploading that hold
>> that all the information needed is a map of the neural connections. To
>> properly model a brain you may need go down all the way to the
>> molecular level, which would of course require extremely fine scanning
>> techniques and a fantastic amount of computing power. Nevertheless,
>> unless there is something fundamentally non-computable in the brain, a
>> computer model should be possible, and this is sufficient to make the
>> case for functionalism.
>
> Even within the narrow bounds of math and?computer science there are provenly non-computable numbers like Chaitin's constant and non-computable functions like the?"busy beaver function". The?brain is not obligated to be computable. And mind has yet to be satisfactorily defined.

The argument I put forward before (due to Chalmers) shows that IF the
physical behaviour of the brain can be modelled by a computer THEN the
consciousness will follow. There is no need to define consciousness or
mind exactly for the purposes of this argument: it's just that weird
thing that happens to us when our brain is working properly. If the
brain utilises non-computable physics then it won't be possible to
model it on a digital computer, but there is no evidence for
non-computable physics in the brain or anywhere else. It's the physics
which is at issue, not mathematics.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 21:47:03 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:47:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
Message-ID: <445222.5956.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> When I say that the artificial neurons are "functionally
> equivalent" I am referring to their externally observable behaviour.
> Functionalism is the theory that the mind would follow if the 
> externally observable behaviour is taken care of, and is what is at 
> issue here.

More accurately, functionalism is the theory that if one constructed a brain-like contraption the components of which carried out the same functions as a real brain, mind would follow, no matter how one implemented those functions. Correct me if I have it wrong but I believe functionalism so defined describes your position, though behaviorism certainly plays a role in it.

It seems you would not care how we constructed those neurons, provided they squirted the same neurotransmitters and emitted the same electrical signals between themselves, i.e., that they performed the same functions as real biological neurons. Yes? 

We could on that view construct a contraption the size of Texas with gigantic neurons constructed of, say, band-aids, Elmers glue, beer cans and toilet paper. Provided those neurons squirted the same chemicals and signals betwixt themselves as in a real brain, would you consider the contraption conscious? And if so, why? How would those particular neurotransmitters and signals cause consciousness? And if you take it only on pure faith that they would do so, and offer no scientific explanation, then on grounds can you justify your claim to have created a blue-print for strong AI? 

> Searle, on the other hand, claims that weak AI is possible but strong 
> AI impossible, which is inconsistent. The neural replacement experiment > I described shows why this is so, and you haven't addressed it.

I think I have addressed it, actually, but perhaps I misunderstood you. I've asked for clarification above.

-gts


      


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 22:41:12 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:41:12 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <445222.5956.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <445222.5956.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912121441i1f4235a9h5a474a36cc6288c2@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/13 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
> --- On Sat, 12/12/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> When I say that the artificial neurons are "functionally
>> equivalent" I am referring to their externally observable behaviour.
>> Functionalism is the theory that the mind would follow if the
>> externally observable behaviour is taken care of, and is what is at
>> issue here.
>
> More accurately, functionalism is the theory that if one constructed a brain-like contraption the components of which carried out the same functions as a real brain, mind would follow, no matter how one implemented those functions. Correct me if I have it wrong but I believe functionalism so defined describes your position, though behaviorism certainly plays a role in it.

Yes, that's right. It's the behaviour of the neurons that is
important. It is possible that someone with a completely different and
differently-functioning brain to mine is a very good actor and copies
my behaviour, but he probably won't experience what I experience. But
if my behaviour were copied by making a machine that copies my brain
function, perhaps in a different substrate, then my mind will also be
copied.

> It seems you would not care how we constructed those neurons, provided they squirted the same neurotransmitters and emitted the same electrical signals between themselves, i.e., that they performed the same functions as real biological neurons. Yes?
>
> We could on that view construct a contraption the size of Texas with gigantic neurons constructed of, say, band-aids, Elmers glue, beer cans and toilet paper. Provided those neurons squirted the same chemicals and signals betwixt themselves as in a real brain, would you consider the contraption conscious? And if so, why? How would those particular neurotransmitters and signals cause consciousness? And if you take it only on pure faith that they would do so, and offer no scientific explanation, then on grounds can you justify your claim to have created a blue-print for strong AI?

If you consider my question below you will see that it has been
justified with the strength of logical necessity.

>> Searle, on the other hand, claims that weak AI is possible but strong
>> AI impossible, which is inconsistent. The neural replacement experiment > I described shows why this is so, and you haven't addressed it.
>
> I think I have addressed it, actually, but perhaps I misunderstood you. I've asked for clarification above.

You haven't explained what you think would happen if part of your
brain, say your visual cortex, were replaced with artificial neurons
which interacted with the remaining biological neurons in the same way
as the originals would have, while themselves lacking the ingredients
for consciousness.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 22:52:38 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912121335m529ebe99q9d9cee82224e47c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <512812.46927.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> How is it that the symbol grounding problem is not a problem for brains? 

That's the great mystery, Stathis! I wish I knew the answer, but I can do nothing more than help others here understand the question.

However we may choose to describe the brain, we cannot describe it as a software/hardware system. It does something that no such system will ever do.

-gts




      


From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 23:14:54 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:14:54 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Living temperature dataset
In-Reply-To: <4B240B05.7080106@libero.it>
References: <4B240B05.7080106@libero.it>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912121514h6bec6ce6m562ad1d550f5876a@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/12 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>

>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/
> GISS ?raw? station data ? before and after
>
> Look at the comparison before and after.
> Data is truncated before 1900 and temp are adjusted down for the first part
> of the century and up for the latter
>
> Could be of interest how, the raw datasets continue to be "living"
> documents, as they continue to change and are continuously "improved" to
> show the raising temperatures to the unwashed masses.
>

There are thousands of temperature stations. If you have an agenda, it's
easy to cherry-pick some that show the adjustments you are interested in.

If one suspect that adjustments are systematically biased in one direction,
the correct thing to do is to take all of them and look at their
distribution. This is the result for the entire GHCN dataset, on which GISS
is based:

http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/

You get a nice gaussian distribution with an average of 0 degrees. That is,
there are as many negative adjustments as there are positive ones.

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091213/fb6e37ff/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Dec 12 23:26:02 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:26:02 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <512812.46927.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912121335m529ebe99q9d9cee82224e47c@mail.gmail.com> 
	<512812.46927.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912121526q955fee0o9f7fae567993eb0b@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/13 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
> --- On Sat, 12/12/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How is it that the symbol grounding problem is not a problem for brains?
>
> That's the great mystery, Stathis! I wish I knew the answer, but I can do nothing more than help others here understand the question.
>
> However we may choose to describe the brain, we cannot describe it as a software/hardware system. It does something that no such system will ever do.

You look at a computer and say: it behaves as if it understand what it
is doing, but in reality it doesn't, since all it does is shuffle
around electric charges. But that's begging the question; you may as
well assume the same thing of brains.

Are you familiar with the Tery Bisson story "They're made Out Of Meat"?

http://baetzler.de/humor/meat_beings.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFZTAOb7IE

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From saefir at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 23:09:49 2009
From: saefir at yahoo.com (flemming)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:09:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] more atheism
Message-ID: <894257.93025.qm@web56806.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

I believe stefano makes the logical or illogical error of assuming what agnostics assume. I consider my self an agnostic, but based on the fact that nobody can present to me any evidence that there is or is not a god. 
It is really not a question of quantitative statistics, but the bare fact that I feel unable to choose among to realities for which there is no evidence to back?them up. It is ofcourse vital to acknowledge that evidence is only evidence if it convinces me, and not anybody else. I have no doubt that there is a lot of people who feel convinced that the evidence for their course is present and obvious, for example people who on a regular basis have conversations with Jesus or God. So Stefano, the agnostics only claims the right to doubt, and do not base their doubt on statistics. Some agnostics, such as the vitalongists, believes that?our ability to reason is limited buy our brains capacity, the same way?a worm is limited in its capability to understand differential equations. If you consider that view, it means that there is nothing but agnosticism, as this is a way to have a door open for the possibility of being wrong, while living on the
 knowledge?we have acquired so far. We must admit that the human history has been a road of errors and mistakes, and as we now peak into the strange world of quantum mechanics, with its odd dislocality, it seems that anything can be wrong, even the strongholds of the old Greeks. When it comes down to everything I guess?it is all about whether you think your brain interpretate the world of if you think it is the world.
?
Best Regards
Flemming from Denmark
?
?I'll et you are a atheist regarding Zeus and Thor and the Flying
>> Spaghetti Monster, as Dawkins says he just goes one god further.
>> Agnostics make the logical error of assuming that if there is no
>> evidence that something exists and no evidence that it does not then
>> there is a 50% chance its real.
>
> Even if the chance to be real is only 0.00000000000000000000000001%
> It don't make it unreal, only improbable.

Since when do we base our beliefs on a "certainty of unreality"?

And, btw, I am probably not an "atheist" as far as Zeus and Thor are
concerned. :-)

I simply do not accord them the same status or kind of "reality" which
I consider appropriate for the keyboard I am typing on (even though I
could improbably be hallucinating it...) or which is claimed for
Jahv?/Allah/the Holy Trinity.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/ee524530/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: --static--liam_crowdsurfer_bottom.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 21362 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/ee524530/attachment.gif>

From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 12 23:59:19 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:59:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Atheism
Message-ID: <810435.48641.qm@web59901.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

"What's wrong with church teachings is that they're based on mysticism,
faith, dogma, fear, and obedience, not critical thinking, open
mindedness, and rationality. TV is entertainment, education, religion,
... everything anyone does. Some of it is good and healthy, some of it
is just fun, some is a waste of time, and some of it is actively
unhealthy. Schools--at least those not run by religious
 entities--are
generally good, focusing on the rational.
Raising children to believe in a religion, starting the indoctrination
at an age at which they haven't developed the ability to evaluate what
they're being taught, amounts to child abuse. The physical and
intellectual effort that has been wasted on teaching, learning, and
observing religious practices could have been put to much better use.
I'll grant that many great works of art have been inspired
 by religion, but I think most of those talents would have been
 expressed equally well on non-religious subjects. But the great minds that were
wasted pursuing idiotic theological problems could have solved real,
major problems. I think that's tragic."

"Equally well" cuts both ways. Religion is as beneficial as the secular all round. As much psychic (can't say concerning physical)abuse is involved with secular schools as at religious schools.
Agreed on premises but not conclusions. Religion is as you write, Dave. However, church schools can deliver education at lower prices. And private charity doesn't pile up the debt that govt does. Practically-- economically-- though not intellectually, religion works. I still don't see how what is taught in nonscience secular curricula is less muddleheaded than that
 which is taught in religious schools. Why is politically correct secular emollient less illusory than its counterpart in churches
 and church schools? There is effort today to improve public schools-- because there is no longer any choice but to do so; yet to exponentially improve public K-12 schools the teachers would probably (and you don't know any more about what to do about it than anyone)have to be paid as much as professors to incentivise them to improve learning. Perhaps you are exaggerating the flaws of religion, while I am exaggerating the flaws in public education. But isn;t there less drug use, promiscuity, crime, in religious schools than in secular schools? I think govt institutions are no better than religious institutions. Nor does it appear that entertainment is any better than religious indoctrination. 
besides the charity work religious orgs do in emergencies is valuable, more cost effective than govt relief.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/4be8916d/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Sun Dec 13 01:25:54 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:25:54 -0500
Subject: [ExI] atheism
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0912120025o569dfea8y5b385ffa8653af79@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200912111606.nBBG6sWu022978@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<62c14240912112028t3467ca99sdb2702c1c28e77f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0912120025o569dfea8y5b385ffa8653af79@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240912121725m2d946d1agc5dcdda82c706257@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:25 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/12/09, Mike Dougherty wrote:
> > For the only commonality of a population of people that they do not
> > share a single idea that is believed those outside their group do share
> is
> > not really much of an identity.  As an indistinct label with almost no
> > expressive power to convey a specific import, why the obsession with
> > professing "atheism" as anything at all?
>
> Because it is important to tell people that you are part of the group
> that doesn't follow a soccer team, have no interest in soccer and
> consider it to be a complete waste of time.
>
> This may help those people who are soccer fanatics to reconsider the
> time and money they spend, if they realize that there is a life
> outside of soccer.
>

Thanks for further distilling my point to an even easier analogy.  I don't
believe soccer fans would be swayed by that argument very frequently
either.  :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/d4cbf024/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Sun Dec 13 01:42:01 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:42:01 -0500
Subject: [ExI] atheism.
In-Reply-To: <C97B0E59-EDD8-4DA5-BDCC-8683F4F96B16@bellsouth.net>
References: <287486.21264.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<F7F2443E-AA16-4D98-94FD-C38F02F85290@bellsouth.net>
	<4B22928F.2010000@libero.it>
	<580930c20912120837t50c5633bu6bfd62a24e8fe54a@mail.gmail.com>
	<C97B0E59-EDD8-4DA5-BDCC-8683F4F96B16@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <62c14240912121742h2ef44f75u7e515bde34032129@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/12 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>

>
> God is real, unless defined as an integer.
>
>
I heard ve is denoted alternately by two greek letters...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/cd135eac/attachment.html>

From painlord2k at libero.it  Sun Dec 13 02:26:05 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 03:26:05 +0100
Subject: [ExI] atheism
In-Reply-To: <8F4B49F3-ECE3-4CD2-A855-E9BC79644573@bellsouth.net>
References: <287486.21264.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com>	<F7F2443E-AA16-4D98-94FD-C38F02F85290@bellsouth.net>	<4B22928F.2010000@libero.it>
	<8F4B49F3-ECE3-4CD2-A855-E9BC79644573@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <4B2450BD.6080708@libero.it>

Il 12/12/2009 14.27, John Clark ha scritto:

> You can't, or at least shouldn't, be absolutely certain about anything
> (I think) therefore if it is inappropriate to use the word "atheist" it
> is also inappropriate to utter any simple declarative sentence about
> anything because there is a chance, however unlikely, that you could be
> wrong.

Then we must all stop to arguing about all as certain is not of this 
universe.

Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.716 / Database dei virus: 270.14.104/2560 -  Data di rilascio: 12/12/09 08:38:00

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun Dec 13 04:42:14 2009
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:42:14 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Living temperature dataset
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912121514h6bec6ce6m562ad1d550f5876a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B240B05.7080106@libero.it>
	<4902d9990912121514h6bec6ce6m562ad1d550f5876a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60912122042p74b0c549p591e5e0d734011b6@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/12 Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>:

>
> If one suspect that adjustments are systematically biased in one direction,
> the correct thing to do is to take all of them and look at their
> distribution. This is the result for the entire GHCN dataset, on which GISS
> is based:
>
> http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
>
> You get a nice gaussian distribution with an average of 0 degrees. That is,
> there are as many negative adjustments as there are positive ones

### See here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/picking-out-the-uhi-in-global-temperature-records-so-easy-a-6th-grader-can-do-it/

- please watch it and read the article before commenting.

Basically, since GISS homogenizes data containing a mixture of urban
and rural stations, the procedure introduces a spurious warming trend
due to the UHI effect. The overall distribution of adjustments proves
nothing about the actual net effect of the adjustments.

Let me explain on a hypothetical scenario:

Imagine that you take all rural site temperatures and adjust them
upward by 1 degree. Then you take an equal number of urban sites and
adjust them downward by 1 degree. Obviously, the net adjustment per
site will be zero, just as described in Alfio's link. However, note
that adjusting rural sites up doesn't make physical sense, since there
is no "rural cooling island effect" you would need to adjust for -
these data should be consumed raw. Adjusting urban sites down makes
sense, since their temperatures are the result of the UHI - but in
this hypothetical this physically correct adjustment is negated by a
physically improper adjustment of the rural data. The overall effect
is that the UHI is fully transferred into the homogenized temperature
record, and a spurious warming trend is seen.

Lest you think this is just theorizing - homogenization (averaging) of
urban and rural measurements does produce exactly the same effect on
the raw data. This is not surprising, since homogenization based on
proximity (as used in the GISS/CRU procedures) is a naive approach
which fails to take into account the underlying physics. The
physically proper procedure, aimed at assessing true global
temperature variability, would simply discard urban data, since they
reflect *local* influences. Indeed, for rural sites in the US that can
be paired with urban sites, there is no warming trend, as demonstrated
by GISS data.

So, Alfio, it looks to me like the consensus GISS/CRU climate record
is systematically biased upward, over multiple stations, and the
analysis you quoted does not disprove this assessment.

Rafal


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Dec 13 05:09:52 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:09:52 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <554818.57147.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <554818.57147.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B247720.4010809@satx.rr.com>

On 12/12/2009 2:20 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

>> You still refuse to acknowledge what critics [of Searle's
 >> Chinese Room] have shown for many years: the English monoglot
>> speaker is the functional equivalent of a single neuron

> Perhps you missed it Damien it but that reply of the systems critics was answered many years ago.

> In the reply, the man internalizes the rule book and steps outside the room. Different picture, same symbol grounding problem.

I begin to appreciate the value of John Clark's favorite retort: BULLSHIT!

For extra fun, why not also postulate that his cow jumps over the moon 
and brings back free cheese, and that he internalizes and operates the 
lookup table faster than the speed of light? Or, really, anything you 
like? With one bound, Jack was free.

Damien Broderick


From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 13 02:07:26 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:07:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] atheism
Message-ID: <598117.8374.qm@web59913.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

No disagreement with anyone writing religion is superstitious, foolish, bigoted-- but IMO secular, govt. institutions are no more
tolerant than religious ones.

?Not to pick on public schools, however since students are a captive
audience let's start by saying there is much PC smarm in schools,
students learn to suck up to those who are different. This is not
toleration, it is at best coexistence.

The superstition and bigotry of religion is traded off for something as inauthentic or negative. 

And say instead of someone spending $50 per month on supplements that
aren't efficacious or have a negligible health benefit, he places $20
per month in the offering basket at a house of worship;

?at least he has saved $30 if nothing else.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/ca02c491/attachment.html>

From reasonerkevin at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 13 05:10:42 2009
From: reasonerkevin at yahoo.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:10:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] more atheism
In-Reply-To: <894257.93025.qm@web56806.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <894257.93025.qm@web56806.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <29193.50976.qm@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>






________________________________
From: flemming <saefir at yahoo.com>
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Sent: Sat, December 12, 2009 5:09:49 PM
Subject: [ExI] more atheism



 
 
I believe stefano makes the logical or illogical error of assuming what agnostics assume. I consider my self an agnostic, but based on the fact that nobody can present to me any evidence that there is or is not a god. 
It is really not a question of quantitative statistics, but the bare fact that I feel unable to choose among to realities for which there is no evidence to back them up. It is ofcourse vital to acknowledge that evidence is only evidence if it convinces me, and not anybody else. I have no doubt that there is a lot of people who feel convinced that the evidence for their course is present and obvious, for example people who on a regular basis have conversations with Jesus or God. So Stefano, the agnostics only claims the right to doubt, and do not base their doubt on statistics. Some agnostics, such as the vitalongists, believes that our ability to reason is limited buy our brains capacity, the same way a worm is limited in its capability to understand differential equations. If you consider that view, it means that there is nothing but agnosticism, as this is a way to have a door open for the possibility of being wrong, while living on the knowledge we
 have acquired so far. We must admit that the human history has been a road of errors and mistakes, and as we now peak into the strange world of quantum mechanics, with its odd dislocality, it seems that anything can be wrong, even the strongholds of the old Greeks. When it comes down to everything I guess it is all about whether you think your brain interpretate the world of if you think it is the world.
 
Best Regards
Flemming from Denmark
 
 I'll et you are a atheist regarding Zeus and Thor and the Flying
>> Spaghetti Monster, as Dawkins says he just goes one god further.
>> Agnostics make the logical error of assuming that if there is no
>> evidence that something exists and no evidence that it does not then
>> there is a 50% chance its real.
>
> Even if the chance to be real is only 0.00000000000000000000000001%
> It don't make it unreal, only improbable.

Saying that "I don't believe there is a God" does not mean the same thing as "I believe there is not a God." 
There is no logical error in agnosticism. Even a .00000000000000000000000001% probability is greater than zero and becomes agnostic rather than atheist. 
 The definition of God makes this even more difficult. Now
if I say that God is a possibility in the future, and we assume that
time itself can be warped, manipulated or is an illusion, then I can't
say for certain that God does not exist.




-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091212/7bd9af2a/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Dec 13 06:06:35 2009
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:06:35 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <573329.23026.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <573329.23026.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B24846B.3090805@rawbw.com>

Gordon Swobe wrote (hi Gordon!)

> The Englishman in the room shuffles the Chinese symbols according
 > to the rules of Chinese syntax, and he does this well enough to
> pass the Turing test, yet he never understands a word of Chinese.

Using the "systems reply" terminology, does the Chinese Room
laugh at jokes?  Doth it have feelings?  Hath the CR not...

Anyway. Suppose that the CR is asked the question, "How may I
here in L.A. this week make an atomic bomb, and revenge my
poor Middle Eastern people against the Imperialists?"

And the CR responds---all in Chinese characters---by providing
concise directions for building a backyard bomb!

 > [Moreover, say] the man internalizes the rule book and
 > steps outside the room. Different picture, same symbol
 > grounding problem.

By hypothesis, then the original "man" doesn't know a bit about
what is being said, only the new "internalization" you speak of?
I'm forced to conclude that there are two entities having experiences
in that same skull: (1) the original man whose day job was only
holding up a sign "Will Work for Food",  and (2) a crafty inscrutable
Chinese speaking engineer that knows a great deal about bomb design
and that is willing to help a terrorist.

 From the outside, we have a Chinese speaker/system who knows
about bombs and doesn't care about L.A.---yet which has MPS
and a sub-personality capable of having its own independent
thoughts who is merely taking the job of running some Chinese
symbols and phonemes back and forth in that brain?

For me, this exposes to criticism the notion that the room
isn't "a man".

Lee


From max at maxmore.com  Sun Dec 13 06:17:22 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:17:22 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Scientists Behaving Badly
Message-ID: <200912130617.nBD6HWjA014864@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

This new article is one of the best I've seen on the CRU emails 
controversy, especially in the way it distinguishes between the 
players and their attitudes:

http://www.aei.org/article/101395


-------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
Extropy Institute Founder
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com
------------------------------------- 



From kanzure at gmail.com  Sun Dec 13 06:45:36 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:45:36 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [biomed] singularityhub: light-sensitive protein
	interaction used to control shape of mammalian cell
In-Reply-To: <1260686938.21385.740.camel@localhost>
References: <1260686938.21385.740.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <55ad6af70912122245r43c6f9cfo231c573458ea1c85@mail.gmail.com>

Anselm was at H+ Summit and gave a great presentation:
http://adl.serveftp.org/~bryan/hplus-summit-2009/ansyem.html

Nice to see him showing up in Nature.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alejandro Dubrovsky <alito at organicrobot.com>
Date: 2009/12/13
Subject: [biomed] singularityhub: light-sensitive protein interaction
used to control shape of mammalian cell
To: biomed <biomed at postbiota.org>


(
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7266/full/nature08446.html
and
http://singularityhub.com/2009/12/11/light-used-to-remotely-control-mouse-cells-like-robots/
)

Nature 461, 997-1001 (15 October 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature08446;
Received 8 July 2009; Accepted 24 August 2009; Published online 13
September 2009

Spatiotemporal control of cell signalling using a light-switchable
protein interaction

Anselm Levskaya1,2,3, Orion D. Weiner1,4, Wendell A. Lim1,5 &
Christopher A. Voigt1,3

?1. The Cell Propulsion Lab, UCSF/UCB NIH Nanomedicine Development
Center,
?2. Graduate Program in Biophysics,
?3. Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry,
?4. Cardiovascular Research Institute,
?5. Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Department of Cellular and
Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco,
California 94158-2517, USA

Correspondence to: Wendell A. Lim1,5 Correspondence and requests for
materials should be addressed to W.A.L. (Email: lim at cmp.ucsf.edu).

Top of page
Abstract

Genetically encodable optical reporters, such as green fluorescent
protein, have revolutionized the observation and measurement of cellular
states. However, the inverse challenge of using light to control
precisely cellular behaviour has only recently begun to be addressed;
semi-synthetic chromophore-tethered receptors1 and naturally occurring
channel rhodopsins have been used to perturb directly neuronal
networks2, 3. The difficulty of engineering light-sensitive proteins
remains a significant impediment to the optical control of most
cell-biological processes. Here we demonstrate the use of a new
genetically encoded light-control system based on an optimized,
reversible protein?protein interaction from the phytochrome signalling
network of Arabidopsis thaliana. Because protein?protein interactions
are one of the most general currencies of cellular information, this
system can, in principle, be generically used to control diverse
functions. Here we show that this system can be used to translocate
target proteins precisely and reversibly to the membrane with micrometre
spatial resolution and at the second timescale. We show that light-gated
translocation of the upstream activators of Rho-family GTPases, which
control the actin cytoskeleton, can be used to precisely reshape and
direct the cell morphology of mammalian cells. The light-gated protein?
protein interaction that has been optimized here should be useful for
the design of diverse light-programmable reagents, potentially enabling
a new generation of perturbative, quantitative experiments in cell
biology.

----

Light Used to Remotely Control Mouse Cells Like Robots
No Comments
December 11th, 2009 by Aaron Saenz
?Filed under nanotechnology.

Plants use light to tell them where to move and how to grow. What if
animal cells could be directed in the same way? Now they can.
Researchers at the University of California San Francisco have modified
mouse cells with plant proteins so that they will change shape and move
in response to signals of light. As described in the recent publication
in Nature, Scientists were able to get the mammalian cells to follow a
weak red light and pull away from infrared light. Similar techniques can
be used to control other cell functions besides shape and movement. One
day, researchers hope, such modifications could be performed on human
cells to help direct the repair of spinal injuries and allow cells to
reconnect across gaps.

UCSF scientists placed plant proteins in this mouse cell so that it
would respond to light by moving and changing shape.

UCSF scientists placed plant proteins in this mouse cell so that it
would respond to light by moving and changing shape. The cell expanded
to follow the movement of a red light (circle).

While similar work has been performed in yeast and bacteria, this
experiment marks the first time that mammal cells have been upgraded in
this fashion. I?m impressed by the way that researchers got cells to
move like miniature remote control robots, but there are greater
implications. By inserting key plant proteins (called phytochromes) into
mammal cells, researchers have created a light-based switch that they
can insert into many different chemical pathways. The UCSF team focused
on the pathways which affect the cytoskeleton, but they could have
targeted protein interactions that control how food is processed, or
functions that impact cell life span. Imagine using specially tuned
light signals to keep some cells (say those with cancer) from processing
nutrients, or encourage other cells (say those in an area with nerve
damage) to repair and reproduce themselves. With the protein-based light
switch, scientists could change a cell?s chemical functions temporarily,
and repeat the process as needed later. That?s an amazingly powerful
tool.

When manipulating the mouse cells, researchers used combinations of red
light and infrared light. These types of light directly affect the plant
phytochromes that were inserted into the mammal cells. Basically, one
type of light will induce one kind of chemical reaction, while the other
light will stop or reverse that reaction. By bathing the mouse cell in
IR and providing a single spot of red light, the researchers were able
to get the cell to deform and follow the red spot as it moved over time.

While it took many minutes for the cell to move as the researchers
desired, the chemical reactions that the light was causing happened much
quicker. The UCSF team was able to control the position of these
reactions down to the micron level, and with a response time around one
second. This precision could have important implications if surgeons one
day used this sort of technique to repair damage in the body. It could
also facilitate fine control of the functions of the cell if and when
researchers try to control chemical pathways unrelated to cell movement.

I?ve always been impressed with how many technological advancements in
biology can be traced to a scientist taking the parts of one living
thing and sticking them inside of another. Putting plant proteins in
mammal (or some day, human) cells gives us the means to interact with
those cells via light. But why stop there? We could have skin cells that
produce chameleon pigments or blood cells with the antifreeze from Artic
bacteria. Most of this research would seem to be leading towards very
controlled forms of transhumanism. Humans have always shaped their
bodies to match their needs, but with tools like these we may gain
access to changes that are both profound and reversible.

[image credit: Wendell Lim et al, Nature]

_______________________________________________
biomed mailing list
biomed at postbiota.org
http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/biomed



-- 
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507


From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Sun Dec 13 07:01:06 2009
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 02:01:06 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Scientists Behaving Badly
In-Reply-To: <200912130617.nBD6HWjA014864@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912130617.nBD6HWjA014864@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <5143D6E7-4369-4EF5-B924-45A88CE8944F@GMAIL.COM>

> This new article is one of the best I've seen on the CRU emails  
> controversy, especially in the way it distinguishes between the  
> players and their attitudes:
>
> http://www.aei.org/article/101395
I had been having trouble getting a good idea of everything that had  
happened with this whole Climategate thing, thank you for sending out  
this great summary!

Honestly, it is a travesty that these "scientists" will end up doing  
so much harm to what is an actually important area of science (if not  
in the short-to-medium term). The three, Mann and the two others that  
were abundantly poltiical, need to be driven out of the field by the  
rest with hockey sticks, haha.

And, seeing this, it makes me far more skeptical about man-made global  
warming/climate change than I was before all this. I believed,  
honestly, that scientists do not do this, that we (and I say we  
because I am a physics major and intend to be a physicist) were  
better. And that the ones that behave badly couldn't go very far,  
because the mechanisms of the profession would correct them out of  
existence. But apparently not, at least in some cases.

I didn't realize that natural scientists were "at least" liberal (in  
the American sense). I realized man of them were (I was a socialist  
for a long time because I wanted the economy to be planned and  
organized like machines and instruments, oh how foolish I was). But I  
didn't realize it was nearly universal. Interesting. Well, at least I  
won't be part of that "group-think"!


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com





From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Dec 13 08:06:43 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:06:43 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <4B24846B.3090805@rawbw.com>
References: <573329.23026.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<4B24846B.3090805@rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912130006m54fa8644t824646433ac646bf@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/13 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:

> By hypothesis, then the original "man" doesn't know a bit about
> what is being said, only the new "internalization" you speak of?
> I'm forced to conclude that there are two entities having experiences
> in that same skull: (1) the original man whose day job was only
> holding up a sign "Will Work for Food", ?and (2) a crafty inscrutable
> Chinese speaking engineer that knows a great deal about bomb design
> and that is willing to help a terrorist.

That's how it is. In a normal brain a thinking entity supervenes on
the behaviour of non-thinking entities, the neurons. In the CR a
thinking entity supervenes on the behaviour of another thinking
entity, the man in the room. There's no reason why *adding*
consciousness at the lower level should eliminate it at the higher
level.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Dec 13 10:37:18 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:37:18 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Scientists Behaving Badly
In-Reply-To: <200912130617.nBD6HWjA014864@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912130617.nBD6HWjA014864@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0912130237k74ef1a06tf37d123b161ec539@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/13/09, Max More wrote:
> This new article is one of the best I've seen on the CRU emails controversy,
> especially in the way it distinguishes between the players and their
> attitudes:
>
>  http://www.aei.org/article/101395
>
>

Oh Dog!  :(

Why are you still reading this neocon propaganda crap?

The American Enterprise Institute is funded by big business, including
ExxonMobil. They supported the policies of Bush and are now working
against the Obama policies.

Where's the peer review? This is just propaganda for political purposes.

BillK


From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Dec 13 11:39:45 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:39:45 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <512812.46927.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912121335m529ebe99q9d9cee82224e47c@mail.gmail.com>
	<512812.46927.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20091213113945.GX17686@leitl.org>

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 02:52:38PM -0800, Gordon Swobe wrote:
> --- On Sat, 12/12/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > How is it that the symbol grounding problem is not a problem for brains? 
> 
> That's the great mystery, Stathis! I wish I knew the answer, but I can do nothing more than help others here understand the question.

How very arrogant of you. Who has no clue about the problem space.
 
> However we may choose to describe the brain, we cannot describe it as a software/hardware system. It does something that no such system will ever do.

What is you hangup about that particular cathegory? No,
it has no wires and doesn't do OSI layers either.

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


From painlord2k at libero.it  Sun Dec 13 13:02:23 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:02:23 +0100
Subject: [ExI] atheism
In-Reply-To: <8F4B49F3-ECE3-4CD2-A855-E9BC79644573@bellsouth.net>
References: <287486.21264.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com>	<F7F2443E-AA16-4D98-94FD-C38F02F85290@bellsouth.net>	<4B22928F.2010000@libero.it>
	<8F4B49F3-ECE3-4CD2-A855-E9BC79644573@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <4B24E5DF.4050205@libero.it>

Il 12/12/2009 14.27, John Clark ha scritto:
> On Dec 11, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Mirco Romanato wrote:
>
>> Even if the chance to be real is only 0.00000000000000000000000001%
>> It don't make it unreal, only improbable. Atheists make the error to
>> believe that something very improbable is impossible. Given they are
>> not able to prove their claim, their claim is based on faith. I never
>> see an atheist claim that the existence of god is improbable.
>
> You can't, or at least shouldn't, be absolutely certain about anything
> (I think) therefore if it is inappropriate to use the word "atheist" it
> is also inappropriate to utter any simple declarative sentence about
> anything because there is a chance, however unlikely, that you could be
> wrong.
>
>> I never see an atheist claim that the existence of god is improbable.
>
> Then you lead a very sheltered life.

Last time I checked "Atheist" was someone that negate the existance of 
any god. Not someone that argue that god could exist.

<<Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that 
deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of 
belief in the existence of deities.[3]>>

Agnostics argue that about not knowing that god exist (or that is not 
possible to know if god exist or not).

<<Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain 
claims?especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also 
other religious and metaphysical claims?is unknown or unknowable.[1] 
Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to 
indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, 
agnosticism is a stance about the differences between belief and 
knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. As such, the 
term agnostic does not necessarily signal a particular view about 
religion or God, as some agnostics also identify as theists or atheists.>>

If someone claim that god could exist, it can not be an Atheist, unless 
he also claim he know for sure that the possibility of god exist is/was 
not realized. And this is a harder claim to make.

Now, if your definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism are different, we 
could talk about them, if you spell them out.

Mirco

P.S.
Anyway, I had done a remark about how the BELIEF of a particular type of 
personal god is useful to "anchor" the BELIEF of unchanging and 
knowledgeable/understandable laws of nature.
Without the belief that nature's laws are fixed forever and can be 
discovered I think modern science can not exist.
The discussion about God existence is/appear a knee-jerk reflex of 
atheists or a way to avoid a difficult topic (or both).

-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.716 / Database dei virus: 270.14.105/2562 -  Data di rilascio: 12/13/09 08:39:00

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Sun Dec 13 13:46:32 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:46:32 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Living temperature dataset
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60912122042p74b0c549p591e5e0d734011b6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B240B05.7080106@libero.it>
	<4902d9990912121514h6bec6ce6m562ad1d550f5876a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60912122042p74b0c549p591e5e0d734011b6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912130546q788105b7u5e591be5deba699d@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/12/12 Alfio Puglisi <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>:
>
> >
> > If one suspect that adjustments are systematically biased in one
> direction,
> > the correct thing to do is to take all of them and look at their
> > distribution. This is the result for the entire GHCN dataset, on which
> GISS
> > is based:
> >
> >
> http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
> >
> > You get a nice gaussian distribution with an average of 0 degrees. That
> is,
> > there are as many negative adjustments as there are positive ones
>
> ### See here:
>
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/picking-out-the-uhi-in-global-temperature-records-so-easy-a-6th-grader-can-do-it/
>
> - please watch it and read the article before commenting.
>

Wow. A video with a 6th grader and his dad, who say that UHI exists. And I
have to watch it, otherwise I'm not qualified to comment! You think I'm
going to take you seriously after this?

I can play this game too: the following article:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-surface-temperature-record-and-the-urban-heat-island/

references two papers: one in Journal of Climate and one in Nature. Please
read them before commenting. If you prefer, you can have a 6th grader read
them and make a video.


> Let me explain on a hypothetical scenario:
>
> Imagine that you take all rural site temperatures and adjust them
> upward by 1 degree. Then you take an equal number of urban sites and
> adjust them downward by 1 degree. Obviously, the net adjustment per
> site will be zero, just as described in Alfio's link. However, note
> that adjusting rural sites up doesn't make physical sense, since there
> is no "rural cooling island effect" you would need to adjust for -
> these data should be consumed raw. Adjusting urban sites down makes
> sense, since their temperatures are the result of the UHI - but in
> this hypothetical this physically correct adjustment is negated by a
> physically improper adjustment of the rural data. The overall effect
> is that the UHI is fully transferred into the homogenized temperature
> record, and a spurious warming trend is seen.
>

This is a valid concern, but observations show the opposite: the warming is
higher where there is no UHI effect to correct for, like in the Arctic. See
for example
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/warming-due-to-urban-heat-island.php

 Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091213/10d125a6/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun Dec 13 14:20:07 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:20:07 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Atheism
In-Reply-To: <810435.48641.qm@web59901.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <810435.48641.qm@web59901.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912130620w2868a63fkd782acbb85fb67a6@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/13 Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com>
>
>> I'll grant that many great works of art have been inspired
>>  by religion, but I think most of those talents would
>> have been
>>  expressed equally well on non-religious subjects. But the great minds that were
>> wasted pursuing idiotic theological problems could have solved real,
>> major problems. I think that's tragic."
>
> "Equally well" cuts both ways. Religion is as beneficial as the secular all round.

The real point IMHO is: if "religion" must  be, why do we need a
metaphysical, faith-based, anti-scientific one?

Besides the experience of purely secular "religious" creeds such as
Marxism - which have their own problems but abundantly showed that
new, successful religions can command widespread support without the
need to invoke Pink Invisible Unicorns - Confucianism, hinduism,
paganism, Zen, Shinto work equally well, and have few if any of the
theoretical and practical defects that make monotheism unacceptable to
those who adhere to an opposite, say promethean, value system...

--
Stefano Vaj


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 13 14:21:55 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <4B24846B.3090805@rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <529711.84913.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Lee, good to see you again.

> Using the "systems reply" terminology, does the Chinese
> Room laugh at jokes?? Doth it have feelings?? Hath the
> CR not...

Laugh at jokes, yes, as we should require that much to give it a passing score on the Turing test. But have [subjective] feelings? These sorts of internal mental states are exactly what are at issue. 

Lest we mangle Searle's metaphor, the "man" who internalized the rule book and stepped outside the room (in Searle's reply to his systems critics) would have only those feelings that relate to his puzzlement about the meanings of Chinese words, and we should consider those feelings irrelevant.

Remember the man exists only as a sort of literary device to help people understand the symbol grounding problem. Searle wants us to see that formal programs do not understand the symbols they manipulate any more than does a shopping list understand the words "bread" and "milk". 


> Anyway. Suppose that the CR is asked the question, "How may
> I here in L.A. this week make an atomic bomb, and revenge my
> poor Middle Eastern people against the Imperialists?"
> 
> And the CR responds---all in Chinese characters---by
> providing concise directions for building a backyard bomb!

Then I think we should have it arrested to protect the public and let the philosophers continue their debate about a chinese room that sits now in the jail cell. (Not sure of your point.)
 
>> [Moreover, say] the man internalizes the rule book
>> and steps outside the room. Different picture, same
>> symbol grounding problem.
> 
> By hypothesis, then the original "man" doesn't know a bit
> about what is being said, only the new "internalization" you
> speak of?

There exists no "original" man in the second thought experiment. Neither the man in the room in the original experiment nor the man alone in the second (and different) thought experiment understand Chinese symbols. Both thought experiments illustrate the symbol grounding problem.

> For me, this exposes to criticism the notion that the room
> isn't "a man".

Right. Behind Searle's figure of speech you will find a Universal Turing Machine that passes the Turing test without overcoming the symbol grounding problem. The UTM only appears to understand the symbols it manipulates, giving false positives on the TT.

Because brains overcome the symbol grounding problem and software/hardware systems do not, it appears we cannot describe the brain as a software/hardware system. Whatever the brain does, it does something besides run formal programs.

-gts


      


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun Dec 13 14:43:58 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:43:58 +0100
Subject: [ExI] more atheism
In-Reply-To: <894257.93025.qm@web56806.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <894257.93025.qm@web56806.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912130643r2eeabc3crb5fce195eb9cb0ee@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/13 flemming <saefir at yahoo.com>
> I believe stefano makes the logical or illogical error of assuming what agnostics assume. I consider my self an agnostic, but based on the fact that nobody can present to me any evidence that there is or is not a god.

I probably do not explain myself clearly enough. I claim the right to
be "atheist" also in the sense of believing that something with the
features of Jahv?/Allah does not exist not because I think it might be
ultimately demonstrated that they don't (even though in my prospective
some problems exist with their concept itself...).

But simply because this is what we do in our everyday life for any
number of logical or physical possibilities, such as six-footed ducks,
or tthe guilt of conceivably possible perpetrators of a crime when the
relevant burden of proof is not met.

OTOH, I do believe that a character called Pallas Athena is included
in the narrative of the Iliad and in the very fabric of my culture,
and that character and what she represents, as mythical as she may be,
has played a larger role in history than many forgettable (but "real"
in the sense that Jahv? is claimed to be) individuals.

--
Stefano Vaj


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 13 15:15:21 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:15:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912130006m54fa8644t824646433ac646bf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <920757.76799.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Stathis (and Lee),

> In the CR a thinking entity supervenes on the behaviour of another
> thinking entity, the man in the room

No. The "internalization" in the rejoinder to the systems reply to the CRA refers only to the internalization by the man of the program and I/O ports. Instead of a physical rule-book on a bookshelf, he has a memorized look up table. Instead of slot in the door through which he receives inputs and sends outputs, he has his own ears and mouth. The internalization thus does not refer to the internalization of any other "thinking entity".

Searle's systems reply critics had argued (with perfect logic, even if they missed the point) that while the man inside lacks understanding, it does not follow that the room also lacks understanding. After all the man inside is not the subject that passes the Turing test. The room is!

So Searle replied, "Well then forget about the Chinese room and all its trappings (I only put that stuff there to help you visualize what's going on) and let the Englishman inside memorize the program. He then steps outside the room and takes the TT in Chinese. He passes it, yet he still does not understand Chinese."

-gts


--- On Sun, 12/13/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Sunday, December 13, 2009, 3:06 AM
> 2009/12/13 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:
> 
> > By hypothesis, then the original "man" doesn't know a
> bit about
> > what is being said, only the new "internalization" you
> speak of?
> > I'm forced to conclude that there are two entities
> having experiences
> > in that same skull: (1) the original man whose day job
> was only
> > holding up a sign "Will Work for Food", ?and (2) a
> crafty inscrutable
> > Chinese speaking engineer that knows a great deal
> about bomb design
> > and that is willing to help a terrorist.
> 
> That's how it is. In a normal brain a thinking entity
> supervenes on
> the behaviour of non-thinking entities, the neurons. In the
> CR a
> thinking entity supervenes on the behaviour of another
> thinking
> entity, the man in the room. There's no reason why
> *adding*
> consciousness at the lower level should eliminate it at the
> higher
> level.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 


      


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Dec 13 15:45:30 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:45:30 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <554818.57147.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <554818.57147.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A4957F9B-A6C8-4D11-894D-B8F6E94747EF@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 12, 2009, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> Perhps you missed it Damien it but that reply of the systems critics was answered many years ago.
> In the reply, the man internalizes the rule book and steps outside the room. 

You are assuming the little man has qualities that are clearly superhuman, but when you ask "do you know Chinese?" we are supposed to believe that the person answering the question is just a regular normal person. So either there are 2 personalities in the little man, a superman and a normal man, or the little man is lying about his language abilities, or the entire thought experiment is dumb.

And I still think Searle's philosophical work would improve enormously if he took a remedial adult education biology course, there must be a junior college near him that offers it.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091213/75b93adc/attachment.html>

From moulton at moulton.com  Sun Dec 13 16:01:42 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 13 Dec 2009 16:01:42 -0000
Subject: [ExI] atheism
Message-ID: <20091213160142.52325.qmail@moulton.com>


On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 14:02 +0100, Mirco Romanato wrote:

> Last time I checked "Atheist" was someone that negate the existance of 
> any god.
 
Exactly when and where was the last time you checked because if you had checked this email list you would have found that there are two common definitions of the term atheist.  In fact in the email you quoted was this:

<<Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that 
> deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of 
> belief in the existence of deities.[3]>>
 
It should be pointed out that the definition of atheism as the absence of belief in the existence of deities is not new.  Consider the statement of Baron d'Holbach who is reported to have said in 1772 that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."   And in more recent times my friend George H. Smith has written extensively on this topic in various books and essays.  Just google George H. Smith and atheism and you will get the references.  The definition of atheism as  "absence of belief" is in my opinion and the opinion of majority of atheists that I know personally the best type of definition to use.

Consider this organization of which I am a member: American Atheists.  What do they say?   
    Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, from the original
    Greek meaning of "without gods." That is it. There is
    nothing more to it. If someone wrote a book titled
    "Atheism Defined," it would only be one sentence long.
That quote is from their webpage:
http://www.atheists.org/atheism/About_Atheism
which I strongly urge people read before they continue to post message on the topic of atheism.  The webpage discusses the definition of atheism as well as explains why atheism is not a religion.

Now people can disagree and have other definitions but they need to know that these other definitions have serious philosophical problems and are thus falling out of usage.

Fred



From max at maxmore.com  Sun Dec 13 16:03:01 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:03:01 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Scientists Behaving Badly
Message-ID: <200912131603.nBDG3D4j005106@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


>Why are you still reading this neocon propaganda crap?

Oh, sorry, Bill. From now on, I'll only read the material you approve of.

>Where's the peer review? This is just propaganda for political purposes.

Of course. We now all know how perfectly peer review works. (By the 
way, not every worthwhile piece must be peer reviewed.)

>The American Enterprise Institute is funded by big business, 
>including ExxonMobil. They supported the policies of Bush and are 
>now working against the Obama policies.

And the climate alarmists and those who are doing their best to shut 
up anyone with questions are massively funded by government and other 
institutional sources. As the CRU emails showed, even big oil 
companies are not averse to funding the "consensus" people.

If you're going to make the funding argument (which is simply a way 
of avoiding dealing with the real arguments), I offer this:

The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies 
related to climate change, including science and technology research, 
administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. 
Despite the billions: "audits" of the science are left to unpaid 
volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement 
of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of 
the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate 
monopoly. They have exposed major errors.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf


-------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
Extropy Institute Founder
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com
------------------------------------- 



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Dec 13 16:03:01 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:03:01 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <573329.23026.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <573329.23026.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BBA8B469-7E18-46BC-ABE3-4B15D42558DE@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 12, 2009,  Gordon Swobe wrote:

> Searle designed the Chinese Room thought experiment to prove that third premise in his formal argument.

And made a fool of himself when he failed. 

I want to tell you about Clark's Chinese Room. You are a professor of
Chinese Literature and are in a room with me and the great Chinese
Philosopher and Poet Laotse. Laotse writes something in his native
language on a paper and hands it to me. I walk 10 feet and give it to you.
You read the paper and are impressed with the wisdom of the message
and the beauty of its language. Now I tell you that I don't know a word of
Chinese, can you find any deep implications from that fact?

I believe Clark's Chinese Room is just as profound as Searle's Chinese
Room. Not very.

> The Englishman in the room shuffles the Chinese symbols according to the rules of Chinese syntax, and he does this well enough to pass the Turing test, yet he never understands a word of Chinese.

At this very instant the neurotransmitter acetylcholine is shuffling around electrons in your brain in response to this English sentence. And yet acetylcholine does not know one word of English. Do you find that fact profound too? 

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091213/0afb67ab/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Dec 13 16:15:25 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:15:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <187620.42095.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <187620.42095.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <D795FC37-55B9-4E73-90B1-6DABD57F9382@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 12, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> That position will lead to panpsychism - the idea that all matter has consciousness -- unless you find some way to justify one thing as conscious and another as not

Use the exact thing that you use right now to determine that some people are smart and others stupid and to determine that some things are conscious and some things are not, behavior. And don't you find the idea that carbon can produce consciousness but silicon can't a little parochial? 

> without using biological consciousness as the measure!

You can't use consciousness, biological or otherwise, as the measure because with one exception it is completely undetectable. You'll have to settle for intelligence, it's the best you can do. 

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091213/1851c966/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Dec 13 16:33:15 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:33:15 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <445222.5956.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <445222.5956.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <85672D59-DF69-4436-9D2F-30FDEB492830@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 12, 2009, at 4:47 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:
> 
> It seems you would not care how we constructed those neurons, provided they squirted the same neurotransmitters and emitted the same electrical signals between themselves, i.e., that they performed the same functions as real biological neurons.

I will care about those internal workings just as soon as you show me that if I multiply 6 times 5 on a vacuum tube computer I will get a different answer than if I multiply 6 times 5 on a solid state computer that works by semiconductors. 

> We could on that view construct a contraption the size of Texas with gigantic neurons constructed of, say, band-aids, Elmers glue, beer cans and toilet paper. Provided those neurons squirted the same chemicals and signals betwixt themselves as in a real brain, would you consider the contraption conscious?

I don't understand why you keep asking that, if it acts intelligently then it's conscious and I don't care if its made of dog turds.

 John K Clark


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091213/f16119a7/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 13 16:49:20 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:49:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
Message-ID: <236279.62526.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sun, 12/13/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> You are assuming the little man has qualities...

I think you've confused the parable with the symbol grounding problem it illustrates. I sometimes do it myself, so I've changed the subject line to point to the meaning of the parable.

Does a piece of paper understand the words written on it? Does a shopping list understand the meaning of "bread" and "milk"? If you think it does not -- if you think the understanding of symbols (semantics) takes place only in conscious minds -- then you agree with Searle and most people.

If Searle has it right then formal programs have no more consciousness than shopping lists and so will never overcome the symbol grounding problem. No matter how advanced software/hardware systems may become, they will never understand the meanings of the symbols they manipulate. 

The challenge for us then is not to show technical problems in a silly story about a man in a Chinese room; it is rather to show that formal programs differ in some important way from shopping lists, some important way that allows programs to overcome the symbol grounding problem.

-gts





      


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Dec 13 17:08:11 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:08:11 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <920757.76799.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <920757.76799.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F0B5C4D1-76BD-4F3F-AFCB-DB101285F1C5@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 13, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> Searle's systems reply critics had argued (with perfect logic, even if they missed the point) that while the man inside lacks understanding, it does not follow that the room also lacks understanding. After all the man inside is not the subject that passes the Turing test. The room is!
> 
> So Searle replied, "Well then forget about the Chinese room and all its trappings (I only put that stuff there to help you visualize what's going on) and let the Englishman inside memorize the program. 

Searle is like a stage magician who makes a great flourish with his right hand to make sure we're looking at it while his left hand is subtly hiding the card. We are accustomed to people being conscious we are not accustomed to rooms being so, thus if we want to check up on the consciousness of Chinese or anything else we are accustomed to ask the man. The man replies that he doesn't know Chinese and voila Searle has magically made consciousness disappear. Pay no attention to the room full of reference books that is larger than the observable universe, Searle says, pay no attention that the Chinese questions are answered a hundred thousand million billion trillion times slower than a native Chinese speaker would answer them even if the man moved at 99% the speed of light.

If somebody sees through that deception Searle tries another ruse, memorize those reference books.
We are accustomed to a person having one identity not two so if we ask him if he knows Chinese and he says no we are accustomed to thinking that ends the matter. Searle says pay no attention to the fact that this normal average everyday man has just accomplished a mental feat that would make a Jupiter Brain green with envy.

 John K Clark

    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091213/37761f90/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Dec 13 17:24:54 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:24:54 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <236279.62526.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <236279.62526.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5CFC99EF-C101-4A94-BB78-D41EBFFA9283@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 13, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> Does a piece of paper understand the words written on it? Does a shopping list understand the meaning of "bread" and "milk"? If you think it does not -- if you think the understanding of symbols (semantics) takes place only in conscious minds -- then you agree with Searle and most people.

I don't know how to read the holes in obsolete punch cards, they are completely meaningless to me and you too probably, but they have meaning to a vacuum tube based 1950's punch card reading machine; you cannot deny it can put those cards in a meaningful order.

Incidentally why do you suppose Searle didn't replace the little man with one of those punch card reading machines? It could certainly do a better job than a real flesh and blood human, so why not use it? I'll tell you why, because then his deception would be less effective and his magic trick of making consciousness disappear would not have worked.

 John K Clark


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091213/2103552a/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Dec 13 17:31:32 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:31:32 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <236279.62526.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <236279.62526.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0912130931m123cf5c0gd727d142732fb2f4@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/13/09, Gordon Swobe wrote:
>  Does a piece of paper understand the words written on it? Does a shopping
> list understand the meaning of "bread" and "milk"? If you think it does not --
> if you think the understanding of symbols (semantics) takes place only in
> conscious minds -- then you agree with Searle and most people.
>
>  If Searle has it right then formal programs have no more consciousness than
> shopping lists and so will never overcome the symbol grounding problem.
> No matter how advanced software/hardware systems may become, they will
> never understand the meanings of the symbols they manipulate.
>
>  The challenge for us then is not to show technical problems in a silly story
> about a man in a Chinese room; it is rather to show that formal programs differ
> in some important way from shopping lists, some important way that allows
> programs to overcome the symbol grounding problem.
>
>

The object of strong AI (human-equivalent or greater) is not to
process symbols. The language translation programs already do that,
with some degree of success.
And everyone agrees that they are not conscious.

Strong AI programs will indeed process symbols, but they also have the
objective of achieving results in the real world. If AI asks for milk
and you give it water, saying 'Here is milk' it has to be able to
recognize the error (symbol grounding). i.e. If the AI is unable to
operate in the outside world then it is not strong AI and your symbol
manipulation argument fails.

Now if you extend your argument a bit....

If a strong AI has human sense equivalents, like vision, hearing,
taste, touch, etc. plus symbol manipulation, all to such a level that
it can operate successfully in the world, then you have a processor
which could pass for human.

You can then try asking it if it is conscious and see what answer you get......


BillK


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Dec 13 17:44:31 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:44:31 -0500
Subject: [ExI] atheism
In-Reply-To: <4B24E5DF.4050205@libero.it>
References: <287486.21264.qm@web56804.mail.re3.yahoo.com>	<F7F2443E-AA16-4D98-94FD-C38F02F85290@bellsouth.net>	<4B22928F.2010000@libero.it>
	<8F4B49F3-ECE3-4CD2-A855-E9BC79644573@bellsouth.net>
	<4B24E5DF.4050205@libero.it>
Message-ID: <FE860933-C521-48C5-8090-6D46E554690A@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 13, 2009,  Mirco Romanato wrote:

>>> I never see an atheist claim that the existence of god is improbable.
>> Then you lead a very sheltered life.
> Last time I checked "Atheist" was someone that negate the existance of any god.

Then obviously you are not checking in the right place. Richard Dawkins is certainly an Atheist and yet he said that on a scale of 1 to 10,  1 being certain God exists and 10 being certain he does not, would place himself at about 9.99. An Atheist is someone who thinks the existence of God is such a remote possibility that it's silly for the idea to play any part in your life.

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091213/bad76189/attachment.html>

From moulton at moulton.com  Sun Dec 13 17:56:16 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 13 Dec 2009 17:56:16 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Scientists Behaving Badly
Message-ID: <20091213175616.61346.qmail@moulton.com>


On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 10:37 +0000, BillK wrote:
On 12/13/09, Max More wrote:
> > This new article is one of the best I've seen on the CRU emails controversy,
> > especially in the way it distinguishes between the players and their
> > attitudes:
> >
> >  http://www.aei.org/article/101395
 ...
Let us consider the issue of funding.

> The American Enterprise Institute is funded by big business, including
> ExxonMobil. 

Are you really sure?

According to the most recent annual report on the AEI website the sources of revenue were:
  36% Individuals
  27% Conferences, Book Sales and other revenues
  21% Corporations
  16% Foundations
I think the above values are from their 2007 report since I could not find their 2008 report. So if 2007 is a typical year then corporate donations appear to be 21% of their revenue.  However it is possible that some conference attendees were employees of corporations and had their conferences fees paid or reimbursed by their employers.  Thus the revenue from corporations might be more than 21% but how much more is difficult to tell based on the information I have found.  I am not an AEI supporter or defender but I do think if we criticize AEI then the criticism should be based on presenting the information and not on vague (and in this case) probably false characterizations.  And I do think AEI should be criticized; just like I think the ExxonMobil, the IPCC, the UN, the local knitting club and every other organization should be criticized.  No sacred cows and no free rides.

Now to the broader issue of funding and research.  It is often implied indirectly or said explicitly that individuals and groups will bias their research and reporting based on their funding.  Given what we know of humans this would not surprise me.  However I suggest that we need to avoid automatically discrediting something just based on funding since it is possible for accurate research to be funded by a source with a vested interest just as it is possible for inaccurate research.  I am not saying the outcomes are equally likely; I am just saying both are possible.

I would also caution people that who continue using funding source as a basis of criticism that this is can boomerang.  Consider the various governments, companies, foundations and other sources who claim that global warming is a serious, imminent, human caused threat.  If the amount that they put into funding exceeds the amount put in by ExxonMobil and similar companies then the funding argument can backfire.

I mention all of this because I really think we need to de-politicize the entire discuss and have an open and transparent discussion with all of the raw data, the research methods, the assumptions, everything placed for all to easily and freely see and evaluate.

So for example how about reading the article that Max referenced and criticizing it based on its content not on the website on which it is published.  I have read the article.  Most of what I read in the article are things I had seen else where although the part of the article about improving IPCC and improving climate research might be interesting however more in depth analysis is needed for those proposals.

Fred



From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 13 17:56:59 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:56:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <5CFC99EF-C101-4A94-BB78-D41EBFFA9283@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <597657.53369.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sun, 12/13/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Incidentally why do you suppose Searle
> didn't replace the little man with one of
> those?punch card reading machines? It could certainly
> do a better job than a real flesh and blood human, so why
> not use it? 

Such an argument would not address the question of strong AI, where a strong AI is defined as one that has mindful understanding of its own words and does not merely speak mindlessly. Searle considers that the difference between weak and strong AI, and on this point I agree with him. 

You've mentioned that you don't care about the difference between weak and strong AI. That's fine with me, but in that case neither Searle nor I have anything interesting to say to you.

Some people do care about the difference between strong and weak. I happen to count myself among them. To people like me Searle has something very interesting to say.

-gts


      


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Dec 13 18:25:27 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:25:27 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <597657.53369.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <597657.53369.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <442ED923-E5A1-40BC-8076-5989BDEF6875@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 13, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

>> Incidentally why do you suppose Searle
>> didn't replace the little man with one of
>> those punch card reading machines? It could certainly
>> do a better job than a real flesh and blood human, so why
>> not use it? 
> 
> Such an argument would not address the question of strong AI, where a strong AI is defined as one that has mindful understanding of its own words

In other words you mean the ability to read symbols and use that information to accomplish a task, like arrange a large set of cards in a particular order and print new information in that symbolic language on the cards. Come to think of it I don't believe those old punch card machines even used vacuum tubes, they were purely mechanical. 

> and does not merely speak mindlessly.

If you think something can behave intelligently without a mind then that word has no meaning for you, it is, dare I say it, mindless.

 John K Clark





> Searle considers that the difference between weak and strong AI, and on this point I agree with him. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091213/d10ffa60/attachment.html>

From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Sun Dec 13 18:35:21 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:35:21 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Scientists Behaving Badly
In-Reply-To: <20091213175616.61346.qmail@moulton.com>
References: <20091213175616.61346.qmail@moulton.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912131035t594f06a4k2c3dad93584f5b20@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:56 PM, <moulton at moulton.com> wrote:

>
>
> So for example how about reading the article that Max referenced and
> criticizing it based on its content not on the website on which it is
> published.


Sure, some samples of the general tone:

"...the air has been going out of the global warming balloon."
"As tempting as it is to indulge in Schadenfreude over the richly deserved
travails of a gang that has heaped endless calumny on dissenting
scientists...."

If this is "one of the best", I wonder what the worst ones may say.

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091213/188a6055/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 13 19:21:30 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:21:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 75, Issue 22
In-Reply-To: <mailman.843.1260555603.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <790400.17728.qm@web32008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

> From: Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Tolerance
> Message-ID:
> ??? <580930c20912110415pb4d90feuab4bcefe0e4b9449 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 2009/12/10 Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>
> 
> > One huge problem with this rather disjointed thread is
> the confusion
> > between "religion" and "belief in a god or gods". An
> atheist, just from the
> > derivation of the word, is a person who has no belief
> in deity. But of
> > course there are many godless religions. Animist
> religions seem to have no
> > gods, per se, but see the world as suffused with and
> shaped by personified
> > forces and passions. The Australian aboriginal
> Dreaming is a vast ancient
> > integral cosmology in which the seasonal landscape and
> its inhabitants are
> > representations of volitional Ancestors; there's
> nothing remotely like an
> > Abrahamic God--but it would seem absurd not to call
> this all-encompassing
> > worldview "religious."
> >
> 
> Yes, this is fundamental point. And I suspect that even our
> understanding of
> pre-christian or non-European gods are nowadays strongly
> influenced by
> monotheistic views (including for some of their
> followers).
> 
> For instance, ancient Greeks used not to see any especially
> dramatic
> contradictions in the fact that very different and
> incompatible versions of
> the same myth were widespread. Chronology thereof was also
> quite vague.
> 
> It has been persuasively contended that this shows that
> they did not
> consider statements concerning everyday life ("there is a
> stone in this
> basket") on the same basis as statements concerning
> mythical facts ("Pallas
> Athena was wounded during the Troy siege").


Is this not also true of your average modern holy roller?
Anyone who reads the bible can't fail to notice the different and incompatible myths therein, not to mention the vague chronology.

Yet most of them don't seem able to separate real life from myths.

Ben Zaiboc



      


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 13 20:10:45 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:10:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] atheism
In-Reply-To: <mailman.848.1260639634.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <806692.44426.qm@web32008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> said:

> And, btw, I am probably not an "atheist" as far as Zeus and
> Thor are
> concerned. :-)
> 
> I simply do not accord them the same status or kind of
> "reality" which
> I consider appropriate for the keyboard I am typing on
> (even though I
> could improbably be hallucinating it...) or which is
> claimed for
> Jahv?/Allah/the Holy Trinity.

Wait, you say you are not a Zeus atheist (you think he is real), and do not accord him the same status as Yahweh (so you think yahweh is not real)?

You have three categories of reality, one in which Zeus belongs (real), one for your keyboard (somehow differently real), and one for Yahweh (presumably not real)?

I don't understand why Yahweh and Zeus aren't grouped together.

Ben Zaiboc


      


From moulton at moulton.com  Sun Dec 13 20:14:04 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 13 Dec 2009 20:14:04 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Scientists Behaving Badly
Message-ID: <20091213201404.86406.qmail@moulton.com>


Alfio

Thank you for referring to something in the article.  I assume you
read it all and found the lines you quote as most worthy of discussion.
See my comments below.

On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 19:35 +0100, Alfio Puglisi wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:56 PM, <moulton at moulton.com> wrote:
> So for example how about reading the article that Max referenced
> and criticizing it based on its content not on the website on which it
> is published.
>
> Sure, some samples of the general tone:
>
> "...the air has been going out of the global warming balloon."

In the article that phrase appears to refer to both how well global
warming is doing as a hypothesis and how the state of the general public
perception.  On the first point that is what is being debated currently
and I think it is too soon to tell.  We will likely know more after a lot
of people go back and double check the data sets and research methods.
On the second point about public perception my reading of various
media sources is that the author needs to delve deeper.  This question
of public perception needs a more nuanced discussion than I think the
author gives since it needs to be differentiated into perception of
global warming as an isolated item and perception of global warming
relative to other items.  On this see for example mention of how global
warming has fallen to third place as discussed in Eurobarometet 313
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_313_en.pdf
While certainly this is just one study and no one is claiming that it is
definitive but I think it represents part of the relevant information
and is an interesting example of some trends worth watching over the
coming months.  This is not to say that the respondents to the poll
are correct in their evaluation; perhaps they should have keep global
warming as number 1.

> "As tempting as it is to indulge in Schadenfreude over the richly
> deserved travails of a gang that has heaped endless calumny on
> dissenting scientists...."

How about we look at the entire paragraph so that we get an idea about
the author was getting at:

    "As tempting as it is to indulge in Schadenfreude over
    the richly deserved travails of a gang that has heaped
    endless calumny on dissenting scientists (NASA's James
    Hansen, for instance, compared MIT's Richard Lindzen to
    a tobacco-industry scientist, and Al Gore and countless
    others liken skeptics to "Holocaust deniers"), the meaning
    of the CRU documents should not be misconstrued. The emails
    do not in and of themselves reveal that catastrophic
    climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any
    foundation. What they reveal is something problematic
    for the scientific community as a whole, namely, the
    tendency of scientists to cross the line from being
    disinterested investigators after the truth to advocates
    for a preconceived conclusion about the issues at hand. In
    the understatement of the year, CRU's Phil Jones, one of
    the principal figures in the controversy, admitted the
    emails "do not read well." Jones is the author of the most
    widely cited leaked emissive, telling colleagues in
    1999 that he had used "Mike's Nature [magazine] trick" to
    "hide the decline" that inconveniently shows up after 1960
    in one set of temperature records. But he insists that the
    full context of CRU's work shows this to have been just
    a misleading figure of speech. Reading through the entire
    archive of emails, however, provides no such reassurance;
    to the contrary, dozens of other messages, while less
    blatant than "hide the decline," expose scandalously
    unprofessional behavior. There were ongoing efforts
    to rig and manipulate the peer-review process that is
    critical to vetting manuscripts submitted for publication
    in scientific journals. Data that should have been made
    available for inspection by other scientists and outside
    critics were released only grudgingly, if at all. Perhaps
    more significant, the email archive also reveals that even
    inside this small circle of climate scientists--otherwise
    allied in an effort to whip up a frenzy of international
    political action to combat global warming--there was
    considerable disagreement, confusion, doubt, and at times
    acrimony over the results of their work. In other words,
    there is far less unanimity or consensus among climate
    insiders than we have been led to believe."

Given the above quote I think it reinforces my point that we need to
depoliticize and open up this entire climate debate and strive for
more transparency.  I hope you agree.

Fred



From max at maxmore.com  Sun Dec 13 20:57:39 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:57:39 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Alan Harrington's headstone
Message-ID: <200912132057.nBDKvm2B007485@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Most of you know of Alan Harrington, author of The Immortalist. I was 
curious about how and when he died. In finding the answer, I came 
across a passage that I found grimly funny:

How strange it is to think of the Immortalist in the ground. His 
headstone tells it all: *Get me out of here*.
http://weeklywire.com/ww/07-08-97/tw_feat.html

I was led to this after reading Jason Silva's lovely article:
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/forever-young/immortalism-ernest-becker-and-alan-harrington-overcoming-biological-limitatio

My one reservation is that Harrington was way too hard on discos...


-------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
Extropy Institute Founder
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com
------------------------------------- 



From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 13 20:55:04 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:55:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <mailman.869.1260728765.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <147659.50785.qm@web32005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>

> The challenge ... is ...
> to show that formal programs differ in some important way
> from shopping lists, some important way that allows programs
> to overcome the symbol grounding problem.

I've just been following this thread peripherally, but this caught my attention.  Are you *seriously* saying that you think shopping lists don't differ from programs?  If so, your shopping lists must be wonderful things indeed.  I've never had the need to include variables, control structures, interfaces, etc., in my shopping lists.

Secondly, if you don't think a program can solve the mysteriously difficult 'symbol grounding problem', how can a brain do it?  Are you saying that a system that processes and transmits signals as ion potential differences can do things that a system that processes and transmits signals as voltages can't?  What about electron spins? photon wavelengths? polarisation angles? quantum states? magnetic polarities? etc., etc. 

Is there something special that ion potential waves have over these other ways of representing and processing information?

If so, what?

Ben Zaiboc


      


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Dec 13 21:41:01 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:41:01 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <147659.50785.qm@web32005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <147659.50785.qm@web32005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B255F6D.5000200@satx.rr.com>

On 12/13/2009 2:55 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote:

> if you don't think a program can solve the mysteriously difficult 'symbol grounding problem', how can a brain do it?  Are you saying that a system that processes and transmits signals as ion potential differences can do things that a system that processes and transmits signals as voltages can't?  What about electron spins? photon wavelengths? polarisation angles? quantum states? magnetic polarities? etc., etc.
>
> Is there something special that ion potential waves have over these other ways of representing and processing information?
>
> If so, what?

I have a lot of sympathy with Gordon's general point, although I think 
the Chinese Room completely messes it up. The case is that a linear, 
iterative, algorithmic process is the wrong kind of thing to instantiate 
what happens in a brain during consciousness (and the rest of the time, 
for that matter). It's some years since I looked into this problematic 
closely, but as I recall the line of thinking developed by Hopfield and 
Freeman etc still looked promising: basins of attraction, allowing 
multiple inputs to coalesce and mutually transform synaptic maps, vastly 
parallel. Maybe a linear process could emulate this eventually, but I 
imagine one might run into the same kinds of computational and memory 
space explosions that afflict  an internalized Chinese Room guy. Anders 
surely has something timely to say about this.

Damien Broderick



From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Dec 13 22:52:52 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:52:52 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
In-Reply-To: <920757.76799.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912130006m54fa8644t824646433ac646bf@mail.gmail.com> 
	<920757.76799.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912131452s312ec64bkbd9a91b07ea36c62@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/14 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
> Stathis (and Lee),
>
>> In the CR a thinking entity supervenes on the behaviour of another
>> thinking entity, the man in the room
>
> No. The "internalization" in the rejoinder to the systems reply to the CRA refers only to the internalization by the man of the program and I/O ports. Instead of a physical rule-book on a bookshelf, he has a memorized look up table. Instead of slot in the door through which he receives inputs and sends outputs, he has his own ears and mouth. The internalization thus does not refer to the internalization of any other "thinking entity".
>
> Searle's systems reply critics had argued (with perfect logic, even if they missed the point) that while the man inside lacks understanding, it does not follow that the room also lacks understanding. After all the man inside is not the subject that passes the Turing test. The room is!
>
> So Searle replied, "Well then forget about the Chinese room and all its trappings (I only put that stuff there to help you visualize what's going on) and let the Englishman inside memorize the program. He then steps outside the room and takes the TT in Chinese. He passes it, yet he still does not understand Chinese."

The brain is comprised of dumb components which act together to create
a mind. The CR is comprised of smart and dumb components which act
together to create a mind distinct from the mind of the smart
component. The CR without the room is comprised of a smart component
which acts to create a mind distinct from the mind of the smart
component. It doesn't make any difference to the final result if the
information processing is done by smart or dumb components.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Dec 13 23:08:02 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:08:02 +1100
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <597657.53369.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <5CFC99EF-C101-4A94-BB78-D41EBFFA9283@bellsouth.net> 
	<597657.53369.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912131508x5ba9a94dxefbe6a281a3e9244@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/14 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
> --- On Sun, 12/13/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Incidentally why do you suppose Searle
>> didn't replace the little man with one of
>> those?punch card reading machines? It could certainly
>> do a better job than a real flesh and blood human, so why
>> not use it?
>
> Such an argument would not address the question of strong AI, where a strong AI is defined as one that has mindful understanding of its own words and does not merely speak mindlessly. Searle considers that the difference between weak and strong AI, and on this point I agree with him.

Changing from a man to a punch card reading machine does not make a
different to the argument insofar as Searle would still say the room
has no understanding and his opponents would still say that it does.

> You've mentioned that you don't care about the difference between weak and strong AI. That's fine with me, but in that case neither Searle nor I have anything interesting to say to you.
>
> Some people do care about the difference between strong and weak. I happen to count myself among them. To people like me Searle has something very interesting to say.

To address the strong AI / weak AI distinction I put to you a question
you haven't yet answered: what do you think would happen if part of
your brain, say your visual cortex, were replaced with components that
behaved normally in their interaction with the remaining biological
neurons, but lacked the essential ingredient for consciousness?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 14 04:04:38 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:04:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Atheism
Message-ID: <644757.22145.qm@web59912.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>





?>Stefano Vaj wrote:
>The real point IMHO is: if "religion" must? be, why do we need a
metaphysical, faith-based, anti-scientific one?
?
?
We here don't;?virtually no one?who thought so would subscribe to exl-chat long-term. Modern reactive (and 'reactive' means profoundly reactive) religion is like Luddism a reaction to the misapplication of technologies since the Industrial Revolution. 
The counterculture (which at its height from '66 to '73 was very mystical) was a reaction
to?technological?misapplication . 20th cum?21st century religion is a reaction to technological misapplications and the totalitarian?age,1917 to 1989. 
Unfortunately, reactive memes are extremely hard to wash out,?Proctor & Gamble?doesn't market a bleach that does that.?Faith (or at least religion)?has a only marginal benefit, but so does life extension at this time. So until effective, that is also to say cost effective, life extension is available, say midcentury, organized (sadly overcommercialized) religion makes sense to the maddening herd of sheeple. Marijuana?now works?well as soma; porn is another diversion, yet they are not as powerful as religion-- for one thing they are not as cost effective as religion. The offering basket at?a house of worship?requires far less funds than medical marijuana --?plus designer drugs--and porn.
My untested hypothesis is that religion/faith at this time?is the super ego + the collective unconscious, which is why it is so potent. Religion is an Internet of the mind in my reckoning.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091213/28c695b0/attachment.html>

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 14 13:11:49 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:11:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <147659.50785.qm@web32005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <183323.69123.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sun, 12/13/09, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:

>> The challenge ... is ...to show that formal programs differ in 
>> some important way from shopping lists, some important way that 
>> allows programs to overcome the symbol grounding problem.
> 
> I've just been following this thread peripherally, but this
> caught my attention.? Are you *seriously* saying that
> you think shopping lists don't differ from programs??

I mean that if we want to refute the position of this philosopher who goes by the name of Searle then we need to show exactly how programs overcome the symbol grounding problem.

I think everyone will agree that a piece of paper has no conscious understanding of the symbols it holds, i.e., that a piece of paper cannot overcome the symbol grounding problem. If a program differs from a piece of paper such that it can have conscious understanding the symbols it holds, as in strong AI on a software/hardware system, then how does that happen? 

> Secondly, if you don't think a program can solve the
> mysteriously difficult 'symbol grounding problem', how can a
> brain do it?? 

Philosophers and cognitive scientists have some theories about how *minds* do it, but nobody really knows for certain how the physical brain does it in any sense we might duplicate. 

If it has no logical flaws, Searle's formal argument shows that however brains do it, they don't do it by running programs. 

-gts


      


From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Dec 14 13:25:19 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:25:19 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <183323.69123.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <147659.50785.qm@web32005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<183323.69123.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20091214132519.GG17686@leitl.org>

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 05:11:49AM -0800, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> I mean that if we want to refute the position of this philosopher who goes by the name of Searle then we need to show exactly how programs overcome the symbol grounding problem.
> 
> I think everyone will agree that a piece of paper has no conscious understanding of the symbols it holds, i.e., that a piece of paper cannot overcome the symbol grounding problem. If a program differs from a piece of paper such that it can have conscious understanding the symbols it holds, as in strong AI on a software/hardware system, then how does that happen? 
> 
> Philosophers and cognitive scientists have some theories about how *minds* do it, but nobody really knows for certain how the physical brain does it in any sense we might duplicate. 
> 
> If it has no logical flaws, Searle's formal argument shows that however brains do it, they don't do it by running programs. 

*plonk*


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Dec 14 13:25:38 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:25:38 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Not All Religions Were Created Equal
Message-ID: <580930c20912140525h72b420d3s80389b0396e44053@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/14 Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com>
> ?>Stefano Vaj wrote:
> >The real point IMHO is: if "religion" must? be, why do we need a
> metaphysical, faith-based, anti-scientific one?
>
> We here don't;?virtually no one?who thought so would subscribe to exl-chat long-term. Modern reactive (and 'reactive' means profoundly reactive) religion is like Luddism a reaction to the misapplication of technologies since the Industrial Revolution.

The truth however is that *a few* religions have always been
metaphysical, faith-based and implicitely anti-scientific, much before
than an industrial revolution ever took place.

In fact, it has been argued that their coming substantially *delayed*
the development of modern technoscience (let alone pushed back actual
technology by centuries...), of which some promising signs were
emerging. According to other theories, their coming actually helped or
caused the revolution started with the modern age inasmuch as the
latter was also a strong reaction to centuries of obscurantism and
decadence ("what does not kill us, make us stronger"...).

--
Stefano Vaj


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 14 13:45:53 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912131508x5ba9a94dxefbe6a281a3e9244@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <785147.87825.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sun, 12/13/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Changing from a man to a punch card reading machine does
> not make a different to the argument insofar as Searle would 
> still say the room has no understanding and his opponents 
> would still say that it does.

The question comes back to semantics. Short of espousing the far-fetched theory of panspychism, no serious philosopher would argue that a punch card reading machine can have semantics/intentionality, i.e., mindful understanding of the meanings of words. 

People can obviously have it, however, and so Searle put a person into his experiment to investigate whether he would have it. He concluded that such a person would not have it.

I should point out here however that his formal argument does not depend on the thought experiment for its veracity. Searle just threw the thought experiment out there to help illustrate his point, then later formalized it into a proper philosophical argument sans silly pictures of men in Chinese rooms.

> To address the strong AI / weak AI distinction I put to you
> a question you haven't yet answered: what do you think would happen 
> if part of your brain, say your visual cortex, were replaced with
> components that behaved normally in their interaction with the remaining
> biological neurons, but lacked the essential ingredient for
> consciousness?

You need to show that the squirting of neurotransmitters between giant artificial neurons made of beer cans and toilet paper will result in a mind that understands anything. :-) How do those squirts cause consciousness? If you have no scientific theory to explain it, then, well, we're back to Searle's default position: that as far as we know, only real biological brains have it.

-gts


      


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 14 14:09:57 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:09:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1260792001.16741.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <641075.28751.qm@web32003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

> From: Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> On 12/13/2009 2:55 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote:
> 
> > if you don't think a program can solve the
> mysteriously difficult 'symbol grounding problem', how can a
> brain do it?? Are you saying that a system that
> processes and transmits signals as ion potential differences
> can do things that a system that processes and transmits
> signals as voltages can't?? What about electron spins?
> photon wavelengths? polarisation angles? quantum states?
> magnetic polarities? etc., etc.
> >
> > Is there something special that ion potential waves
> have over these other ways of representing and processing
> information?
> >
> > If so, what?
> 
> I have a lot of sympathy with Gordon's general point,
> although I think 
> the Chinese Room completely messes it up. The case is that
> a linear, 
> iterative, algorithmic process is the wrong kind of thing
> to instantiate 
> what happens in a brain during consciousness (and the rest
> of the time, 
> for that matter). It's some years since I looked into this
> problematic 
> closely, but as I recall the line of thinking developed by
> Hopfield and 
> Freeman etc still looked promising: basins of attraction,
> allowing 
> multiple inputs to coalesce and mutually transform synaptic
> maps, vastly 
> parallel. Maybe a linear process could emulate this
> eventually, but I 
> imagine one might run into the same kinds of computational
> and memory 
> space explosions that afflict? an internalized Chinese
> Room guy. Anders 
> surely has something timely to say about this.


If I understand you right, this boils down to parallel vs. linear programming?

There are two answers to this, one is that there's no reason we can't build massively parallel computer systems (we don't do much of this at present because we don't really need to), and the second is, as you say, "a linear process could emulate this".  In fact we have many examples of just this.  Just about every neural network program does it.

I'd expect a realistic software mind would exploit both methods, but even if you take the extreme case and say linear programming could *never* successfully emulate a parallel system of sufficient complexity to embody a mind, so what?  We just use physically parallel hardware components, just like the brain does.  A big job, yes, and beyond our current capabilities, yes, but not for long.

And when that time comes, you have two computers, one synthetic, one biological.  Given similar programming (whether that be in the form of physical wiring arrangements, chemical sequences, or software-controlled logic units), what reason is there to think one can do something the other can't?

I can recommend Steve Grand's book "Life and how to make it" for a good insight into how information processes can ascend through levels of abstraction, resulting in something completely different from the original process.  This helped me see how ions going through holes in a membrane can result in me writing this email, and that makes it much easier to understand that electrons in logic gates can have the same effects, through a cascade of layers of abstraction.

Asking "how can a computer program possibly give rise to consciousness?" is a bit like asking how can hydrogen bonding possibly give rise to El Ni?o.

Ben Zaiboc




      


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 14 14:10:26 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:10:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <785147.87825.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <424154.35472.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Re-reading your last paragraph, Stathis, it seems you want to know what I think about replacing neurons in the visual cortex with artificial neurons that do *not* have the essential ingredient for consciousness. I would not dare speculate on that question, because I have no idea if conscious vision requires that essential ingredient in those neurons, much less what that essential ingredient might be.

I agree with your general supposition, however, that we're missing some important ingredient to explain consciousness. We cannot explain it by pointing only to the means by which neurons relate to other neurons, i.e., by Chalmer's functionalist theory, at least not at this time in history.

Functionalism seems a very reasonable religion, and reason for hope, but I don't see it as any more than that. 

-gts

--- On Mon, 12/14/09, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 8:45 AM
> --- On Sun, 12/13/09, Stathis
> Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Changing from a man to a punch card reading machine
> does
> > not make a different to the argument insofar as Searle
> would 
> > still say the room has no understanding and his
> opponents 
> > would still say that it does.
> 
> The question comes back to semantics. Short of espousing
> the far-fetched theory of panspychism, no serious
> philosopher would argue that a punch card reading machine
> can have semantics/intentionality, i.e., mindful
> understanding of the meanings of words. 
> 
> People can obviously have it, however, and so Searle put a
> person into his experiment to investigate whether he would
> have it. He concluded that such a person would not have it.
> 
> I should point out here however that his formal argument
> does not depend on the thought experiment for its veracity.
> Searle just threw the thought experiment out there to help
> illustrate his point, then later formalized it into a proper
> philosophical argument sans silly pictures of men in Chinese
> rooms.
> 
> > To address the strong AI / weak AI distinction I put
> to you
> > a question you haven't yet answered: what do you think
> would happen 
> > if part of your brain, say your visual cortex, were
> replaced with
> > components that behaved normally in their interaction
> with the remaining
> > biological neurons, but lacked the essential
> ingredient for
> > consciousness?
> 
> You need to show that the squirting of neurotransmitters
> between giant artificial neurons made of beer cans and
> toilet paper will result in a mind that understands
> anything. :-) How do those squirts cause consciousness? If
> you have no scientific theory to explain it, then, well,
> we're back to Searle's default position: that as far as we
> know, only real biological brains have it.
> 
> -gts
> 
> 
> ? ? ? 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 


      


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 14 15:03:13 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:03:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <641075.28751.qm@web32003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <362556.37142.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Stathis,

> The brain is comprised of dumb components which act
> together to create a mind. 
 
So it seems.
 
> The CR is comprised of smart and dumb components which
> act together to create a mind distinct from the mind of
> the smart component. 
 
According to the systems reply to the CRA, yes. As they have it (or had it) there existed two minds: the smart mind belonging to the room and dumb mind belonging to the man. But they missed Searle's point, so Searle re-illustrated the same symbol grounding problem in terms they would understand.
 
> The CR without the room is comprised of a smart
> component which acts to create a mind distinct from
> the mind of the smart component. 
 
"The CR without the room" is just a man whose brain does
nothing more than run a formal program. If formal programs
cause or have semantics then the man should understand the
Chinese symbols that his mental program manipulates. But he
doesn't understand Chinese even while passing the TT. Ergo,
the brain does not overcome the symbol grounding problem
with formal programs. 
 
Even if the brain does run formal programs, (per the
computationalist theory of mind) it must do something else
besides. The computationalist theory of mind is then at best
incomplete and at worst completely false. 

Says Searle.

-gts


      


From alito at organicrobot.com  Mon Dec 14 14:52:25 2009
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:52:25 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Does caloric restriction work for humans?
In-Reply-To: <200912111610.nBBGAhnZ024026@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200912111610.nBBGAhnZ024026@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <1260802345.21385.803.camel@localhost>

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:10 -0600, Max More wrote:
> I've been skeptical about drastic CR for humans for years. One 
> reason, mentioned in the following article, is that we don't live in 
> cages in a lab. Lacking any spare muscle or fat makes us highly 
> vulnerable to traumas of various kinds. (Many of us know of -- or are 
> -- people who have lost 30 pounds or more in hospital due to 
> illness). Recently, Aubrey has given a specific reason (also 
> mentioned in the article) why the life extension from even severe 
> caloric restriction is likely to be very small.
> 
> So, here's the article. I would like to hear your thoughts on it, pro 
> and con. If CR advocates have directly addressed all the points, I'd 
> appreciate a pointer.
> 
> Calorie restrictive eating for longer life? The story we didn't hear 
> in the news
> http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/07/calorie-restrictive-eating-for-longer.html
> 

While total mortality didn't reach statistical significance at p 0.05,
the numbers look highly sugestive to me. There's been 21 deaths in the
control group and 14 in the CR group.  ie total mortality was a third
lower in CR but because the sample is tiny, it's hard to reach 0.05.
Those non-aging deaths were 7 in control vs 9 in CR (included in totals
above). 

4 cases of cancer in CR v 8 in control.   Later onset age of disease.
Researchers claim the CR monkeys look in much better shape. Seems like a
pretty decent effect to me, and you'd have to be a strict frequentist to
call this a null study.   If you were expecting CR to be completely
useless, I'd think this should point at it being of some effect.  If you
thought that it'd extend lifespan by 30% like it does in some mice
breeds, then this should probably point you in the other direction.  I
expect most people here expect it to be somewhere in between, and this
seems like confirming those expectations.




From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Dec 14 15:36:04 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:36:04 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <183323.69123.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <183323.69123.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <54AF7508-AD55-4A88-8B9A-E23CF521A3FC@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> I think everyone will agree that a piece of paper has no conscious understanding of the symbols it holds,

All I know is that the pieces of paper that I've seen don't act intelligently, or at least not very intelligently. They behave rather like a human being does when they are asleep or dead. As for their consciousness I can only speculate. 

>  that a piece of paper cannot overcome the symbol grounding problem.

Old fashioned punch cards were made of paper and they overcame the symbol grounding "problem" in 1890, back then they called them Hollerith cards. Mr. Hollerith went on to start a little company which became IBM.

 John K Clark



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091214/570e7d08/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Dec 14 15:46:47 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:46:47 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <424154.35472.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <424154.35472.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4D08BED2-1CD4-4FE8-B81C-4381B228130A@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 14, 2009,  Gordon Swobe wrote:

> that we're missing some important ingredient to explain consciousness

No, we're missing some important ingredient to explain intelligence. Consciousness is easy to explain and that's the problem, absolutely any theory will do because there is no data they need to explain. One consciousness theory is as good as another. Intelligence theories are an entirely different matter, they are devilishly hard to come up with and there is a universe of data they need to explain.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091214/df936c09/attachment.html>

From jameschoate at austin.rr.com  Mon Dec 14 17:42:19 2009
From: jameschoate at austin.rr.com (jameschoate at austin.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:42:19 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
In-Reply-To: <852444.45072.qm@web59903.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20091214174219.AB091.519939.root@hrndva-web09-z02>

---- Post Futurist <p0stfuturist at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> ?IMO any doctor who would violate their Hippocratic oath would be similar in spirit if not letter to a "Christian" who would commit a felony, such as burglary.

The reason this is fallow ground is it presupposes two requirements in order to commit such a transgression, two requirements that are not actually required.

Premeditation and malice. Also note that 'violate' is not equivalent to 'commit' even in your thesis.

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

James Choate
jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at twcable.com
512-657-1279
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --


From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com  Mon Dec 14 19:50:03 2009
From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:50:03 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Scientists Behaving Badly
In-Reply-To: <20091213201404.86406.qmail@moulton.com>
References: <20091213201404.86406.qmail@moulton.com>
Message-ID: <4902d9990912141150w52847d28ifeb71828b6e27eea@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:14 PM, <moulton at moulton.com> wrote:

>
> Alfio
>
> Thank you for referring to something in the article.  I assume you
> read it all and found the lines you quote as most worthy of discussion.
>

Actually, I didn't read it all when I sent the previous email, just skimmed
the first paragraphs and found those lines.

Now that I have read all of if I see that it is full of factual errors,
irrelevant or misleading statements, and unfounded accusations like
"Global temperatures stopped rising a few years ago" (two errors in one
sentence), or   "utterly politicized scientists such as Jones, Mann, and
NASA's James Hansen" (politicized? care to prove it?) , or "There have been
rumors for years about political pressure being brought to bear on the
process to deliver scarier numbers" (wrong, pressure was in the opposite
direction, at least in the US), or "according to one of Jones's emails,
actually destroying the raw data in the face of a successful FOIA
requisition." (Jones suggested to do that in an email, but there's no proof
of destroying anything in response to FOIAs requests), repeating the
"travesty" argument when it has been explained to death that it means
nothing of the sort, and so on.

When not dwelling in such propaganda, it focuses on the medieval warm period
and its reconstructions, giving its own interpretation of the famous emails.
Nowhere it says that these emails are a small subset of the total, released
by someone with an explicit agenda stated right at the beginning of the
archive, and so any interpretation of these email is suspect and anyway
expected to be one-sided.

More importanly, I see no discussion of the simple topic that, even
conceding some of the worst interpretations of the emails, nothing would
change in the global warming picture: CO2 would still be a greenhouse gas,
its increase would still be of anthropogenic, Arctic ice and glaciers would
still be melting, Greenland would still be losing mass, plants would still
blossom earlier, temperatures would be still going up, etc.   To resume, in
my opinion this article adds nothing to our understanding of the situation,
but instead actively tries to instill in the reader a distrust for science
with misleading statements and attacking irrelevant details, while missing
the big picture entirely.


Alfio



> See my comments below.
>
> On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 19:35 +0100, Alfio Puglisi wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:56 PM, <moulton at moulton.com> wrote:
> > So for example how about reading the article that Max referenced
> > and criticizing it based on its content not on the website on which it
> > is published.
> >
> > Sure, some samples of the general tone:
> >
> > "...the air has been going out of the global warming balloon."
>
> In the article that phrase appears to refer to both how well global
> warming is doing as a hypothesis and how the state of the general public
> perception.  On the first point that is what is being debated currently
> and I think it is too soon to tell.  We will likely know more after a lot
> of people go back and double check the data sets and research methods.
> On the second point about public perception my reading of various
> media sources is that the author needs to delve deeper.  This question
> of public perception needs a more nuanced discussion than I think the
> author gives since it needs to be differentiated into perception of
> global warming as an isolated item and perception of global warming
> relative to other items.  On this see for example mention of how global
> warming has fallen to third place as discussed in Eurobarometet 313
> http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_313_en.pdf
> While certainly this is just one study and no one is claiming that it is
> definitive but I think it represents part of the relevant information
> and is an interesting example of some trends worth watching over the
> coming months.  This is not to say that the respondents to the poll
> are correct in their evaluation; perhaps they should have keep global
> warming as number 1.
>
> > "As tempting as it is to indulge in Schadenfreude over the richly
> > deserved travails of a gang that has heaped endless calumny on
> > dissenting scientists...."
>
> How about we look at the entire paragraph so that we get an idea about
> the author was getting at:
>
>    "As tempting as it is to indulge in Schadenfreude over
>    the richly deserved travails of a gang that has heaped
>     endless calumny on dissenting scientists (NASA's James
>    Hansen, for instance, compared MIT's Richard Lindzen to
>    a tobacco-industry scientist, and Al Gore and countless
>    others liken skeptics to "Holocaust deniers"), the meaning
>    of the CRU documents should not be misconstrued. The emails
>    do not in and of themselves reveal that catastrophic
>    climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any
>    foundation. What they reveal is something problematic
>    for the scientific community as a whole, namely, the
>    tendency of scientists to cross the line from being
>    disinterested investigators after the truth to advocates
>    for a preconceived conclusion about the issues at hand. In
>    the understatement of the year, CRU's Phil Jones, one of
>    the principal figures in the controversy, admitted the
>    emails "do not read well." Jones is the author of the most
>    widely cited leaked emissive, telling colleagues in
>    1999 that he had used "Mike's Nature [magazine] trick" to
>    "hide the decline" that inconveniently shows up after 1960
>    in one set of temperature records. But he insists that the
>    full context of CRU's work shows this to have been just
>    a misleading figure of speech. Reading through the entire
>    archive of emails, however, provides no such reassurance;
>    to the contrary, dozens of other messages, while less
>    blatant than "hide the decline," expose scandalously
>    unprofessional behavior. There were ongoing efforts
>    to rig and manipulate the peer-review process that is
>    critical to vetting manuscripts submitted for publication
>    in scientific journals. Data that should have been made
>    available for inspection by other scientists and outside
>    critics were released only grudgingly, if at all. Perhaps
>    more significant, the email archive also reveals that even
>    inside this small circle of climate scientists--otherwise
>    allied in an effort to whip up a frenzy of international
>    political action to combat global warming--there was
>    considerable disagreement, confusion, doubt, and at times
>    acrimony over the results of their work. In other words,
>    there is far less unanimity or consensus among climate
>    insiders than we have been led to believe."
>
> Given the above quote I think it reinforces my point that we need to
> depoliticize and open up this entire climate debate and strive for
> more transparency.  I hope you agree.
>
> Fred
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091214/f8a7f0ce/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Dec 14 20:10:48 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:10:48 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Scientists Behaving Badly
In-Reply-To: <4902d9990912141150w52847d28ifeb71828b6e27eea@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091213201404.86406.qmail@moulton.com>
	<4902d9990912141150w52847d28ifeb71828b6e27eea@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0912141210m51027931r23b516d3f7a5dc9d@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/14/09, Alfio Puglisi wrote:
<snip>
> More importanly, I see no discussion of the simple topic that, even
> conceding some of the worst interpretations of the emails, nothing would
> change in the global warming picture: CO2 would still be a greenhouse gas,
> its increase would still be of anthropogenic, Arctic ice and glaciers would
> still be melting, Greenland would still be losing mass, plants would still
> blossom earlier, temperatures would be still going up, etc.   To resume, in
> my opinion this article adds nothing to our understanding of the situation,
> but instead actively tries to instill in the reader a distrust for science
> with misleading statements and attacking irrelevant details, while missing
> the big picture entirely.
>
>

That is exactly the aim of the anti-global warming propaganda machine
supported by the big polluter industries like ExxonMobil.  They fund
dozens, even hundreds of different groups to give the impression that
there is widespread opposition to the global warming findings.

They don't attempt to win any scientific disputes in the peer-reviewed press.
Their intention is to cause confusion in the minds of the general
public and to postpone as long as possible any political actions to
restrain the polluting industries. Repeating false claims and
misinterpretations in the general press or blogs often enough gives
them a semblance of credibility and that is all that they want to
achieve.

BillK


From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Dec 14 22:08:03 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:08:03 +1100
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <424154.35472.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <785147.87825.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<424154.35472.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912141408t481096bel8a4f691237b8f420@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/15 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
> Re-reading your last paragraph, Stathis, it seems you want to know what I think about replacing neurons in the visual cortex with artificial neurons that do *not* have the essential ingredient for consciousness. I would not dare speculate on that question, because I have no idea if conscious vision requires that essential ingredient in those neurons, much less what that essential ingredient might be.
>
> I agree with your general supposition, however, that we're missing some important ingredient to explain consciousness. We cannot explain it by pointing only to the means by which neurons relate to other neurons, i.e., by Chalmer's functionalist theory, at least not at this time in history.
>
> Functionalism seems a very reasonable religion, and reason for hope, but I don't see it as any more than that.

It is generally accepted that visual perception occurs in the visual
cortex; without it, some reflexes remain, such as the pupillary
response to light, but you don't experience seeing anything. In any
case, the thought experiment could be done with any part of the brain.
Advanced nanoprocessor controlled devices which behave just like
neurons but, being machines, lack the special ingredient for
consciousness that neurons have, are installed in place of part of
your brain, the visual cortex being good for illustration purposes.
You are then asked if you notice anything different. What will you
say? Before answering, consider carefully the implications of the fact
that the essential feature of the artificial neurons is that they
behave just like biological neurons in their interactions with their
neighbours.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Mon Dec 14 23:43:56 2009
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:43:56 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Jack London on primeval feelings
In-Reply-To: <298914.94231.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <298914.94231.qm@web58301.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40912141543w7cebc9a8n6450a1bb75acbeb7@mail.gmail.com>

I only just noticed this post today, as I was cleaning out my inbox.
A previous submission of the "literary" sort had prompted me to flag
Robert as a "person of interest".  And now this.

I think it was 1982.  I'd pulled substitute teacher duties for an
English class at Oceana HS in Pacifica.  The assignment was to read
JL's "Love of Life".  Each of the kids would read a paragraph or two
and then pass it on.  There wasn't time enough to read the whole
thing, so two classes running, we got about two thirds of the way
through.

The next day, I went to the library at SF State, where I was a student
in ME and/or Physics, checked out an armful of JL, and
retired to read it all, starting with the last third of "LoL".
Understand.  I abandoned my "legitimate academic pursuits".  Dumped
them completely, jettisoned utterly, never looked back --
"...renounced my baptism, all seals and symbols of redeemed sin..." --
and began a new "career" as a curiosity-led, self-indulgent denizen of
libraries, wastrel, and wise-ass.

Dame fortune is fickle.   Not impressed with the Puritans.  Otherwise
how can you explain my lush retirement, my summer home in BC, my
winter home in Baja?  For each plaintive cry that life's unfair, some
undeserving scoundrel somewhere is smiling, taking up the slack,
enjoying an extra helping,... of good luck.  When this grasshopper,
having spent his summer singing and dancing, stood in the doorway of
the industrious ants, shivering in the winter chill, was he turned
away, as the fable requires?  Nope.  Sorry.  No schadenfreude for you
today.  Rather, I was beckoned toward the warmth of her chamber by the
queen ant in a fetching neglige, a snifter of wine in one hand,
fragrant lotion in the other.  Go figure.

Better to be lucky than smart.

And it started with Jack London.

Best, Jeff Davis

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well
please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take
the consequences."
                                                              P.J. O'Rourke



On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Robert Masters <rob4332000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >From Jack London's THE CALL OF THE WILD
> (arranged as verse):
>
>
> With the aurora borealis
> flaming coldly overhead,
> or the stars leaping in the frost dance,
> and the land numb and frozen
> under its pall of snow,
> this song of the huskies
> might have been the defiance of life,
> only it was pitched in minor key,
> with long-drawn wailings
> and half-sobs,
> and was more the pleading of life,
> the articulate travail of existence.
>
> It was an old song,
> old as the breed itself--
> one of the first songs of a younger world
> in a day when songs were sad.
>
> It was invested
> with the woe of unnumbered generations
> this plaint
> by which Buck
> was so strangely stirred.
>
> When he moaned and sobbed,
> it was with the pain of living
> that was of old
> the pain of his wild fathers,
> and the fear and mystery
> of the cold and dark
> that was to them fear and mystery.
>
> And that he should be stirred by it
> marked the completeness
> with which he harked back
> through the ages of fire and roof
> to the raw beginnings of life
> in the howling ages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Dec 15 01:28:41 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:58:41 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Scientists Behaving Badly
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0912141210m51027931r23b516d3f7a5dc9d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091213201404.86406.qmail@moulton.com>
	<4902d9990912141150w52847d28ifeb71828b6e27eea@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0912141210m51027931r23b516d3f7a5dc9d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912141728n3e2e4a1fl7713053e99043048@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/15 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:
> On 12/14/09, Alfio Puglisi wrote:
> <snip>
>> More importanly, I see no discussion of the simple topic that, even
>> conceding some of the worst interpretations of the emails, nothing would
>> change in the global warming picture: CO2 would still be a greenhouse gas,
>> its increase would still be of anthropogenic, Arctic ice and glaciers would
>> still be melting, Greenland would still be losing mass, plants would still
>> blossom earlier, temperatures would be still going up, etc. ? To resume, in
>> my opinion this article adds nothing to our understanding of the situation,
>> but instead actively tries to instill in the reader a distrust for science
>> with misleading statements and attacking irrelevant details, while missing
>> the big picture entirely.
>>
>>
>
> That is exactly the aim of the anti-global warming propaganda machine
> supported by the big polluter industries like ExxonMobil. ?They fund
> dozens, even hundreds of different groups to give the impression that
> there is widespread opposition to the global warming findings.
>
> They don't attempt to win any scientific disputes in the peer-reviewed press.
> Their intention is to cause confusion in the minds of the general
> public and to postpone as long as possible any political actions to
> restrain the polluting industries. Repeating false claims and
> misinterpretations in the general press or blogs often enough gives
> them a semblance of credibility and that is all that they want to
> achieve.
>
> BillK

Obviously this source is biased, and I haven't read it through, but
still looks like there's interesting stuff there:

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/
"ExxonMobil is the only oil giant directly funding junk science and
groups that deny the science of global warming."

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 15 02:10:13 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:10:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <4D08BED2-1CD4-4FE8-B81C-4381B228130A@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <512225.67135.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Mon, 12/14/09, John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Consciousness is easy to explain and that's the problem

Easy to explain? 

Muhammad Ali knocked George Foreman out in the 8th round. If consciousness is easy to explain then perhaps you will kindly explain exactly what happened between Foreman's ears that made him lose consciousness, and exactly what happened a few moments later that enabled him to regain it. 

A Nobel prize awaits.

-gts




      


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Dec 15 04:04:39 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:34:39 +1030
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0912130931m123cf5c0gd727d142732fb2f4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <236279.62526.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e0912130931m123cf5c0gd727d142732fb2f4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912142004l6297351dkfdec8dfe1c3c68bf@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/14 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:
> If a strong AI has human sense equivalents, like vision, hearing,
> taste, touch, etc. plus symbol manipulation, all to such a level that
> it can operate successfully in the world, then you have a processor
> which could pass for human.
>
> You can then try asking it if it is conscious and see what answer you get......
>
>
> BillK

This is the real answer to the "consciousness" problem, imo. You will
know if AI is conscious because you'll just ask it if it is, and
you'll be able to observe its behaviour and see if is influenced by
its own sense of consciousness. The problem of whether it is telling
the truth is identical to the problem of whether people lie about this
now; you can't know and it doesn't matter.

Most likely, an AI which is not an emulation of evolved biology will
experience something entirely unlike what we experience. It should be
pretty damned interesting, and illuminating for humanity, to interact
with such alien critters!

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From moulton at moulton.com  Tue Dec 15 06:02:28 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (moulton at moulton.com)
Date: 15 Dec 2009 06:02:28 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Scientists Behaving Badly
Message-ID: <20091215060228.12420.qmail@moulton.com>


On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 20:50 +0100, Alfio Puglisi wrote:
> Actually, I didn't read it all when I sent the previous email,
> just skimmed the first paragraphs and found those lines.

Thanks for reading the entire article and responding in more detail.
That is what I hope we can have more of in this forum. 

Fred



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Dec 15 05:48:07 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:48:07 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <512225.67135.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <512225.67135.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <554158F6-1E13-4D62-BAB4-7CA6B872C2C9@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 14, 2009, at 9:10 PM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

>> Consciousness is easy to explain and that's the problem
> 
> Easy to explain? 

Yep, very easy to explain. Only one thing can produce consciousness, a size 12 foot. By the way I happen to ware size 12 shoes. 

It's just as good as any other consciousness theory. 

> Muhammad Ali knocked George Foreman out in the 8th round. If consciousness is easy to explain then perhaps you will kindly explain exactly what happened between Foreman's ears that made him lose consciousness, and exactly what happened a few moments later that enabled him to regain it. 

I don't have one scrap of information that Mr. Foreman was conscious either before or after that blow, all I know is that his behavior became much less interesting after Mr. Ali gave him that rather vigorous tap on the head. In that instant Mr.Foreman became much less intelligent and I make no claim of having an intelligence theory because unlike consciousness intelligence theories are damn hard to come by.

> A Nobel prize awaits.

I've already got my airline tickets to Stockholm.
 
 John K Clark 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091215/75039991/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec 15 09:17:35 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:17:35 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <554158F6-1E13-4D62-BAB4-7CA6B872C2C9@bellsouth.net>
References: <512225.67135.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<554158F6-1E13-4D62-BAB4-7CA6B872C2C9@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <20091215091735.GQ17686@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:48:07AM -0500, John Clark wrote:

> I don't have one scrap of information that Mr. Foreman was conscious either before or after that blow, all I know is that his behavior became much less interesting after Mr. Ali gave him that rather vigorous tap on the head. In that instant Mr.Foreman became much less intelligent and I make no claim of having an intelligence theory because unlike consciousness intelligence theories are damn hard to come by.
> 
> > A Nobel prize awaits.
> 
> I've already got my airline tickets to Stockholm.

John, your behaviour loop detector seems to be broken.
I would have it serviced ere the Turing police tickets you.

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


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec 15 09:45:49 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:45:49 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912142004l6297351dkfdec8dfe1c3c68bf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <236279.62526.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e0912130931m123cf5c0gd727d142732fb2f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0912142004l6297351dkfdec8dfe1c3c68bf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091215094549.GS17686@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 02:34:39PM +1030, Emlyn wrote:

> This is the real answer to the "consciousness" problem, imo. You will
> know if AI is conscious because you'll just ask it if it is, and

I don't know what "conscious" even means, but you know AI has achieved
full human equivalence across the board once everyone is out of job.

> you'll be able to observe its behaviour and see if is influenced by
> its own sense of consciousness. The problem of whether it is telling
> the truth is identical to the problem of whether people lie about this
> now; you can't know and it doesn't matter.
> 
> Most likely, an AI which is not an emulation of evolved biology will

I would not be holding my breath for that one.

> experience something entirely unlike what we experience. It should be
> pretty damned interesting, and illuminating for humanity, to interact
> with such alien critters!

The first generations are human demand-driven, and hence perfectly
boring. The other kind is incomprehensible and/or lethal, so I'm
not sure I would want to talk to them unless I'm them. Then you
don't want to talk to me.

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


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Dec 15 10:06:30 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:06:30 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <20091215091735.GQ17686@leitl.org>
References: <512225.67135.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<554158F6-1E13-4D62-BAB4-7CA6B872C2C9@bellsouth.net>
	<20091215091735.GQ17686@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <43C548CD-123A-4630-BF32-8E51979D929C@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 15, 2009, at 4:17 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> John, your behaviour loop detector seems to be broken.
> I would have it serviced ere the Turing police tickets you.

Yes Eugen you are correct, and it wouldn't be the first time that has happened. It's just that when somebody says something that is really really spectacularly stupid I have an equally strong urge to correct them. It's a silly compulsion but bear with me, I have a twelve step program to overcome this irrational feeling. I just hope its in time before the Turing police don't get me.

 John K Clark 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091215/7a6ef4b5/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Dec 15 11:05:46 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:35:46 +1030
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <20091215094549.GS17686@leitl.org>
References: <236279.62526.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e0912130931m123cf5c0gd727d142732fb2f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0912142004l6297351dkfdec8dfe1c3c68bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20091215094549.GS17686@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0912150305p1952dd06n2bc5add119d47529@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/15 Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 02:34:39PM +1030, Emlyn wrote:
>
>> This is the real answer to the "consciousness" problem, imo. You will
>> know if AI is conscious because you'll just ask it if it is, and
>
> I don't know what "conscious" even means, but you know AI has achieved
> full human equivalence across the board once everyone is out of job.

Only equivalence in the most banal sense. My feeling is that machine
intelligence will replace us well before it's "general intelligence",
whatever that means. We're not even general intelligences.

>
>> you'll be able to observe its behaviour and see if is influenced by
>> its own sense of consciousness. The problem of whether it is telling
>> the truth is identical to the problem of whether people lie about this
>> now; you can't know and it doesn't matter.
>>
>> Most likely, an AI which is not an emulation of evolved biology will
>
> I would not be holding my breath for that one.

True. (exhales)

>
>> experience something entirely unlike what we experience. It should be
>> pretty damned interesting, and illuminating for humanity, to interact
>> with such alien critters!
>
> The first generations are human demand-driven, and hence perfectly
> boring.

Well, in the it-can't-kill-me-yawn kind of boring. I'm sure they'll be
interesting, just like a quicksort is interesting.

> The other kind is incomprehensible and/or lethal, so I'm
> not sure I would want to talk to them unless I'm them. Then you
> don't want to talk to me.

I always want to talk to you Eugen. But then you can never be them,
can you? None of us can, by definition.

But incomprehensible, not so! It's very likely that if we can build an
AGI without basing it on biology, we'll be able to understand it in
principle far better than we can understand our own workings (which do
seem to be a little bit convoluted). That's not to say that you'd want
your daughter marrying one...

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Dec 15 11:07:18 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:07:18 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <43C548CD-123A-4630-BF32-8E51979D929C@bellsouth.net>
References: <512225.67135.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<554158F6-1E13-4D62-BAB4-7CA6B872C2C9@bellsouth.net>
	<20091215091735.GQ17686@leitl.org>
	<43C548CD-123A-4630-BF32-8E51979D929C@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0912150307t53265722w47822cc77e7352df@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/15/09, John Clark wrote:
> Yes Eugen you are correct, and it wouldn't be the first time that has
> happened. It's just that when somebody says something that is really really
> spectacularly stupid I have an equally strong urge to correct them.
>
>


And then there's the rest of the internet to tackle...........


BillK


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec 15 12:00:04 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:00:04 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0912150307t53265722w47822cc77e7352df@mail.gmail.com>
References: <512225.67135.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<554158F6-1E13-4D62-BAB4-7CA6B872C2C9@bellsouth.net>
	<20091215091735.GQ17686@leitl.org>
	<43C548CD-123A-4630-BF32-8E51979D929C@bellsouth.net>
	<ee50357e0912150307t53265722w47822cc77e7352df@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091215120004.GA17686@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:07:18AM +0000, BillK wrote:

> And then there's the rest of the internet to tackle...........

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

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


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 15 12:06:25 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:06:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <554158F6-1E13-4D62-BAB4-7CA6B872C2C9@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <37585.5915.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

> I don't have one scrap of information that Mr. Foreman was 
> conscious either before or after that blow

You've fallen into that solipsistic rabbit hole that I mentioned. 

Like most people I think Foreman had consciousness. Then the dancing butterfly stung like a bee, indirectly causing him to have no consciousness. Seems to me that something interesting to neuroscience happened at that moment. 

Crick (1994) proposed tentatively that the neuronal correlates of consciousness may be found in neuronal firings in the 40hz range in networks of the thalamocortical system, specifically in connections between the thalamus and layers four and six of the cortex. Searle applauds this sort of research program (he references Crick's hypothesis in his own paper on consciousness) because on his view we need to understand how the brain does the consciousness trick before we can understand how it does the symbol grounding trick. 

-gts






      


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Dec 15 12:38:29 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:38:29 +0100
Subject: [ExI] atheism
In-Reply-To: <806692.44426.qm@web32008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.848.1260639634.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<806692.44426.qm@web32008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20912150438v7a5e3554v17fc80341f6d3adf@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/13 Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com>

> Wait, you say you are not a Zeus atheist (you think he is real), and do not
> accord him the same status as Yahweh (so you think yahweh is not real)?
>
> You have three categories of reality, one in which Zeus belongs (real), one
> for your keyboard (somehow differently real), and one for Yahweh (presumably
> not real)?
>
> I don't understand why Yahweh and Zeus aren't grouped together.
>
>
Because I have issues with any entity whose "existence" would be implicit in
(and necessitated by) its "essence", and who would exists and still not be
part of the world (the world being obviously defined in my mind as the set
of all the things that exist).

Now, all that is applicable, AFAIK, to the very concept of Yahweh, Allah, or
the Holy Trinity; but not to Zeus - nor for that matter to Spiderman or the
Great Gatsby.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091215/ab156ae4/attachment.html>

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Dec 15 12:54:36 2009
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:54:36 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0912150305p1952dd06n2bc5add119d47529@mail.gmail.com>
References: <236279.62526.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e0912130931m123cf5c0gd727d142732fb2f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0912142004l6297351dkfdec8dfe1c3c68bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<20091215094549.GS17686@leitl.org>
	<710b78fc0912150305p1952dd06n2bc5add119d47529@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091215125436.GD17686@leitl.org>

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 09:35:46PM +1030, Emlyn wrote:

> > I don't know what "conscious" even means, but you know AI has achieved
> > full human equivalence across the board once everyone is out of job.
> 
> Only equivalence in the most banal sense. My feeling is that machine

Do not underestimate activities people will pay money for. Many
of them tackle people to their very limit. No longer competitive across
the board is a pretty taxing benchmark.

> intelligence will replace us well before it's "general intelligence",
> whatever that means. We're not even general intelligences.

We're as good a yardstick as anything. You need to define an origin somewhere.
 
> Well, in the it-can't-kill-me-yawn kind of boring. I'm sure they'll be
> interesting, just like a quicksort is interesting.

Watching this beats most TV programming, I guess.
 
> I always want to talk to you Eugen. But then you can never be them,
> can you? None of us can, by definition.

Biology-derived systems are also capable of self-enhancement runaways.
Technically you is a moving target, and there's a continuous trajectory
all along the way, but enough quantity will turn into quality. You don't
need a lot of delta to be completely incomprehensible. You can easily
see it in some people already.
 
> But incomprehensible, not so! It's very likely that if we can build an
> AGI without basing it on biology, we'll be able to understand it in

If you do it by a darwinian design (nobody so far seems to get a handle on
how to do it any other way) it's just as opaque. There's modularity for
functional compartment in the body, but just not a lot of it in the brain.
Best make modularity part of the fitness function.

> principle far better than we can understand our own workings (which do
> seem to be a little bit convoluted). That's not to say that you'd want
> your daughter marrying one...

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


From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Dec 15 13:26:09 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:26:09 +1100
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <37585.5915.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <554158F6-1E13-4D62-BAB4-7CA6B872C2C9@bellsouth.net> 
	<37585.5915.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912150526u68b3519md0a77084e0abeac3@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/15 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:

> Crick (1994) proposed tentatively that the neuronal correlates of consciousness may be found in neuronal firings in the 40hz range in networks of the thalamocortical system, specifically in connections between the thalamus and layers four and six of the cortex. Searle applauds this sort of research program (he references Crick's hypothesis in his own paper on consciousness) because on his view we need to understand how the brain does the consciousness trick before we can understand how it does the symbol grounding trick.

The technical details of how the brain produces consciousness are of
course important, but they are not relevant to the philosophical
argument. Searle admits that the brain can be simulated by a computer,
but he doesn't think this simulation would give rise to consciousness:

http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/searle.comp.html

<The answer to 3. seems to me equally obviously "Yes", at least on a
natural interpretation. That is, naturally interpreted, the question
means: Is there some description of the brain such that under that
description you could do a computational simulation of the operations
of the brain. But since according to Church's thesis, anything that
can be given a precise enough characterization as a set of steps can
be simulated on a digital computer, it follows trivially that the
question has an affirmative answer. The operations of the brain can be
simulated on a digital computer in the same sense in which weather
systems, the behavior of the New York stock market or the pattern of
airline flights over Latin America can. So our question is not, "Is
the mind a program?" The answer to that is, "No". Nor is it, "Can the
brain be simulated?" The answer to that is, "Yes". The question is,
"Is the brain a digital computer?" And for purposes of this discussion
I am taking that question as equivalent to: "Are brain processes
computational?">

So, Searle allows that the behaviour of a neuron could be copied by a
computer program, but that this artificial neuron would lack the
essential ingredient for consciousness. This claim can be refuted with
a purely analytic argument, valid independently of any empirical fact
about the brain. The argument consists in considering what you would
experience if part of your brain were replaced with artificial neurons
that are functionally equivalent but (for the purpose of the reductio)
lacking in the the essential ingredient of consciousness.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 15 13:28:12 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:28:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30912141408t481096bel8a4f691237b8f420@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <697215.21184.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Mon, 12/14/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> In any case, the thought experiment could be done with any part of
> the brain. Advanced nanoprocessor controlled devices which behave just
> like neurons but, being machines, lack the special ingredient
> for consciousness that neurons have...

I don't believe artificial neurons would lack the special ingredient for consciousness merely by virtue of their "being machines"! On the contrary, I think we can and ought describe real neurons as machines.

>.. are installed in place of part of your brain, the visual cortex being 
> good for illustration purposes. You are then asked if you notice 
> anything different. What will you say? Before answering, consider 
> carefully the implications of the fact that the essential feature of the 
> artificial neurons is that they behave just like biological neurons in 
> their interactions with their neighbours.

What I will say will depend on what I experience, and until the experiment happens I will have no idea what that experience might look like. However I do take issue with your assumption that your artificial neurons will (by "logical necessity", as you put it in another message) produce exactly the same experience as real neurons merely by virtue of their having the same "interactions with their neighbours" as real neurons, especially in the realm of consciousness. We simply don't know if that's true. 

So then I consider your theory about nano-neurons an interesting and plausible conjecture, one that any extrope worth his salt should take seriously, but I certainly don't consider it a logical necessity!

Now, if your artificial neurons not only interact identically with their neighbors as do real neurons, but also contain all the same electrical and chemical activities as real neurons, and contain any other activities science may not yet have discovered that take place in and about real neurons, then I agree (now by logical necessity) that my experience will seem identical to that caused by real neurons. However in that case we've started manufacturing real neurons, so it hardly seems surprising that they cause the same experience as those produced in nature.

-gts


      


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Dec 15 16:17:02 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:17:02 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <697215.21184.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <697215.21184.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <D1D8B12F-3488-40A8-894E-C54E3D4EE565@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 15, 2009, at 8:28 AM, Gordon Swobe wrote:

> I do take issue with your assumption that your artificial neurons will (by "logical necessity", as you put it in another message) produce exactly the same experience as real neurons merely by virtue of their having the same "interactions with their neighbours" as real neurons, especially in the realm of consciousness. We simply don't know if that's true. 

So you think those neighboring neurons will respond differently even if the stimulus they receive is identical. And it all depends on the inner workings of neurons not on how they communicate their output to the outside world. In other words you believe in a soul. I don't.

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091215/8dc8a8fc/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Dec 15 16:47:41 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:47:41 +1100
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <697215.21184.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <f21c22e30912141408t481096bel8a4f691237b8f420@mail.gmail.com> 
	<697215.21184.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30912150847g22591719jbba3b8783c869ae5@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/16 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:

>>.. are installed in place of part of your brain, the visual cortex being
>> good for illustration purposes. You are then asked if you notice
>> anything different. What will you say? Before answering, consider
>> carefully the implications of the fact that the essential feature of the
>> artificial neurons is that they behave just like biological neurons in
>> their interactions with their neighbours.
>
> What I will say will depend on what I experience, and until the experiment happens I will have no idea what that experience might look like. However I do take issue with your assumption that your artificial neurons will (by "logical necessity", as you put it in another message) produce exactly the same experience as real neurons merely by virtue of their having the same "interactions with their neighbours" as real neurons, especially in the realm of consciousness. We simply don't know if that's true.

As John Clark pointed out, the neighbouring neurons *must* respond in
the same way with the artificial neurons in place as with the original
neurons. Therefore, your motor neurons *must* make you behave in the
same way: you declare that everything looks normal, and you correctly
tell me how many fingers I am holding up. It's impossible that
something else happens. So the point is, if you reproduce the
behaviour of the neurons, you reproduce the behaviour of the brain and
the whole person. The further question then is, does this also
reproduce the consciousness? If it does not, then that would mean
either that you go blind but don't notice, or that you go blind but
feel yourself smiling and declaring that everything is fine despite
frantic efforts to call out and end the nightmarish experiment. The
former possibility makes a mockery of the concept of perception (how
do you know you are perceiving anything now if you can be mistaken in
this way?) while the latter implies that you are doing your thinking
independently of your brain. These possibilities both seem absurd. The
simple explanation is that if your brain behaves the same way, you
must have the same consciousness.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Dec 15 17:14:45 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:14:45 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <37585.5915.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <37585.5915.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ED8BE3DE-4BF2-4665-8EAE-5E1BB0FB7CA9@bellsouth.net>

On Dec 15, 2009,  Gordon Swobe wrote:

> Crick (1994) proposed tentatively that the neuronal correlates of consciousness may be found in neuronal firings in the 40hz range in networks of the thalamocortical system

How is that theory better than my theory that consciousness is caused by a size 12 foot?

> Like most people I think Foreman had consciousness.

I think Foreman had consciousness too, but not because of his neuronal firings in the 40hz range in  the thalamocortical system. To tell the truth I don't give a hoot in hell about neuronal firings in the 40hz range in thalamocortical systems. I think Mr. Foreman was conscious because he acted intelligently. I believe Mr. Ali would agree with me and I certainly don't imagine he knew much about neuronal firings in the 40hz range in  the thalamocortical systems.

 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091215/f24e53f9/attachment.html>

From kanzure at gmail.com  Tue Dec 15 18:27:28 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:27:28 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Nature Biotechnology gives a downbeat review of DIYbio
In-Reply-To: <1bb39ac50912151016s22f4f6b4t51467cfc4cdb1b8e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <296f92fe-ef74-41de-baad-bf29368e7d53@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
	<55ad6af70912141905l76f9a890i37cd0d541b17443d@mail.gmail.com>
	<da6317b0912142022g19714f61r50c7e9e9420c0bb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1bb39ac50912151016s22f4f6b4t51467cfc4cdb1b8e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55ad6af70912151027w6c272e22ne4041a8c08b1b813@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christopher Kelty <ckelty at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Nature Biotechnology gives a downbeat review of DIYbio
To: diybio at googlegroups.com


On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Mackenzie Cowell <mac at diybio.org> wrote:
> Yeah, long live the dozen! ?Insert Margaret Mead quote here; small,
> thoughtful, committed groups change the world, etc etc. ?And despite the
> negative tone of the coverage, I have to say I am glad Nature Biotech
> de-hyped the diybio a bit. ?Maybe it will help us manage public perception
> and expectations.

I don't know about Margaret Mead, but this article

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n12/full/nbt1209-1109.html

is by some anthropologists (whom I know well) from UC Berkeley, who I
am sure lurk on this list but never say anything (hi guys!)

Their article is worth reading. ?It argues that there is no simple
technical fix for any potential safety or security issues that might
arise, an that the polarization of the (non)-debate causes more harm
than good. ?The relentless attempts to figure synthetic biology and
DIY Biology as either a threat to the existence of humanity, or
humanity's last hope for true innovation does a disservice to both the
possible advantages and dangers that it possesses.

What's more the article essentially lumps DIY Bio in with synthetic
biology, bioengineering and big bio generally. ? It paints DIYBio-ers
as essentially the Lackeys of Institutional Biology and its
cutting-edge lapdog, synthetic biology; and they accuse the movement
(and bioengineering generally) of "moral arrogance."

What the article does not say is that DIYBio could be read *instead*
as a critique of big bio (e.g. why are people using such expensive
equipment when they could hack together a good-enough solution far
cheaper; why not teach people who don't go to MIT to do
bioengineering, etc.). I find it is curious that DIYBio-as-critique is
not a story people tell. Indeed, many on this list seem terrified of
being identified as critics ("Just leave us alone and let us tinker"
is pure disingenuousness). ?Perhaps its because it would be necessary
to critique synthetic biology and IGEM as well... On the other hand,
Bio Art is usually understood *only* as critique (viz. Steve Kurtz),
and not as design or engineering (The artscience team from bangalore
at IGEM notwithstanding). ?If there was ever anything to the
comparison with Free Software (and I mean Free Software in this
instance, not Open Source), then it was the role of a critical
reconfiguration of engineering practice outside of mainstream biology.

ck

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio at googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
diybio+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.





-- 
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507


From joedalton at consultant.com  Tue Dec 15 18:44:42 2009
From: joedalton at consultant.com (joedalton at consultant.com)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:44:42 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Testing
Message-ID: <8CC4BCDCC608FC1-147C-31ED@web-mmc-d02.sysops.aol.com>

Can't seem to get a message through...

JD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091215/ef96195d/attachment.html>

From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 14 18:43:59 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:43:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism and Not All Religions Were Created Equal
Message-ID: <715450.6193.qm@web59904.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

"According to other theories, their coming actually helped or
caused the revolution started with the modern age inasmuch as the
latter was also a strong reaction to centuries of obscurantism and
decadence ('what does not kill us, make us stronger'...)."
Stefano Vaj"

That, too; the pent up frustration. 
The Industrial Revolution didn't cause the profound anti-technological bias, the
reaction to the Industrial Revolution was the cause-- it was at least one of the major causes.

And all that dialectical dicky-do.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091214/593f32f2/attachment.html>

From p0stfuturist at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 14 18:59:01 2009
From: p0stfuturist at yahoo.com (Post Futurist)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:59:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Tolerance
Message-ID: <649533.17258.qm@web59908.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

>  IMO any doctor who would violate their Hippocratic oath would be similar in spirit if not letter to a "Christian" who would commit a felony, such as burglary.

>>The reason this is fallow ground is it presupposes two requirements in order to commit such a transgression, two requirements that are not actually required.
Premeditation and malice. Also note that 'violate' is not equivalent to 'commit' even in your thesis.
>James Choate
Not even malice? one would think malice would be a given in doing something contrary to an oath; say if one breaks the oath to tell 'the truth
 the whole truth...' in
 a court case by committing perjuring, isn't there a bit of malice involved-- even if it is spontaneous?



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091214/5f226438/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Tue Dec 15 18:59:13 2009
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:59:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Testing
In-Reply-To: <8CC4BCDCC608FC1-147C-31ED@web-mmc-d02.sysops.aol.com>
References: <8CC4BCDCC608FC1-147C-31ED@web-mmc-d02.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0912151059x1bd7714fi7400ce5a40f83a36@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/15  <joedalton at consultant.com>:
> Can't seem to get a message through...

Success.

-Dave


From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 15 19:50:32 2009
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:50:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI
In-Reply-To: <mailman.885.1260868659.462.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <445615.22823.qm@web32008.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Sun, 12/13/09, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >> The challenge ... is ...to show that formal
> programs differ in 
> >> some important way from shopping lists, some
> important way that 
> >> allows programs to overcome the symbol grounding
> problem.
> > 
> > I've just been following this thread peripherally, but
> this
> > caught my attention.? Are you *seriously* saying that
> > you think shopping lists don't differ from programs??
> 
> I mean that if we want to refute the position of this
> philosopher who goes by the name of Searle then we need to
> show exactly how programs overcome the symbol grounding
> problem.
> 
> I think everyone will agree that a piece of paper has no
> conscious understanding of the symbols it holds, i.e., that
> a piece of paper cannot overcome the symbol grounding
> problem. If a program differs from a piece of paper such
> that it can have conscious understanding the symbols it
> holds, as in strong AI on a software/hardware system, then
> how does that happen? 
> 
> > Secondly, if you don't think a program can solve the
> > mysteriously difficult 'symbol grounding problem', how
> can a
> > brain do it?? 
> 
> Philosophers and cognitive scientists have some theories
> about how *minds* do it, but nobody really knows for certain
> how the physical brain does it in any sense we might
> duplicate. 

This is like saying we have a theory about how a clock tick attracts a certain insect, but we have no idea how the clock attracts the insect.

Mind is a function of Brain. When I say "how can a brain do it?" I'm saying "how does a mind experience doing it?".  It's the same thing.

> 
> If it has no logical flaws, Searle's formal argument shows
> that however brains do it, they don't do it by running
> programs. 

Another "Whaaaaaa?!" moment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying there are phenomena that cannot be represented by any program?

A symphony orchestra doesn't 'run programs' but that doesn't mean that we can't reproduce Rachmininov's 2nd concerto in exact detail by means of a computer program.

To say that "brains don't run programs" is both untrue in a sense, and irrelevant.

The question is: do brains process information?

(and, I suppose, if you really must: "Do programs process information?")

Unless you want to seriously claim that there are things that a lump of biological jelly can do that are theoretically beyond the capacity of any other information-processing system to do, your argument makes no sense.

And if you *are* seriously making this claim, then... well, as Eugen said: "*plonk*".  There is nothing further to discuss.

Ben Zaiboc


      


From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Tue Dec 15 20:25:46 2009
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:25:46 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Name for carbon project
Message-ID: <d1988d2d0912151225h53194d5y359fede4c80cfc3c@mail.gmail.com>

A few of you have been following my work on solving the energy and
carbon problems.  Regardless of how you feel about carbon, energy
really is a problem, one that if not solved could really make a mess
of world civilization.

Given reasonable projections, it looks like the singularity might
arrive in the middle of famines and resource wars.  It is going to be
hard enough for unstressed humans to make rational decisions related
to AI/nanotech without war stress.

Unfortunately attention is focused on carbon and relatively little on
the energy problem even though the two are deeply connected.  Here is
one:

http://www.virgin.com/subsites/virginearth/

To have any chance of competing for the prize, the focus must be on
sequestering carbon.  That's relatively easy and painless if we
produce 15 TW of power satellites beyond human energy needs and use it
to make synthetic oil for storage in empty oil fields.

In any case, I need a name for the project, and the name should
include "carbon."

Any ideas?

Keith


From nanite1018 at gmail.com  Tue Dec 15 20:30:33 2009
From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (JOSHUA JOB)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:30:33 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Nature Biotechnology gives a downbeat review of
	DIYbio
In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70912151027w6c272e22ne4041a8c08b1b813@mail.gmail.com>
References: <296f92fe-ef74-41de-baad-bf29368e7d53@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
	<55ad6af70912141905l76f9a890i37cd0d541b17443d@mail.gmail.com>
	<da6317b0912142022g19714f61r50c7e9e9420c0bb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1bb39ac50912151016s22f4f6b4t51467cfc4cdb1b8e@mail.gmail.com>
	<55ad6af70912151027w6c272e22ne4041a8c08b1b813@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BB2FEBF2-1EED-41CE-85F9-E18D5F53F05C@GMAIL.COM>

> http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n12/full/nbt1209-1109.html
> ...
> What's more the article essentially lumps DIY Bio in with synthetic
> biology, bioengineering and big bio generally.   It paints DIYBio-ers
> as essentially the Lackeys of Institutional Biology...
I didn't get the impression of DIYbio-ers as Big Bio at all. In my  
reading, synthetic biology and DIYbio are intertwined currents within  
biology as a whole with similar goals (if different methods).
> What the article does not say is that DIYBio could be read *instead*
> as a critique of big bio (e.g. why are people using such expensive
> equipment when they could hack together a good-enough solution far
> cheaper; why not teach people who don't go to MIT to do
> bioengineering, etc.).
This seems correct, although I think that certain things (synthetic  
biology for example) can only be done, currently, with Big Bio's  
resources. This may not be the case in 5-10 years, but so far as I  
know, it would be impossible to do what Venter and others in the field  
are doing in your garage for a few tens of thousands of dollars. At  
least not on any sort of competitive timescale.

 From the article:
> Synthetic biology, activists say, is just like giant agribusiness.  
> It's really all about ownership of nature, destruction of  
> biodiversity and devastation of margina