From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 00:12:21 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:12:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] humor: Onion.com's news from the future! Message-ID: I'm curious if any of you have seen the Onion.com news from the future short? http://www.theonion.com/video/future-news-from-the-year-2137-coming-summer-2010,17690/ Oh, and while I'm at it, this is great stuff! http://www.theonion.com/video/new-google-phone-service-whispers-targeted-ads-dir,17470/ John From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 00:18:36 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:18:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Humor: lip reading computer kills officials who want to turn it off... Message-ID: Lip reading computer kills officials who want to turn it off... http://www.theonion.com/articles/lipreading-bcs-computer-kills-officials-who-want-t,17812/ At the latest Phoenix Comicon, we had the two lead actors from 2001, but they did not get quite the reception that Stan Lee did... John : ) From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 00:20:10 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:20:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Humor: New robot capable of unhealthily repressing emotion! Message-ID: New robot capable of unhealthily repressing emotion! http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-robot-capable-of-unhealthily-repressing-emotio,17806/ John : ) From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Aug 1 00:37:51 2010 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:37:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Birthday Wishes to Ray Bradbury In-Reply-To: <201007311627.o6VGRS70011571@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201007311627.o6VGRS70011571@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <0a439b37501ba227e28fe5aecc5b7ffd.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> (Forwarded from the Cassini Huygens list) How? The Planetary Society Makes It Easy Earth's foremost Martian, Ray Bradbury, turns 90 on August 22, and you can help him celebrate by sending a personal birthday message. The Planetary Society is collecting birthday greetings on its website from well-wishers around the world to make a giant card for Bradbury. "I first read your books ["The Martian Chronicles"] as a teenage bride in Africa under the light of a Tilly lamp with bugs and mosquitoes buzzing round me. Never forgotten!" reads one fan's message for the card. Bradbury's extraordinary body of work includes "The Martian Chronicles," "Fahrenheit 451" and a vast collection of stories, poems and plays. Many space scientists and engineers cite his imaginative journeys to other worlds as a source of inspiration to them to pursue careers in planetary exploration. His famous collection of stories, "The Martian Chronicles," traveled to the planet Mars aboard the Phoenix lander as part of a mini DVD created by the Planetary Society, entitled "Visions of Mars." "The Red Planet wonders and adventures that you first inspired in us have been constantly in our minds as we have strolled around Mars these past 6+ years with Spirit and Opportunity. Like you, we yearn to see the place with our own eyes! A fine, dusty day that will be...! With best wishes for a great 10th decade and beyond," from Jim Bell and the entire Mars Exploration Rover team. While Bradbury's birthday is August 22, the deadline for submitting messages to the Planetary Society is August 9, 2010 to allow time to create the card. Please add your greeting to pay tribute to the man who brought humanity along with him on a seven-decade ride through the imagination. "You've traveled and chronicled another orbit of the sun! You've done great work -- please keep it up!" said Bill Nye, the Society's Executive Director (Designate). "Your incredible optimism, enthusiasm and vision have enthralled people around this planet and motivated all of us trying to reach other planets," said Louis Friedman, Executive Director of the Planetary Society. www.planetary.org/special/fromearth/bradbury From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 03:25:21 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:25:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Birthday Wishes to Ray Bradbury In-Reply-To: <0a439b37501ba227e28fe5aecc5b7ffd.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <201007311627.o6VGRS70011571@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <0a439b37501ba227e28fe5aecc5b7ffd.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: I met his latest biographer at a local book store. Ray was full of life, playful, ambitious, and creative even as a young boy. Oh, and he was also quite the ladies man... But well-organized he was not (though he was a born packrat/collector who hated to throw things out)! lol John On 7/31/10, MB wrote: > > (Forwarded from the Cassini Huygens list) > > How? The Planetary Society Makes It Easy > > Earth's foremost Martian, Ray Bradbury, turns 90 on August 22, and you can > help him celebrate by sending a personal birthday message. The Planetary > Society is collecting birthday greetings on its website from well-wishers > around the world to make a giant card for Bradbury. > > "I first read your books ["The Martian Chronicles"] as a teenage bride in > Africa under the light of a Tilly lamp with bugs and mosquitoes buzzing > round me. Never forgotten!" reads one fan's message for the card. > > Bradbury's extraordinary body of work includes "The Martian Chronicles," > "Fahrenheit 451" and a vast collection of stories, poems and plays. Many > space scientists and engineers cite his imaginative journeys to other > worlds > as a source of inspiration to them to pursue careers in planetary > exploration. His famous collection of stories, "The Martian Chronicles," > traveled to > the planet Mars aboard the Phoenix lander as part of a mini DVD created by > the Planetary Society, entitled "Visions of Mars." > > "The Red Planet wonders and adventures that you first inspired in us have > been constantly in our minds as we have strolled around Mars these past 6+ > years with Spirit and Opportunity. Like you, we yearn to see the place with > our own eyes! A fine, dusty day that will be...! With best wishes for a > great 10th decade and beyond," from Jim Bell and the entire Mars > Exploration > Rover team. > > While Bradbury's birthday is August 22, the deadline for submitting > messages to the Planetary Society is August 9, 2010 to allow time to create > the > card. Please add your greeting to pay tribute to the man who brought > humanity along with him on a seven-decade ride through the imagination. > > > "You've traveled and chronicled another orbit of the sun! You've done > great work -- please keep it up!" said Bill Nye, the Society's Executive > Director (Designate). "Your incredible optimism, enthusiasm and vision have > enthralled people around this planet and motivated all of us trying to > reach > other planets," said Louis Friedman, Executive Director of the Planetary > Society. > > www.planetary.org/special/fromearth/bradbury > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 03:26:17 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:26:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] FDA lifts hold on embryonic stem cell trial In-Reply-To: <201007311627.o6VGRS70011571@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201007311627.o6VGRS70011571@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: "I LIKE THIS!!!" Oh, wait. I forgot that this is not Facebook... John ; ) On 7/31/10, Max More wrote: > Would be very good if the first trials work out without problems. > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38490858/ns/health-more_health_news/ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From rtomek at ceti.pl Sun Aug 1 03:47:01 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 05:47:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > While we're talking about the idea of a modern and acceptable Islam: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHdMlT3E7cg > > In light of the principle of abrogation in the Koran, I'm wondering if > anyone has created a version of it that omits the abrogated bits. That > would make things much clearer. > > Ben Zaiboc Very interesting material. It seems, Qur'an is about 90 pages of smallprint (in my edition)... Creating alternative versions - yes, I wonder too. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From pharos at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 09:47:08 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:47:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The robot that visits your cubicle Message-ID: Telepresence robots soon available. They don't mention it in the article, but I think this could be useful for disabled people as well. This version doesn't have arms or hands. Next step? also BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 10:20:19 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:20:19 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. and EP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26 July 2010 16:48, Keith Henson wrote: > I agree with you that Islam is a nasty meme set, at least in its > current state. ?It's just not exceptional coming out of a stressed > society. ?Nazism and communism were associated with huge numbers of > deaths in the last century, and I am not sure the memes associated > with the spasm in Rwanda even had a name. All kind of beliefs or value systems may basically serve to organise violence, extermination, etc. (including western democracy or buddhism or transhumanism, btw). Some degree of organised violence is also implied by the very existence of States, law enforcement, military apparatuses, etc. The real issue, IMHO, is that while a "heathen/pagan" may or may not really care upon the fact that a bordering culture lives according to different values or beliefs, monotheism *requires* conversion or destruction of the unfaithful. Irrespective, and in addition, to any kind of actual conflict of interests it may help to hide and legitimise. As far as modern, secular ideologies I concerned, it is my impression that in most cases they inherit from both traditions, and one can easily guess from where they pick their most intolerant traits. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 10:22:35 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:22:35 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <0FBDEF96-0B7E-4AC1-8AA9-BC6D77B2A23C@bellsouth.net> References: <478393.67459.qm@web114404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20100723185459.GA17785@ofb.net> <57B041DF-C7B3-4873-BCD2-586CED21E87B@bellsouth.net> <20100724223303.GB29291@ofb.net> <0FBDEF96-0B7E-4AC1-8AA9-BC6D77B2A23C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/7/25 John Clark : > Mr.?Sullivan, you may not be an evil person yourself but you are an enabler > of evil. And I make no apology for using such an old fashioned word as > "evil", sometimes no other word will do, Why, this is a very Islamic concept... :-) -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 09:56:14 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:56:14 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence [Was Re: Sarah Palin] In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/7/23 John Clark > You know what, I flat out don't believe you. I believe you can think of a > cultural factor that is astronomically more likely to be the source of that > HUGE Nobel deficit among the Islamic than bagels, but will not admit it > (perhaps even to yourself) for fear of being called a foe > of multiculturalism. I say a spade should be called a spade. > "Multiculturalism" does not really imply that all cultures or races are "equal". On the contrary, diversity postulates some degree of specialisation and/or adaptation to different circumstances - many of which are indeed artificial and self-reinforcing as far as our species is concerned... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 10:26:10 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:26:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The robot that visits your cubicle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 10:47 AM, BillK wrote: > Telepresence robots soon available. > Singapore has them also. What if your iPhone suddenly sprouted arms and started speaking? You?d end up with something close to A-Star?s newest line of social robots. Recently seen at Robocup 2010 in Singapore, the A-Star robots are sleek, stylish, and highly focused on human interaction. A-Star Social Robotics Lab (ASORO), which is based in Singapore, developed three models on display: a receptionist (Olivia), a telepresence robot (Lucas), and a household assistant (Mika). Each has their own unique skill sets, but all three aim to communicate and work more like humans. Friendly, exuberant humans. I guess that since we?re social creatures it makes sense that our robots would need to be socialable too. We?ve got videos of these enthusiastic robots for you below. Check them out. BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 10:40:44 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:40:44 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Mosque at Ground Zero -- or not? In-Reply-To: <25FD162E-0CF5-4658-832F-A281DB0BEA37@bellsouth.net> References: <201007280503.o6S53vgB019381@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <25FD162E-0CF5-4658-832F-A281DB0BEA37@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/7/28 John Clark : > I don't claim to have more knowledge of Islam than other people, but > apparently I do have less fear of being called a bigot (as I was on this > list) from fools who ignore an obvious evil. I really find myself between a rock and hard place in this kind of debate, because as much as I am *radically* opposed to the islamisation of the society I belong to and live in, I find most arguments or people supporting this view intolerably "muslim-like". Why can't one oppose Islamic colonisation simply as a matter of identity and diversity? And, btw, how much of illegal immigration, terrorism in western countries, religious propaganda, christian-like anti-science attitude, etc. are directly generated by western political, military, economic, cultural (attempts at) colonisation of Islamic countries and interferences therein? How may Afghans or Iraquis were around or creating problems before the post-11/9 attacks? How many Iranians still are? How many people had been recruited by fundamentalists before the fall of Saddam Hussein? At least in Europe, Moroccans and Egyptians and Turks, with the more or less PC governments of their countries, were definitely more of an issue... -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 10:42:56 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:42:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Hypatia- a secular saint In-Reply-To: <702050.46262.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <702050.46262.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 28 July 2010 18:33, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Just don't get addicted to her. ?;) The tradition claims that she was also a very beautiful woman... ;-) -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 11:46:25 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 13:46:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] medical marijuana In-Reply-To: References: <619642.12227.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 30 July 2010 00:48, Dave Sill wrote: > I've never heard of anyone doing that. Maybe it's a European thing... How would anyone smoke hashish without mixing it with tobacco (or, perhaps, marijuana or chamomile)? :-/ -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 11:58:09 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 13:58:09 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29 July 2010 18:23, Keith Henson wrote: >The question is not so much about Muslims being > held back but why western culture (Jews included) shot ahead. I am not aware of any Sephardic Jews's shot ahead. As to European culture shot ahead starting with the Renaissance, I suspect that the "extremism" of christianism, in comparison with Islam and Hebraism, generated with time a stronger reaction from the cultural background than, say, Islam did in India, leading to a quicker and more radical emancipation of philosophy and science from monotheistic darkness. -- Stefano Vaj From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 16:51:00 2010 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:51:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] medical marijuana In-Reply-To: References: <619642.12227.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: You can smoke hash in a joint or a pipe by itself. Smoking weed with tobacco *is* a European practice. The contrast against America is very large; here people tend to only use tobacco if it is the outside wrapper of a 'blunt'. Mixing is seen far less often. If you (vous) have any questions about current-generation marijuana use, I may be able to answer them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Aug 1 17:23:30 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 13:23:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> On Jul 31, 2010, at 7:33 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: >> Let me ask you one question, do you condemn the whole Nazi group? > No, because condemning groups was - I believe - exactly what Nazi did. Did the entire Nazi group do exactly that? Mr. Rola, if your philosophy is so nambe-pambe that you're too squeamish to even condemn the Nazis then something is seriously wrong! >> writer Naguib Mahfouz who's novel is banned in most of the Islamic world for >> blasphemy. > > Well, Nobel Prize wouldn't be worth much if it wasn't controversial. I'm not talking about being controversial, I'm talking about using force to prevent someone from reading a novel from a Nobel Prize winner. Are you really sure you want to defend this? > the very fact that Islam is dysfunctional shouldn't stop me from analysing it. But it should stop you from defending it. > I never heard of Islamic Revolution as something coming from abroad I haven't either, as far as I can tell it was a popular movement, and that fact doesn't paint a flattering picture of the average inhabitant of Iran. >> This last part is aimed at the apologists for all religions not just >> Islam, when they preach about the wonderful things these organizations >> have done they always ignore one little fact, it's all based on a >> colossal lie. Doesn't the truth count for something? > > If you mean lie about God's existence, this had not been proved yet. Truth > would count much more if you could prove it. Before that, "lie" is true in > 50%... or more. Mr. Rola, regarding Christian or Islamic philosophy, did you really find it necessary to put the word lie into weasel quotation marks, and is this really a direction you want this debate to move in? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 18:33:11 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 20:33:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] a new term for cryonics? In-Reply-To: <4C50DB1A.4040302@satx.rr.com> References: <4C50DB1A.4040302@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: I believe to remember people used to say "hybernation"... On 29 July 2010 03:36, Damien Broderick wrote: > Perhaps this term has been suggested previously; I like it on a PR > outreach/journalism level--it's at once true and much more > non-icky/non-threatening than, say, "cryonic suspension" or "vitrification": > > Rescue cooling > > or maybe > > Rescue freezing > > Feel free to pass this along to Alcor etc. > > Damien Broderick > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 18:34:50 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 20:34:50 +0200 Subject: [ExI] I never liked the big bang theory anyway In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29 July 2010 20:37, Jeff Davis wrote: > Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe Always been an ekpyrotic fan... -- Stefano Vaj From rtomek at ceti.pl Sun Aug 1 18:46:20 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 20:46:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <25400.53397.qm@web114412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > > How do you think Islam could become more humanitarian, more egalitarian, > > more tolerant, less violent, stop oppressing women and homosexuals, stop > > trying to control people's sex lives, stop trying to convert the whole > > world to Islam, etc., and not destroy itself? While I feel a bit tired (or at least used) and I would like to take a day off (or better, week) from Internet, I'd like to make this one observation. It seems to me (not the first time actually) that whatever a culture is or is not depends heavily on its women. I am rather sure this is not innovative idea and it must have been mentioned somewhere by somebody wiser than I. For a curious reader, those three pages can give some food for thought. But be warned, children (small and grown up) should be kept away from it. Some exposure to anthropological themes wouldn't hurt either, I guess. 1. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting ] The page shows interesting map, on which it could be seen that the practice is common in only few Islamic countries (of which in Egypt it had been banned by their Health Ministry, so at least now it is going to be illegal, same in Eritrea). It is occuring to some degree in some other countries and is absent in the rest (including yet another Islamic countries, like Tunisia, Libya. Algeria, Morocco and few other). In countries, where it is present, it is hard to tell direct connections between Islam prevalence and FGC, like these examples show (HDI is for Human Development Index): [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia#Religion ] "Christians make up 62.8% of the country's population (43.5% Ethiopian Orthodox, 19.3% other denominations), Muslims 33.9%, practitioners of traditional faiths 2.6%, and other religions 0.6%" FGC: 69.7%-94.5% prevalence HDI: 0.414 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea#Religion ] "Approximately 85% of the population is Muslim, while 10% is Christian, and 5% holds traditional animist beliefs. Muslims are generally Sunni and Sufi;[24] there are relatively few Shi'a. Christian groups include Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and other Evangelical groups. Jehovah's Witnesses are active in the country and recognized by the Government. There is a small Baha'i community. There are small numbers of Hindus, Buddhists, and traditional Chinese religious groups among the expatriate community.[25]" FGC: 98.6% prevalence HDI: 0.456 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria#Religion ] "Based on a 2003 survey, 50.5% were Muslim, 48.2% were Christian (15% Protestant, 13.7% Catholic, and 19.6% other Christian), and followers of other religions were 1.4%.[81]" FGC: 25.1% prevalence HDI: 0.511 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan#Religion ] "According to the CIA Factbook, an estimated 70% of the population adheres to Islam,[117][118] while the remainder of the population follows either animist and indigenous beliefs (25%) or Christianity (5%).[116][117] However, these figures appear outdated as about 70% of southern Sudanese, and about 16-20% of the overall population of Sudan, are now affiliated with Christian churches." FGC: 91% prevalence HDI: 0.531 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Religion ] "Around 90% are identified as Muslim.[84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92] Almost the entire population of Muslims are Sunni.[84] A significant number of Muslim Egyptians also follow native Sufi orders,[93] and there is a minority of Shi'a." FGC: 78-97% prevalence HDI: 0.703 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Religion ] "By far the predominant religion in Libya is Islam with 97% of the population associating with the faith.[97] The vast majority of Libyan Muslims adhere to Sunni Islam, which provides both a spiritual guide for individuals and a keystone for government policy, but a minority (between 5 and 10%) adhere to Ibadism (a branch of Kharijism), above all in the Jebel Nefusa and the town of Zuwarah, west of Tripoli." FGC: 0, according to [1]. HDI: 0.847 BTW, Libya is said to have the highest HDI (Human Development Index) of all African countries. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria#Religion ] "Islam is the predominant religion, followed by more than 99 percent of the country's population. This figure includes all these born in families considered of Muslim descent. Officially, nearly 100% of all Algerians are Muslims. Almost all Algerians follow Sunni Islam, with the exception of some 200,000 ibadis in the M'zab Valley in the region of Ghardaia.[61] There are also some 150,000 Christians in the country, including about 10,000 Roman Catholics and 50,000 to 100,000 evangelical Protestants (mainly Pentecostal), according to the Protestant Church of Algeria's leader Mustapha Krim.[62][63] Some sources claim more than one million Christians in Algeria, most of them live in the Kabyl area where there are more than 70 underground churches[64]." FGC: 0, according to [1]. HDI: 0.754 For me, it is now questionable to what extent Islam as such stands behind FGC practice and how much of bad things in fact stem from pre-islamic times. Also, it is a bit questionable that economics/development matters much, as coutries of similar situation can display totally diffent FGC numbers. On the other hand, I did not analysed all countries, so maybe there is a tendency that didn't show up. When I feel like this, I may examine stoning and acid throwing. Today, my head is blowing up a little. 2. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_elongation ] 3. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labia_stretching ] This is quite interesting, too. Us poor men don't know sooo much about the world. Once again, not much dependence on faith/religion, but in this case there is less data, so not much certainty either. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 18:47:23 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 14:47:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] a new term for cryonics? In-Reply-To: References: <4C50DB1A.4040302@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > I believe to remember people used to say "hybernation"... > > On 29 July 2010 03:36, Damien Broderick wrote: >> Perhaps this term has been suggested previously; I like it on a PR >> outreach/journalism level--it's at once true and much more >> non-icky/non-threatening than, say, "cryonic suspension" or "vitrification": >> >> Rescue cooling >> >> or maybe >> >> Rescue freezing >> >> Feel free to pass this along to Alcor etc. What happened to the sci-fi term "suspended animation" ? The company logo could be the iconic "pause" symbol. I'm not sure there is a way to make death deferment non-icky. It's probably a lot easier to sell indefinite life extension. Maybe the death deferment option could be a bundled into the premium left extension package(s) available? You know, the basic plan is a dietitian's personalized recommendation for optimal longevity. the Plus package includes a clause for intervention in case of otherwise fatal trauma where pattern/identity is preserved offline until such time that original substrate can be repaired and reactivated or a suitable alternate substrate is available that provides reasonable continuity. The Premier package includes everything offered by Plus in addition to several upgrades that haven't even been invented yet. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Aug 1 18:55:06 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 20:55:06 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <478393.67459.qm@web114404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <478393.67459.qm@web114404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 23 July 2010 00:19, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > This is further complicated by the existence of 'Taqqiya'. ?There is only one religion that I know of that explicitly encourages its members to tell lies in order to further its ends. Some catholic strands surely do. "Mental reservation" or whatever it is called in English. You lie, but you tell the truth to yourself in your mind. -- Stefano Vaj From rtomek at ceti.pl Sun Aug 1 21:37:46 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 23:37:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, John Clark wrote: > On Jul 31, 2010, at 7:33 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > >> Let me ask you one question, do you condemn the whole Nazi group? > > No, because condemning groups was - I believe - exactly what Nazi did. > > Did the entire Nazi group do exactly that? This was part of their official philosophy. It promoted nobilitation of one group (called Aryan race) while enslaving and eradicating other groups seen as inferior (Jews, Gypsies, Black people, and a little later, Slavic peoples). This was ideology, i.e. theory. In practice, they didn't object much against giving "subhumans" guns and SS uniforms, especially closer to their end. They also had no problem with enlisting criminals, who could hardly be regarded as members of superior race of any kind. Again, this was more visible as war neared it's end, but I think they started from companies and platoons first (maybe in late 30-ties), ended with brigades and divisions in 1945. So they were far from being consistent, yet I can agree that at least big parts of their ideology should be rejected. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirlewanger_Brigade ] On the other hand, one could hardly disagree with these Hitler's words: "I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ..." Sounds like good presidential candidate, isn't he? [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism ] Now, the problem is, every Nazi individual could implement this ideology in slightly different way. Even in some cases, he could only pay lip service to it. While this is not freeing him from guilt, such cases must be treated differently from cases of active supporters of Nazism. And I see nothing unusual in this approach. > Mr. Rola, if your philosophy is so nambe-pambe that you're too squeamish > to even condemn the Nazis then something is seriously wrong! Mr Clark, my philosophy is, everybody should get what he deserves. But before I tell what he deserves, his case should be examined. Otherwise I am no better than a mob. It is nothing like being weak minded. Quite the contrary, I think it is weak thing to go by, flow with the current, without questioning things and agree with everybody around without objection, just because "everybody does so". To be a good man, good human, means to me actively researching and making decisions. I mean, to be good, one has to be active, not passive. To make decisions is to actually do some mental work, not simply accepting being told (or suggested, like the news do) what to think. There is nothing wrong with it. I can be either right or wrong or between. If I am right, I am right. In other cases, I should learn and understand, so I can correct myself. > >> writer Naguib Mahfouz who's novel is banned in most of the Islamic > >> world for > >> blasphemy. > > > > Well, Nobel Prize wouldn't be worth much if it wasn't controversial. > > I'm not talking about being controversial, I'm talking about using force > to prevent someone from reading a novel from a Nobel Prize winner. Are > you really sure you want to defend this? No. I am sure that I am for allowing people to choose by themselves. I consider this to be an error on the part of Islamic authorities. As I have mentioned in one earlier post, such overreaction is a sign of weakness or lack of confidence. This might be connected with possible cultural shock, that Islamic world experienced after WW2. While I have never heard of this problem being shown as cultural shock, I have heard about our own, small scale, shock between 1950 and 1970. By "our" I mean western culture. A lot of things happened in those years. Nowadays, the biggest shock I can think of is iPhone premiere, which is not a shock at all (well, maybe in marketing brochures). I am also constantly shocked by facebook success. > > the very fact that Islam is dysfunctional shouldn't stop me from > > analysing it. > > But it should stop you from defending it. I am not defending it. I refuse to attack it before I find good reason for this. That's a big difference. But it does not prevent me from condemning terrorists (of all kinds), for example. > >> This last part is aimed at the apologists for all religions not just > >> Islam, when they preach about the wonderful things these organizations > >> have done they always ignore one little fact, it's all based on a > >> colossal lie. Doesn't the truth count for something? > > > > If you mean lie about God's existence, this had not been proved yet. Truth > > would count much more if you could prove it. Before that, "lie" is true in > > 50%... or more. > > Mr. Rola, regarding Christian or Islamic philosophy, did you really find > it necessary to put the word lie into weasel quotation marks, and is > this really a direction you want this debate to move in? I have no intention of moving this debate anywhere. Mr Clark, if you want to escape from belief, you cannot use belief-based arguments. So, if you would like to prove that God does not exist, you should use rational arguments. So, like in math books, we start with A, B, C, and go on using logic until we arrive to Z which states "God does not exist". And after that, "quod erat demonstrandum" (which was to be proved), but this last sentence is optional. For a good example of how they do this, I remember group theory from my algebra course. This is what would satisfy me. AFAIK nobody has given such proof, so we have to stick to probability. In case when there are different events possible but we cannot tell anything about their nature, we should give them equal probabilities. I don't recall whose idea this was. However with it we have 50% chances that God actually does exist. Or maybe more. So, if I am expected to give a chance to a criminal or lying polititian, I should also give a chance to God. Not that He really needs anything from me, but I want to be fair. This has nothing to do with religion or going to church or anything. Based on reason alone I am unable to reject God's existence (or prove it). Since I don't want to invent another atheism (which from my point of view bears many, if not all, signs of religion - but there are many flavours of atheism and not all should be judged like this), so I have to stick to uncertainty which is the only certain thing. I reckon this is unacceptable to all those people who "want to know". The problem that they are unable to perceive is, they cannot "know" this one thing (maybe some other things, too, but I don't feel qualified to find them). So instead they believe in whatever they decide and call this a knowledge. I am not that desperate, not yet. At least this is how I see it. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Aug 2 02:54:08 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:54:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. and EP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C563350.4050605@mac.com> Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 26 July 2010 16:48, Keith Henson wrote: > >> I agree with you that Islam is a nasty meme set, at least in its >> current state. It's just not exceptional coming out of a stressed >> society. Nazism and communism were associated with huge numbers of >> deaths in the last century, and I am not sure the memes associated >> with the spasm in Rwanda even had a name. >> > > All kind of beliefs or value systems may basically serve to organise > violence, extermination, etc. (including western democracy or buddhism > or transhumanism, btw). Some degree of organised violence is also > implied by the very existence of States, law enforcement, military > apparatuses, etc. > Please explain how a belief that the Non-Agression Principle is the basis of any reasonable ethics leads to extermination. I could an agree more about the inherent evil and violence of States as the have a legal monopoly on the initiation of force. > The real issue, IMHO, is that while a "heathen/pagan" may or may not > really care upon the fact that a bordering culture lives according to > different values or beliefs, monotheism *requires* conversion or > destruction of the unfaithful. No, it doesn't. Many monotheists could care less if others go straight to whatever version of hell or if they do care understand the importance of free choice. > Irrespective, and in addition, to any > kind of actual conflict of interests it may help to hide and > legitimise. > > As far as modern, secular ideologies I concerned, it is my impression > that in most cases they inherit from both traditions, and one can > easily guess from where they pick their most intolerant traits. > Check out the NAP and voluntarist social models. - s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Aug 2 03:17:43 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 20:17:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Current Psychology In-Reply-To: <4C532074.3050702@berkeley.edu> References: <4C532074.3050702@berkeley.edu> Message-ID: 2010/7/30 Michael Schock : This is my first post! ?Hope I'm > replying according to protocol. ?:) Welcome to the list, Michael. Re protocol, It's been my impression that the folks hereabouts aren't too stuffy. Civility is admirable of course, but I think what we all hunger for is something that takes us just a little further along the way of curiosity, some insight not seen before, but fortuitously spotted -- and brought home to share -- by that person in the right place at the right time and with just the right perspective to catch it. So I renew Decartes' challenge: "Amaze me!" Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard til you know how to do it." Ray Charles From spike66 at att.net Mon Aug 2 03:46:11 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 20:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] plain text strange = chars was Not very bright In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <66146.90170.qm@web81506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Sat, 7/24/10, BillK wrote: ... >In this particular case it was the notorious Mr Gregory Jones.? ;) >Spike appears to be using Yahoo Mail Classic... ... BillK Apologies for this.?? About a month ago I started having trouble with my email program and have too much on my plate at the moment to go figure out why it works only intermittently, so I have been using this Yahoo product as an interrim solution.? I came back from?parents'?50 wedding anniversary celebration?yesterday to find my modem had perished, so I ran down to Frys and procured a new one, got that working with the help of my very own data-enabled spousal unit.? But fixing the email program is still too low on my immediate?do-it list, with elderly parents and youngerly offspring both getting higher priority for the?near term?foreseeable. ? Jim I do apologize, but don't give up on me, man. ? spike ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Aug 2 04:33:37 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 21:33:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 5:00 AM, wrote: > I don't know what are Dr Clark's claims, but I would be far from > suggesting that Western Europe was the first place that experienced the > phenomenons of increased literacy... That was a small part of the thesis Dr. Clark presents. His book is excellent, but you can get most of the basics from here: http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf I strongly recommend you read this. It's not much longer than a day of Extropian Chat. Keith From spike66 at att.net Mon Aug 2 04:11:58 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 21:11:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] where the heck is j. andrew rogers? Message-ID: >...I've no beef with ... Best, Jeff Davis I know it is a weakness of human nature to become emotionally invested in inconsequential tribal spats, but people who want to be transhumanists need to be able to get past that almost as a prerequisite. In fact, a good portion of the transhumanist ideals are all about shedding this behavior. j. andrew rogers Where the heck is J. Andrew Rogers these days? He lives around here somewhere, but I haven't seen him in a couple years now, since one of Eliezer's events. Anyone here know what is up with him? Do invite him to drop in, and let him know we miss his insights, his deeply human, admirable in every way style. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Aug 2 04:41:05 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 21:41:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > Message-ID: . >That was a small part of the thesis Dr. Clark presents. His book is excellent, but you can get most of the basics from here: http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf >I strongly recommend you read this... Keith . . . Ja, excellent article on many levels, thanks Keith. I like his term "genetically capitalist." I have somehow always recognized that there seems to be something like a genetically inclined capitalists. I feel I am one myself, but it is hard to explain how. spike . . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Aug 2 05:35:16 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 22:35:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] where the heck is j. andrew rogers? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C565914.5010807@mac.com> spike wrote: > >...I've no beef with ... Best, Jeff Davis > > I know it is a weakness of human nature to become > emotionally invested in inconsequential tribal spats, > but people who want to be transhumanists need to be > able to get past that almost as a prerequisite. In fact, > a good portion of the transhumanist ideals are all about shedding this > behavior. > j. andrew rogers > > > Where the heck is J. Andrew Rogers these days? He lives around here > somewhere, but I haven't seen him in a couple years now, since one of > Eliezer's events. Anyone here know what is up with him? Do invite > him to drop in, and let him know we miss his insights, his deeply > human, admirable in every way style. > I see him online in various groups, usually setting us straight about some bit of tech wizardly the rest of us were a bit sideways about. Haven't seen him in the flesh in about a year. Then he was talking IIRC about some very cool GIS advanced stuff he had done and was apparently making his daily off of at the time. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Aug 2 05:53:53 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 22:53:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> Tomasz Rola wrote: > > On the other hand, one could hardly disagree with these Hitler's words: > > "I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that > the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But > the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an > agent of the State ..." > > I disagree vehemently with this! The "community" is only a collection of individuals. It has no special rights that trump those of the individuals it is composed of. The widespread belief that it does is precisely what makes horrors such as Nazism possible. It is what is destroying even that one time symbol of deepest appreciation of the individual and individual rights, America. > Sounds like good presidential candidate, isn't he? > > I hope this is sarcasm. > [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism ] > > Now, the problem is, every Nazi individual could implement this ideology > in slightly different way. Even in some cases, he could only pay lip > service to it. While this is not freeing him from guilt, such cases must > be treated differently from cases of active supporters of Nazism. And I > see nothing unusual in this approach. > > >> Mr. Rola, if your philosophy is so nambe-pambe that you're too squeamish >> to even condemn the Nazis then something is seriously wrong! >> > > Mr Clark, my philosophy is, everybody should get what he deserves. But > before I tell what he deserves, his case should be examined. Otherwise I > am no better than a mob. > Unless given your adulation for the above the mob says he deserves X in which case you think your individual opinion is not relevant, no? > It is nothing like being weak minded. Quite the contrary, I think it is > weak thing to go by, flow with the current, without questioning things and > agree with everybody around without objection, just because "everybody > does so". You sound like a healthy individualist there. > To be a good man, good human, means to me actively researching > and making decisions. I mean, to be good, one has to be active, not > passive. To make decisions is to actually do some mental work, not simply > accepting being told (or suggested, like the news do) what to think. > Yep. > There is nothing wrong with it. I can be either right or wrong or between. > If I am right, I am right. In other cases, I should learn and understand, > so I can correct myself. > > >>>> writer Naguib Mahfouz who's novel is banned in most of the Islamic >>>> world for >>>> blasphemy. >>>> >>> Well, Nobel Prize wouldn't be worth much if it wasn't controversial. >>> >> I'm not talking about being controversial, I'm talking about using force >> to prevent someone from reading a novel from a Nobel Prize winner. Are >> you really sure you want to defend this? >> > > No. I am sure that I am for allowing people to choose by themselves. I > consider this to be an error on the part of Islamic authorities. The first error is even allowing such "authorities" in the first place. But by the Hitler quote above that you admire I suppose you are in principle find with any claimed "voice for the community or collective" "authorities". > As I have > mentioned in one earlier post, such overreaction is a sign of weakness or > lack of confidence. This might be connected with possible cultural shock, > that Islamic world experienced after WW2. Are you making excuses for an inexcusable breach of human rights? Why? > >>> the very fact that Islam is dysfunctional shouldn't stop me from >>> analysing it. >>> >> But it should stop you from defending it. >> > > I am not defending it. I refuse to attack it before I find good reason for > this. That's a big difference. But it does not prevent me from condemning > terrorists (of all kinds), for example. > Have you looked at it much at all? Irrational religion (is there another kind?)? Check. Militantly intolerant? In many parts of the world, Check. Anti-individual rights? Mostly, Check. What exactly do you need to examine beyond this? > >>>> This last part is aimed at the apologists for all religions not just >>>> Islam, when they preach about the wonderful things these organizations >>>> have done they always ignore one little fact, it's all based on a >>>> colossal lie. Doesn't the truth count for something? >>>> >>> If you mean lie about God's existence, this had not been proved yet. Truth >>> would count much more if you could prove it. Before that, "lie" is true in >>> 50%... or more. >>> >> Mr. Rola, regarding Christian or Islamic philosophy, did you really find >> it necessary to put the word lie into weasel quotation marks, and is >> this really a direction you want this debate to move in? >> > > I have no intention of moving this debate anywhere. Mr Clark, if you want > to escape from belief, you cannot use belief-based arguments. So, if you > would like to prove that God does not exist, you should use rational > arguments. *sputter* It is up to asserters to prove God does exist. Not the other way around. > So, like in math books, we start with A, B, C, and go on using > logic until we arrive to Z which states "God does not exist". Also I would hope you know that proving a negative is scarcely possible. You can show contradictions or that necessary consequences of the truth of a proposition do not occur. The first is not that difficult with most notions of "God". The second is not doable as "God's Will" is always claimed to be mysterious and beyond our puny understanding. Not to mention that the priesthoods go through pains usually to make no predictions. When one of their member does and it falls flat generally no one changes their belief one iota. > And after > that, "quod erat demonstrandum" (which was to be proved), but this last > sentence is optional. For a good example of how they do this, I remember > group theory from my algebra course. This is what would satisfy me. > > What? That leads me to think I am wasting my time typing this. - s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 2 11:30:39 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 07:30:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. Message-ID: > Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > > On the other hand, one could hardly disagree with these Hitler's words: > > "I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that > the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But > the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an > agent of the State ..." > Sounds like good presidential candidate, isn't he? A democratic presidential candidate?would be unlikely to use the word 'state' and 'control' often in the same?sentence -- it makes dyed-in-the-wool indivualists and libertarians and even those in the middle very uncomfortable. Hitler constantly did this. His shtick was to say to his people that everything would be alright as long as they surrendered control to the state. But first he would whip up their insecurities -- deep-seated and fairly universal--about the state of the world: economic, social, racial, technological and national. Psychologists call it "anchoring. You take a universal fear or feeling -- such as existential loneliness, for example -- and you connect it with an external entity, such as a political party or a religion or a cult. "You feel this way. But if you join us and relinquish your individuality for the sake of rigid hierarchy, those feelings will disappear and you'll be safe." This has to be repeated over and over in order for the neural-linguistic programming to take effect, and Hitler did that. He says it in practically every speech, and of course, the fasces, the symbol of his political ideology, is a faggot of sticks held together by a twisted bar of iron. There is a fasces engraved on the wall of the U.S. Congress, btw. >Samantha wrote: > The "community" is only a collection > of individuals. It has no special rights that trump those of the > individuals it is composed of. The widespread belief that it does is > precisely what makes horrors such as Nazism possible. It is what is > destroying even that one time symbol of deepest appreciation of the > individual and individual rights, America. Rampant indivualism is one of the reasons corporate America has been able to join forces with the government of America (and other countries of the west) to erode the rights and freedoms of those same individuals it proclaims to exalt. I would also argue that it was in part what made Nazi-ism possible as well. Crush the unions, under-fund the NGO's, create powerful corporate lobbies that out-perform grassroots lobbies, insist to your people that they are genuine individuals dependent upon no-one and accountable to no-one and that their individual freedom is more valuable than anything else on one hand, and on the other scare them by insisting that they are alone and vulnerable (because you have destroyed all their collective power-bases.) Then you make your move. This is what fascist governments usually do. We often confuse fascism with racism, because it was such an obvious feature of Nazi-ism. But this is only a narrow component. A broader definition would be simply a welding together of government and industry at the expense of the citizenry. My favorite explanation of it is by FDR's vice-president Henry Wallace in his 1944 New York Times essay, "It Can Happen Here," http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm As an (I hope) interesting aside, Hitler early in his reign issued an edict (or proclamation or whatever he called it) to restaurants across Germany that told them exactly how to cook lobster, and to make sure they were dead before going into the hot water. He considered boiling lobster alive to be inhumane. Besides the obvious irony, this only proves to me that Hitler was human and not a sub-human or inhuman monster. I don't mean to imply that he wasn't grossly horrific in his humanity. I just think Elie Weisel's words apply when thinking about the Nazi empire. He said (general paraphrase) that if we think of the Nazis as inhuman monsters and not as humans capable of monstrous acts then we will be unlikely to be able to prevent it when it starts happening again. My two cents. Darren > > > > I hope this is sarcasm. > > > [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism ] > > Now, the problem is, every Nazi individual could implement this ideology > in slightly different way. Even in some cases, he could only pay lip > service to it. While this is not freeing him from guilt, such cases must > be treated differently from cases of active supporters of Nazism. And I > see nothing unusual in this approach. > > > > Mr. Rola, if your philosophy is so nambe-pambe that you're too squeamish > to even condemn the Nazis then something is seriously wrong! > > > > Mr Clark, my philosophy is, everybody should get what he deserves. But > before I tell what he deserves, his case should be examined. Otherwise I > am no better than a mob. > > > Unless given your adulation for the above the mob says he deserves X in > which case you think your individual opinion is not relevant, no? > > > > It is nothing like being weak minded. Quite the contrary, I think it is > weak thing to go by, flow with the current, without questioning things and > agree with everybody around without objection, just because "everybody > does so". > > You sound like a healthy individualist there. > > > To be a good man, good human, means to me actively researching > and making decisions. I mean, to be good, one has to be active, not > passive. To make decisions is to actually do some mental work, not simply > accepting being told (or suggested, like the news do) what to think. > > > Yep. > > > > There is nothing wrong with it. I can be either right or wrong or between. > If I am right, I am right. In other cases, I should learn and understand, > so I can correct myself. > > > > writer Naguib Mahfouz who's novel is banned in most of the Islamic > world for > blasphemy. > > > Well, Nobel Prize wouldn't be worth much if it wasn't controversial. > > > I'm not talking about being controversial, I'm talking about using force > to prevent someone from reading a novel from a Nobel Prize winner. Are > you really sure you want to defend this? > > > > No. I am sure that I am for allowing people to choose by themselves. I > consider this to be an error on the part of Islamic authorities. > > The first error is even allowing such "authorities" in the first > place. But by the Hitler quote above that you admire I suppose you are > in principle find with any claimed "voice for the community or > collective" "authorities". > > > > As I have > mentioned in one earlier post, such overreaction is a sign of weakness or > lack of confidence. This might be connected with possible cultural shock, > that Islamic world experienced after WW2. > > Are you making excuses for an inexcusable breach of human rights? Why? > > > > > > > the very fact that Islam is dysfunctional shouldn't stop me from > analysing it. > > > But it should stop you from defending it. > > > > I am not defending it. I refuse to attack it before I find good reason for > this. That's a big difference. But it does not prevent me from condemning > terrorists (of all kinds), for example. > > > Have you looked at it much at all? Irrational religion (is there > another kind?)? Check. Militantly intolerant? In many parts of the > world, Check. Anti-individual rights? Mostly, Check. What exactly > do you need to examine beyond this? > > > > > > This last part is aimed at the apologists for all religions not just > Islam, when they preach about the wonderful things these organizations > have done they always ignore one little fact, it's all based on a > colossal lie. Doesn't the truth count for something? > > > If you mean lie about God's existence, this had not been proved yet. Truth > would count much more if you could prove it. Before that, "lie" is true in > 50%... or more. > > > Mr. Rola, regarding Christian or Islamic philosophy, did you really find > it necessary to put the word lie into weasel quotation marks, and is > this really a direction you want this debate to move in? > > > > I have no intention of moving this debate anywhere. Mr Clark, if you want > to escape from belief, you cannot use belief-based arguments. So, if you > would like to prove that God does not exist, you should use rational > arguments. > > *sputter* It is up to asserters to prove God does exist. Not the other > way around. > > > So, like in math books, we start with A, B, C, and go on using > logic until we arrive to Z which states "God does not exist". > > Also I would hope you know that proving a negative is scarcely > possible. You can show contradictions or that necessary consequences > of the truth of a proposition do not occur. The first is not that > difficult with most notions of "God". The second is not doable as > "God's Will" is always claimed to be mysterious and beyond our puny > understanding. Not to mention that the priesthoods go through pains > usually to make no predictions. When one of their member does and it > falls flat generally no one changes their belief one iota. > > > And after > that, "quod erat demonstrandum" (which was to be proved), but this last > sentence is optional. For a good example of how they do this, I remember > group theory from my algebra course. This is what would satisfy me. > > > > What? That leads me to think I am wasting my time typing this. > > > - s > > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing > list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon Aug 2 12:10:44 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 05:10:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A new gel can cause decayed teeth to regenerate! Message-ID: I take back any bad thing I may have ever said about the French! http://sify.com/news/new-gel-that-can-help-decayed-teeth-grow-news-scitech-kh1rahfdejc.html John : ) From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Aug 2 14:29:48 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 07:29:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Keith Henson wrote: > >> As you point out, Islamic culture was more advanced than western >> culture at one time. ?The question is not so much about Muslims being >> held back but why western culture (Jews included) shot ahead. ?Clark >> calls this the great divergence and it is the major characteristic of >> the world since the industrial revolution. > > Funny, I ask myself this question from time to time. Maybe I will find the > answer in "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" by Jared > Diamond (when I find some time for it). Diamond is an excellent writer. You should read GG&S plus his more recent book Collapse. But he doesn't have a handle on such topics as EP. Nor does he have solutions of the engineering/Extropian kind. Keith From jebdm at jebdm.net Mon Aug 2 07:15:10 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 02:15:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> Message-ID: Hi, I'm new here. My name is Jebadiah Moore, pleased to meet you. 2010/8/2 samantha > The "community" is only a collection of individuals. It has no special > rights that trump those of the individuals it is composed of. > I'm not going to go into rights or how they should be assigned, but I think your assumption that a community is "only" a collection of individuals is faulty on two levels. First, you can look at "the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual" as saying that whenever a decision must be made where one option aides many and one option aides only one, the "right" choice is the one which aides the many. I don't think this is quite how Hitler meant it, but it is quite possible to create a rule favoring the community (= a group of individuals) without recognizing any special status of a community separate from its constituents. Second, and more importantly, a community ought to be thought of as an entity in its own right, not just as a collection of individuals. Saying that a community is only a collection of individuals is like saying that a human is only a collection of cells. It's true, in the sense that a community is composed entirely of individuals (well, plus perhaps some cultural artifacts, memes, etc.), but it's a bad way of looking at things because it makes you miss the forest for the trees. Now, whether or not you want to assign value to the community separately from individuals is really your call. But it's pretty clear that it's worthwhile to view a community as an entity (due to various emergent phenomena), and that a lot of people do view communities this way, and that people *value* communities this way. In particular, they seem invested in trying to maintain the stability, influence, and "essence" (as they perceive it) of the communities they belong to, both during their own lifetimes and into the future. Perhaps this is a social simulacrum of the evolutionary drive to support your gene pool. Regardless of whether you value communities separately or not, it seems quite possible to make the argument that, at least in many forms, the assignment of value to communities and the resulting behaviors work to decrease individual happiness. Of course, I can also think of ways in which valuing the community increases individual happiness. I'd love to hear your arguments, since you seem to feel strongly about this ("The widespread belief that it does is precisely what makes horrors such as Nazism possible. It is what is destroying even that one time symbol of deepest appreciation of the individual and individual rights, America."). -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Mon Aug 2 16:52:00 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 18:52:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, samantha wrote: > Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > > On the other hand, one could hardly disagree with these Hitler's words: > > > > "I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that > > the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But > > the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an > > agent of the State ..." > > I disagree vehemently with this! The "community" is only a collection of > individuals. It has no special rights that trump those of the individuals it > is composed of. The widespread belief that it does is precisely what makes > horrors such as Nazism possible. It is what is destroying even that one time > symbol of deepest appreciation of the individual and individual rights, > America. And now I also am controversial. I have interpreted the above quotation out of context of whatever else Hitler did/said (and without counting how many people have been killed because of his inspiration). My understanding was that everybody (including individuals) should pay attention to the fact, that he is not alone and in fact a part of community. Unless he wants to be in a community of one. Which of course he can. How about founding his own hospital, because, well, health insurance is all about community sharing risks and expenditures? As of individualism in America, well while I've been never interested in looking for hard facts, my understanding is, it is as rare in America as anywhere else, including Antarctica. But it's optimistic that there are more individualists in USA than on the Moon and Mars combined (did I mention that I am optimist under my hard skin?). The fact that individualism is praised by everybody has nothing to do with reality. And in rare cases this very same individualism takes such monstrous form, that the whole country, both big and rich, and admirable in many aspects, gets endangered of being drowned to the bottom with financial crisis. If the guys who did this were individuals, I would rather see them controlled, just a little. So that they don't shit into bank accounts of all of us. > > Sounds like good presidential candidate, isn't he? > > > I hope this is sarcasm. It was... partially. If you didn't know the candidate's name was Hitler, maybe you would feel surprised about his words, but not as offended as you were. > > Mr Clark, my philosophy is, everybody should get what he deserves. But > > before I tell what he deserves, his case should be examined. Otherwise I am > > no better than a mob. > > > > Unless given your adulation for the above the mob says he deserves X in which > case you think your individual opinion is not relevant, no? Why you think so? My individual opinion is always relevant, but realistically, it will not always be paid attention to by other people. > > It is nothing like being weak minded. Quite the contrary, I think it is weak > > thing to go by, flow with the current, without questioning things and agree > > with everybody around without objection, just because "everybody does so". > > You sound like a healthy individualist there. So maybe I am one. Surprised? > > > > > writer Naguib Mahfouz who's novel is banned in most of the Islamic > > > > > world for blasphemy. > > > > > > > > > Well, Nobel Prize wouldn't be worth much if it wasn't controversial. > > > > > > > I'm not talking about being controversial, I'm talking about using force > > > to prevent someone from reading a novel from a Nobel Prize winner. Are you > > > really sure you want to defend this? > > > > > > > No. I am sure that I am for allowing people to choose by themselves. I > > consider this to be an error on the part of Islamic authorities. > > The first error is even allowing such "authorities" in the first place. But > by the Hitler quote above that you admire I suppose you are in principle find > with any claimed "voice for the community or collective" "authorities". Great. First of all, who should disallow such authorities? You mean, there is somebody on this planet who has the right to insist how people in other, independent countries should make their own choices? How is this different from what those bad authorities do? Because it is "us" telling "them" - so this is better than "them" telling "us"? And yes, I am not sure about it but from what I heard it were people in those countries themselves, who chosed their authorities (at least, they allowed them to rise). Even in Afghanistan, there was communist (i.e. definitely non-islamic) government. How did it fail? There was no support for it. And there was support for Talibans. So they took over. And they were bad. But they were supported, at least for some time. So, if their own people supported them and allowed for their taking power, what we should do? We can _suggest_ them that being intollerant and violent is a bad thing and they are doing disservice to themselves with it. We should execute (or otherwise neutralise) terrorists who come to us, trying to force us to their way by violence (we can kill them abroad too, if this is the best way of dealing with them). Other than this, we don't have much to say about the lives of ordinary folk (unless they themselves ask for help). My personal limits are, when there is a country wide hunger and concentration camps (or when there is another suggestion that masses are being forced to something they don't like). However, from what I see, in such case almost nobody blows the whistle (and this repeats over and over, during last 100 years). > > As I have mentioned in one earlier post, such overreaction is a sign of > > weakness or lack of confidence. This might be connected with possible > > cultural shock, that Islamic world experienced after WW2. > > Are you making excuses for an inexcusable breach of human rights? Why? Am I excusing them? If I say, for example, that drug abusers and criminals come from dysfunctional families, is it excusing? One can deal with criminals, and new ones will keep coming. If you don't want to understand the roots of the problem, you will not solve it. Prove me wrong. Really, I will be delighted to improve. There was (and is) a lot of unexcusable breach of human rights in a number of countries. Some (not all) of those countries are Islamic. There are also countries, from which I don't hear about such breaches and again, some of them are Islamic. So, bad things happen in some Islamic countries and don't happen in some other Islamic countries. Is it logical to blame _all_ Islamic countries? Is it just? If you accept not being just and right, what is your entitlement to survival? > > > > the very fact that Islam is dysfunctional shouldn't stop me from > > > > analysing it. > > > > > > > But it should stop you from defending it. > > > > > > > I am not defending it. I refuse to attack it before I find good reason for > > this. That's a big difference. But it does not prevent me from condemning > > terrorists (of all kinds), for example. > > > > Have you looked at it much at all? I have looked at it, not much, because my time is to be devoted for something else. But at least I have found some time to refute some of my beliefs about them. > Irrational religion (is there another kind?)? Check. Other people's belief is not my problem (unless they believe they should come to me with pitchforks and burning torches). If you really believe irrational religion is main problem of this world, maybe you should start cleaning your own backyard first? > Militantly intolerant? In many parts of the world, Check. > Anti-individual rights? Mostly, Check. What exactly do you need to examine > beyond this? Uhum. Like, how many of them are actually guilty of this? Estimates say, there is 1-1.5 bilion of Muslims. If they all wanted our death, we should be already screwed long ago. > > I have no intention of moving this debate anywhere. Mr Clark, if you want to > > escape from belief, you cannot use belief-based arguments. So, if you would > > like to prove that God does not exist, you should use rational arguments. > > *sputter* It is up to asserters to prove God does exist. Not the other way > around. You can prove me whatever you want. Either God's existance or nonexistance. You are welcome. When you actually show me the proof, I will accept it (if I find it acceptable - my criteria are crearly stated, I think). Before any side shows me the proof of their being right, I refuse to choose sides. My choice. It is also my choice to bend more towards one side, mostly because I consider myself a humanist in the first place, and "capitalist" next (well, not big capitalist I am really, having not so much capital). I see no problem with this. I have seen a lot of good people who leaned towards the same side so I am in a good company. > What? That leads me to think I am wasting my time typing this. Ah, let's not be so precise. Who is wasting time, whatever. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Aug 2 16:28:20 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:28:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 29 July 2010 18:23, Keith Henson wrote: >>The question is not so much about Muslims being >> held back but why western culture (Jews included) shot ahead. > > I am not aware of any Sephardic Jews's shot ahead. Which branch of the graph in figure one of Clark's research paper did they take? Figure 1 World Economic History in One Picture. After 1800 income in some societies rose sharply, while in others it declined. The Malthusian Trap ? Economic Life to 1800 A spare but powerful economic model, which requires only three basic assumptions, and can be explained in graphs, explains why technological advance improved material living conditions only after 1800. > As to European culture shot ahead starting with the Renaissance, I > suspect that the "extremism" of christianism, in comparison with Islam > and Hebraism, generated with time a stronger reaction from the > cultural background than, say, Islam did in India, leading to a > quicker and more radical emancipation of philosophy and science from > monotheistic darkness. I am surprised that people on this list put such a large importance on religions as moving forces in the world. In my estimation the horse collar or invention of Watt's steam engine, or the Newcomen engine that proceeded it was more important than religions. The EP model classes religions as a derived feature of human behavior as intermittent predators on other humans. Keith From spike66 at att.net Mon Aug 2 17:45:46 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> Message-ID: <512235.23480.qm@web81506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ? Tomasz Rola wrote: On the other hand, one could hardly disagree with these Hitler's words: "I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ..." . . I would agree with him up to the first comma,?but dispute every comment thereafter.? He could replace that first comma with a period and come to a full stop, no further explanation needed. . spike . . ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Mon Aug 2 18:20:51 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 20:20:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > Hi, I'm new here. My name is Jebadiah Moore, pleased to meet you. Hello, Mr Moore. Welcome to the bar fight (or, I mean, a debate). Have fun :-) Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Aug 2 17:41:47 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 12:41:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Article: Biotech movement hopes to spur rise of citizen scientists (2010-08-02) Message-ID: Biotech movement hopes to spur rise of citizen scientists http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/08/02/biotech_movement_hopes_to_spur_rise_of_citizen_scientists/# """ If we are to believe transhumanists, people who bill themselves as champions of superlongevity and artificial human enhancement, 2045 should be a very good year. According to one of the movement?s leading figures, inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil, that?s when humans will achieve immortality through a blend of genetics, nanotechnology, robotics, and artificial intelligence. Transhumanists point to exciting technological trends ? such as those showing how computer chips are growing smaller, cheaper, and faster ? as evidence that Kurzweil?s breakthrough moment, called the singularity, is near. All that most of us need to do, transhumanists say, is wait. But the message is not sitting well with at least one transhumanist, Joseph Jackson, who warns the singularity will not get closer to reality if it depends on a biotechnology industry that runs away from risk and is more interested in increasing revenues. ?Technologists extrapolate these trends from certain domains and completely overestimate the progress we?ll make,?? said Jackson, a Harvard University graduate who is developing a low-cost device to help scientists study DNA outside major laboratories. ?Twenty years will tick by, and we?ll still be waiting.?? At Humanity+, a transhumanist conference held at Harvard in June, Jackson slammed the biotech industry for having ?burned through more than $40 billion since its inception, before finally turning a profit in 2009.?? Rather, Jackson is calling on his fellow transhumanists to take a bootstrap approach to conquering disease and death. His alternative to proprietary research and patent-protected drugs ? and an industry that focuses on drugs to treat hair loss and impotence, while the world?s poor die of malaria and other illnesses ? is an ?open science?? model. Under his vision, scientists freely share their discoveries, and build upon those made by others. (He did credit GlaxoSmithKline for saying earlier this year that it will share its chemical database with those seeking to develop malaria drugs.) Jackson says open science will speed innovation in the same way the open source code movement revolutionized Internet applications. He also wants transhumanists to support the thousands of backyard tinkerers, known as citizen scientists, who are already studying microbes, mapping genomes, and seeking cures for diseases. He calls himself a citizen scientist. At Humanity+, he described the LavaAmp ? a pocket-size device for amateur DNA researchers ? he is helping to develop. Jackson recently hosted the Open Science Summit in Berkeley, Calif., which again highlighted the importance of sharing data. One of the speakers was Alexander Wait Zaranek, a research fellow in genetics at Harvard Medical School who is working to build bridges between open-science organizations, citizen scientists, and industry. Inevitably, Zaranek said, such major public-private efforts ?will springboard many new companies and provide ripe investment opportunities for [venture capitalists] and others.?? So far, transhumanists seem to be listening to Jackson?s pitch for open science and citizen science. The theme of the June conference was ?The Rise of the Citizen Scientist.?? But citizen scientists are only beginning to sort out how they will make sense of the vast amounts of data coming out of their backyard labs. Perhaps the best thing citizen scientists can do for the benefit of humanity is to turn all of their data over to a massively intelligent, fully autonomous thinking computer, according to artificial intelligence specialist Ben Goertzel. The Humanity+ cochair is working with a company studying the genomes of long-lived flies. ?What is really needed to cure diseases and extend life,?? Goertzel said, ?is to link together all available bio data in a vast public database, and then turn a community of brilliant AGIs [artificial general intelligences] to work on this unified database.?? AGIs, when they are developed, should also be given access to their own lab equipment and run their own experiments, Goertzel added. If the transhumanists are embracing citizens scientists, not all citizen scientists ? with their attention aimed at narrow research questions ? are fully embracing transhumanists? broader optimistic vision for the singularity. ?I do endorse the transhumanists? ideas of using technology to improve the human condition,?? said Timothy Marzullo of Backyard Brains, which sells a $100 kit that students and amateur scientists can use to hear and record the electrical activity of insect neurons. ?I also like how they seriously consider big, far-out ideas like cryonics.?? But Marzullo finds it hard to imagine how any research, however funded, will yield the results transhumanists seem to believe are not far off. ?It is hard for me to believe in the idea of the singularity,?? said Marzullo, ?when I am surrounded by our tragic inability to treat most neuroscience afflictions.?? """ - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Aug 2 18:19:54 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:19:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism in Boston Globe 8-2-10 In-Reply-To: <512235.23480.qm@web81506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <512235.23480.qm@web81506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20100802141954.pw49p9u9csg0kw0g@webmail.natasha.cc> http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/08/02/biotech_movement_hopes_to_spur_rise_of_citizen_scientists/# Transhumanism, Joseph Jackson and Ben Goertzel are in article! From rtomek at ceti.pl Mon Aug 2 18:57:55 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 20:57:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Keith Henson wrote: > I am surprised that people on this list put such a large importance on > religions as moving forces in the world. In my estimation the horse > collar or invention of Watt's steam engine, or the Newcomen engine > that proceeded it was more important than religions. Myself I am not much surprised (just a little), but I think that it's people who move the world. So whatever moves them, moves the world too. As of religion giving excuse for predatory practices, there are a lot of other philosophies doing this as well (including atheistic or antireligious one). So let's not blame religion alone, especially if what we care about is improving something. But I suspect the real culprit is greed, or even more it is evolution-related wish to spread our genes at the expense of other beings. IMHO we can go to great lenghts trying to hide from ourselves that what we really care about is to eat and to fsck. I find this fascinating. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From sparge at gmail.com Mon Aug 2 19:42:21 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:42:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > As of religion giving excuse for predatory practices, there are a lot of > other philosophies doing this as well (including atheistic or > antireligious one). For example? -Dave From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Aug 2 20:37:34 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:37:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Aug 1, 2010, at 5:37 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > This was part of their official philosophy. It promoted nobilitation of > one group (called Aryan race) while enslaving and eradicating other > groups seen as inferior (Jews, Gypsies, Black people, and a little later, > Slavic peoples). This was ideology, i.e. theory. Do you find the official Islamic philosophy to be significantly more ennobling? I don't, in fact most Islamic leaders were very sympathetic to the Nazis. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Osama bin Laden's intellectual godfather; he was given the equivalent of $10,000 a month for making propaganda broadcasts on radio Berlin. In March 1944, he said on the radio that there should be a jihad to "kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion." After the war he fled to Egypt which protected him from extradition for war crimes, in return he recruited former Nazi thugs to work in dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser's government. And by the way, the Arabic translation of Hitler's Mein Kampf is the 6'th largest bestselling book of all time among Palestinians. > > As I have mentioned in one earlier post, such overreaction is a sign of weakness or > lack of confidence. This might be connected with possible cultural shock, > that Islamic world experienced after WW2 Maybe maybe not, who cares. Let me say yet again, explaining why something sucks does not stop it from sucking. > I am not defending it. Like hell you're not! > I refuse to attack it before I find good reason for this. Holy shit! If you can't find something hateful in a philosophy as evil and incredibly stupid as Islam then there is something seriously wrong with you. > nobody has given such proof [that God exists], so we have to stick to probability. In > case when there are different events possible but we cannot tell anything > about their nature, we should give them equal probabilities. I don't > recall whose idea this was. However with it we have 50% chances that God > actually does exist. I can neither prove nor disprove that there is a bright green teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus, therefore there is a 50% chance there is a bright green teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus. > if you want to escape from belief, you cannot use belief-based arguments. So, if you > would like to prove that God does not exist, you should use rational arguments. Are you really suggesting that the infantile fairy tales that are the foundation of Christian and Islamic theology needs to be taken seriously? Is that why you took offense when I said it was all based on a colossal lie and your insistence on putting the word lie in quotation marks? Do really want to defend that stinking pile of colossal BULLSHIT?!! John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Aug 2 21:37:04 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 22:37:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Outsiders blamed for Easter Island's historic demise Message-ID: An archaeologist studying a remote Pacific island, world famous for its strange stone statues, says outsiders - and not its ancestors - should be blamed for its historic demise hundreds of years ago. Dr Karina Croucher from The University of Manchester says her research backs a growing body of opinion which casts new light on the people living on the island of Rapa Nui, named ?Easter Island? by its discoverers in 1722. ?Easter Islanders? ancestors have been unfairly accused by Westerners of being primitive and warlike, for toppling statues - or moai - and for over-exploiting the island?s natural resources,? she said. Dr Croucher, whose research is funded by the British Academy, added: ?There is a growing body of opinion which says history has been unkind to the Easter Islanders - and my research confirms and underlines that. ?Rather than a story of self-inflicted deprivation, I agree with the view that substantial blame has to rest with Western contact, ever since Easter Island?s first sighting by Jacob Roggeveen in 1722. ?Visitors brought disease, pests and slavery, resulting in the tragic demise of the local population and culture. ?There is little archaeological evidence to support the history of internal warfare and collapse before contact with the outside world.? BillK From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon Aug 2 22:05:35 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:05:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Keith, you wrote: Diamond is an excellent writer. You should read GG&S plus his more recent book Collapse. But he doesn't have a handle on such topics as EP. Nor does he have solutions of the engineering/Extropian kind. >>> I wish you would bite the bullet and come out with your own book on these subjects. John : ) On 8/2/10, Keith Henson wrote: > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote: >> >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Keith Henson wrote: >> >>> As you point out, Islamic culture was more advanced than western >>> culture at one time. ?The question is not so much about Muslims being >>> held back but why western culture (Jews included) shot ahead. ?Clark >>> calls this the great divergence and it is the major characteristic of >>> the world since the industrial revolution. >> >> Funny, I ask myself this question from time to time. Maybe I will find the >> answer in "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" by Jared >> Diamond (when I find some time for it). > > Diamond is an excellent writer. You should read GG&S plus his more > recent book Collapse. But he doesn't have a handle on such topics as > EP. Nor does he have solutions of the engineering/Extropian kind. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Aug 2 22:10:26 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:10:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> Message-ID: <4C574252.5070705@mac.com> Jebadiah Moore wrote: > Hi, I'm new here. My name is Jebadiah Moore, pleased to meet you. > > 2010/8/2 samantha > > > The "community" is only a collection of individuals. It has no > special rights that trump those of the individuals it is composed of. > > > I'm not going to go into rights or how they should be assigned, but I > think your assumption that a community is "only" a collection of > individuals is faulty on two levels. > > First, you can look at "the principle that the good of the community > takes priority over that of the individual" as saying that whenever a > decision must be made where one option aides many and one option aides > only one, the "right" choice is the one which aides the many. I don't > think this is quite how Hitler meant it, but it is quite possible to > create a rule favoring the community (= a group of individuals) > without recognizing any special status of a community separate from > its constituents. This is the wrong way to look at it. Either individuals have rights just on the basis of being human beings or they do not. If they do then it does not matter how many may benefit from violating those rights. It is still wrong. It is also wrong in that it implies that any numerically more numerous group may do whatever it wishes in principle both to every individual in that community and to the community itself. By such reasoning if it seems to the majority of the world more beneficial to destroy the US and parcel the assets thereof and of its citizens to everyone else then you would have no moral objection. > > Second, and more importantly, a community ought to be thought of as an > entity in its own right, not just as a collection of individuals. > Saying that a community is only a collection of individuals is like > saying that a human is only a collection of cells. It's true, in the > sense that a community is composed entirely of individuals (well, plus > perhaps some cultural artifacts, memes, etc.), but it's a bad way of > looking at things because it makes you miss the forest for the trees. It is your assertion it ought to be thought of as not only an entity but as an entity with more rights than possessed by the individuals that comprise it. And no, it is not the same thing as the cell-body analogy does not accurately map to the relationship of an individual human being to a community. > > Now, whether or not you want to assign value to the community > separately from individuals is really your call. But it's pretty > clear that it's worthwhile to view a community as an entity (due to > various emergent phenomena), and that a lot of people do view > communities this way, and that people *value* communities this way. > In particular, they seem invested in trying to maintain the > stability, influence, and "essence" (as they perceive it) of the > communities they belong to, both during their own lifetimes and into > the future. Perhaps this is a social simulacrum of the evolutionary > drive to support your gene pool. > > Regardless of whether you value communities separately or not, it > seems quite possible to make the argument that, at least in many > forms, the assignment of value to communities and the resulting > behaviors work to decrease individual happiness. Of course, I can > also think of ways in which valuing the community increases individual > happiness. I'd love to hear your arguments, since you seem to feel > strongly about this ("The widespread belief that it does is precisely > what makes horrors such as Nazism possible. It is what is destroying > even that one time symbol of deepest appreciation of the individual > and individual rights, America."). > You have already heard the core argument. It is not a mere topic for debate. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Aug 2 22:16:13 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:16:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C5743AD.3070202@mac.com> darren shawn greer wrote: > > > > >> Samantha wrote: >> > > > >> The "community" is only a collection >> of individuals. It has no special rights that trump those of the >> individuals it is composed of. The widespread belief that it does is >> precisely what makes horrors such as Nazism possible. It is what is >> destroying even that one time symbol of deepest appreciation of the >> individual and individual rights, America. >> > > > > Rampant indivualism is one of the > reasons corporate America has been able to join forces with the government of > America (and other countries of the west) to erode the rights and freedoms of > those same individuals it proclaims to exalt. Please think again about what you wrote there. In a limited government that truly respects individual rights and is utterly forbidden from violating them in any way there is no government coercive power over the rights of individuals to be sold to corporations or any other entity. It is only the departure from full recognition and support of individual rights that allows this. > I would also argue that it was in > part what made Nazi-ism possible as well. Crush the unions, under-fund the > NGO's, Unions when backed by coercive state power over the rights of individuals who happen to be employers tend to violations of individual rights. It is only individual rights and their inalienable superseding any desire of the state nature that is a fit protection against oppression by the State no matter what its nominal political stripe. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Mon Aug 2 22:17:24 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 00:17:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Dave Sill wrote: > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > As of religion giving excuse for predatory practices, there are a lot of > > other philosophies doing this as well (including atheistic or > > antireligious one). > > For example? In no particular order: - Nazism (this is complicated, while Nazism was antireligious it incorporated religion inspired elements) - Fascism (complicated, sometimes antireligious, sometimes cooperated with churches) - Communism - Anarchism (some forms) - Imperialism - Economic liberalism "Some argue foreign providers crowd out domestic providers and instead of leading to investment and the transfer of skills, it allow foreign providers and shareholders to capture the profits for themselves, taking the money out of the country" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalization ] - Laisses-faire capitalism "In Britain, in 1843, the newspaper The Economist was founded, and became an influential voice for laissez-faire capitalism.[10] In response to the Irish famine of 1846-1849, in which over 1.5 million people died of starvation, they argued that for the government to supply free food for the Irish would violate natural law." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez_faire ] - Nationalism - Racism - Feudalism - Atheism "The French Revolution took atheism and anti-clerical deism outside the salons and into the public sphere. A major goal of the French revolution was a restructuring and subordination of the clergy with respect to the state through the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Attempts to enforce it led to anti-clerical violence and the expulsion of many clergy from France." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism ] - Cult of Reason - This one is especially cool for me, as I find myself on the first step. I can't wait for depravities. I have always felt inclined to this kind of career. "The Cult of Reason was explicitly humanocentric. Its goal was the perfection of mankind through the attainment of truth and liberty, made possible only by the exercise of the human faculty of reason." (... enter French Revolution ...) "Numerous anti-clerical groups and events only loosely connected to the cult have come to be amalgamated with its name." (... and ...) "Fouch?? led a particularly brutal campaign of de-Christianization through many parts of France which helped spread the developing creed. Fouch?? ordered all crosses and statues removed from graveyards in his jurisdiction," (... come to Festival of Reason ...) "An altar to liberty was installed over the old one, and the inscription "To Philosophy" was carved into the church facade; the lengthy proceedings concluded with the appearance of a Goddess of Reason who, to avoid idolatry, was portrayed by a living woman.[6] Although some scholars have since said otherwise, [7] contemporary accounts reported the Festival of Reason as a "lurid", "licentious" affair of scandalous "depravities".[8]" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddess_of_Reason ] - Hedonism (some forms, I think) - Egoism - Sexism (both male chauvinism and women chauvinism, IMHO) Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Aug 2 22:44:32 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:44:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> Message-ID: <4C574A50.2040501@mac.com> Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, samantha wrote: > > >> Tomasz Rola wrote: >> >>> On the other hand, one could hardly disagree with these Hitler's words: >>> >>> "I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that >>> the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But >>> the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an >>> agent of the State ..." >>> >> I disagree vehemently with this! The "community" is only a collection of >> individuals. It has no special rights that trump those of the individuals it >> is composed of. The widespread belief that it does is precisely what makes >> horrors such as Nazism possible. It is what is destroying even that one time >> symbol of deepest appreciation of the individual and individual rights, >> America. >> > > And now I also am controversial. > > I have interpreted the above quotation out of context of whatever else > Hitler did/said (and without counting how many people have been killed > because of his inspiration). My understanding was that everybody > (including individuals) should pay attention to the fact, that he is > not alone and in fact a part of community. Unless he wants to be in a > community of one. Which of course he can. How about founding his own > hospital, because, well, health insurance is all about community sharing > risks and expenditures? > Being in a community is wonderful precisely to the degree that you can trade to benefit with others freely. It allows specialization and WIN-WIN across the board when that freedom of action is fully respected. Of course it is beneficial to have others around. That does not mean that the collection of all supersedes the very needs and rights of the individual which are the context of any benefit derived. > As of individualism in America, well while I've been never interested in > looking for hard facts, my understanding is, it is as rare in America as > anywhere else, including Antarctica. But it's optimistic that there are > more individualists in USA than on the Moon and Mars combined (did I > mention that I am optimist under my hard skin?). The fact that > individualism is praised by everybody has nothing to do with reality. > Empty blather. > And in rare cases this very same individualism takes such monstrous form, > that the whole country, both big and rich, and admirable in many aspects, > gets endangered of being drowned to the bottom with financial crisis. If > the guys who did this were individuals, I would rather see them > controlled, just a little. So that they don't shit into bank accounts of > all of us. > > The crisis came precisely from massively violating individual rights and freedom NOT from upholding them. >>> Sounds like good presidential candidate, isn't he? >>> >>> >> I hope this is sarcasm. >> > > It was... partially. If you didn't know the candidate's name was Hitler, > maybe you would feel surprised about his words, but not as offended as you > were. > > >>> Mr Clark, my philosophy is, everybody should get what he deserves. But >>> before I tell what he deserves, his case should be examined. Otherwise I am >>> no better than a mob. >>> >>> >> Unless given your adulation for the above the mob says he deserves X in which >> case you think your individual opinion is not relevant, no? >> > > Why you think so? My individual opinion is always relevant, but > realistically, it will not always be paid attention to by other people. > I should have said that your individual right and decision about what to do with your own life and property is not relevant under your scenario. Not merely your opinion. Rights are not a matter of opinion only. > >>> It is nothing like being weak minded. Quite the contrary, I think it is weak >>> thing to go by, flow with the current, without questioning things and agree >>> with everybody around without objection, just because "everybody does so". >>> >> You sound like a healthy individualist there. >> > > So maybe I am one. Surprised? > > >>>>>> writer Naguib Mahfouz who's novel is banned in most of the Islamic >>>>>> world for blasphemy. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Well, Nobel Prize wouldn't be worth much if it wasn't controversial. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I'm not talking about being controversial, I'm talking about using force >>>> to prevent someone from reading a novel from a Nobel Prize winner. Are you >>>> really sure you want to defend this? >>>> >>>> >>> No. I am sure that I am for allowing people to choose by themselves. I >>> consider this to be an error on the part of Islamic authorities. >>> >> The first error is even allowing such "authorities" in the first place. But >> by the Hitler quote above that you admire I suppose you are in principle find >> with any claimed "voice for the community or collective" "authorities". >> > > Great. First of all, who should disallow such authorities? You mean, there > is somebody on this planet who has the right to insist how people in > other, independent countries should make their own choices? How is this > different from what those bad authorities do? Because it is "us" telling > "them" - so this is better than "them" telling "us"? > The "authorities" are fine as long as they have no power whatsoever to force their opinions on individuals. I mean that even in a single country no other person or group of persons has any right to insist you do what they wish rather than what you wish unless what you wish directly violates the rights of others. The international case is just an extension. > And yes, I am not sure about it but from what I heard it were people in > those countries themselves, who chosed their authorities (at least, they > allowed them to rise). Even in Afghanistan, there was communist (i.e. > definitely non-islamic) government. How did it fail? There was no support > for it. And there was support for Talibans. So they took over. And they > were bad. But they were supported, at least for some time. So, if their > own people supported them and allowed for their taking power, what we > should do? > > There is no right to chose someone to take away your rights. I think you know better than to assume that one can always stop the rising of oppressors. So if not enough people effectively oppose a government that runs roughshod over human rights of the people then none of the people have anything really to complain about and it is OK? > We can _suggest_ them that being intollerant and violent is a bad thing > and they are doing disservice to themselves with it. We should execute (or > otherwise neutralise) terrorists who come to us, trying to force us to > their way by violence (we can kill them abroad too, if this is the best > way of dealing with them). Other than this, we don't have much to say > about the lives of ordinary folk (unless they themselves ask for help). We may not have the right to invade another country to impose our values on them. However we had best be damn clear about what our values are and use them to judge cleanly what is and is not acceptable behavior of governments and authorities. > My > personal limits are, when there is a country wide hunger and concentration > camps (or when there is another suggestion that masses are being forced > to something they don't like). However, from what I see, in such case > almost nobody blows the whistle (and this repeats over and over, during > last 100 years). > > So as long as the lights are on, most fed and most out of prison any other abrogations of human rights are just fine with you? BTW, the US incarcerates more people per capita and numerically than in nation ever. Which is an utter travesty especially considering the majority are imprisoned for victimless crimes. Yet the lights are on and people are well fed and there are no concentration camps unless you count prisons and perhaps public schools. :) >>> As I have mentioned in one earlier post, such overreaction is a sign of >>> weakness or lack of confidence. This might be connected with possible >>> cultural shock, that Islamic world experienced after WW2. >>> >> Are you making excuses for an inexcusable breach of human rights? Why? >> > > Am I excusing them? If I say, for example, that drug abusers and criminals > come from dysfunctional families, is it excusing? > No. But then it is not condemning either. > One can deal with criminals, and new ones will keep coming. If you don't > want to understand the roots of the problem, you will not solve it. Prove > me wrong. Really, I will be delighted to improve. > I don't buy that criminals only arise from broken homes and other less than optimal conditions. If you are asserting they do only so arise then the burden of proof is on you. > There was (and is) a lot of unexcusable breach of human rights in a number > of countries. Some (not all) of those countries are Islamic. There are > also countries, from which I don't hear about such breaches and again, > some of them are Islamic. So, bad things happen in some Islamic countries > and don't happen in some other Islamic countries. > Yep. The US abuses human rights quite a bit. And I agree that it is not at all an Islamic problem and that not all Islamic variants are problematic. The main discriminator of when Islam is bad may well be when there is not sufficient separation between religion and government. > Is it logical to blame _all_ Islamic countries? Is it just? If you accept > not being just and right, what is your entitlement to survival? > That they excuse abuse of human rights on religious grounds is not terribly relevant to me. The abuse of human rights is what I care about and care is noticed and roundly condemned in whatever circumstances it arises. > > >> Irrational religion (is there another kind?)? Check. >> > > Other people's belief is not my problem (unless they believe they should > come to me with pitchforks and burning torches). If you really believe > irrational religion is main problem of this world, maybe you should start > cleaning your own backyard first? > > I don't care what people believe but I have every right to laugh my ass off and condemn stupid belief systems. And they should have no legal coercive power over anyone. >> Militantly intolerant? In many parts of the world, Check. >> Anti-individual rights? Mostly, Check. What exactly do you need to examine >> beyond this? >> > > Uhum. Like, how many of them are actually guilty of this? Estimates say, > there is 1-1.5 bilion of Muslims. If they all wanted our death, we should > be already screwed long ago. > > It does not matter how many. It matter that instances of such violations are roundly condemned whenever they occur. >>> I have no intention of moving this debate anywhere. Mr Clark, if you want to >>> escape from belief, you cannot use belief-based arguments. So, if you would >>> like to prove that God does not exist, you should use rational arguments. >>> >> *sputter* It is up to asserters to prove God does exist. Not the other way >> around. >> > > You can prove me whatever you want. Either God's existance or > nonexistance. You are welcome. When you actually show me the proof, I will > accept it (if I find it acceptable - my criteria are crearly stated, I > think). > You can't prove a negative. It is up to the asserter. What part of that do you not understand? > Before any side shows me the proof of their being right, I refuse to > choose sides. My choice. It is also my choice to bend more towards one > side, mostly because I consider myself a humanist in the first place, and > "capitalist" next (well, not big capitalist I am really, having not so > much capital). I see no problem with this. I have seen a lot of good > people who leaned towards the same side so I am in a good company. > The failure to decide is the failure to actually grasp what is at stake and examine and conclude based on one's understanding. It is more about a type of cowardice than about fairness or wisdom. It does not matter how many people do or do not think like you or whether you find them likable folks or not. > >> What? That leads me to think I am wasting my time typing this. >> > > Pretending that proofs from some branch of mathematics are the type of thing required to make up your mind in this very unmathematical realm shows a lack of understanding and imposition of requirements before reaching conclusions that are inappropriate to the domain. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Aug 2 23:15:57 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:15:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C5751AD.3060702@mac.com> Tomasz Rola wrote: > > - Laisses-faire capitalism > > "In Britain, in 1843, the newspaper The Economist was founded, and became > an influential voice for laissez-faire capitalism.[10] In response to the > Irish famine of 1846-1849, in which over 1.5 million people died of > starvation, they argued that for the government to supply free food for > the Irish would violate natural law." > They were quite correct. Private people were free to donate as much food as they wished. As they were the ones who owned the food and/or money to procure it in the first place any other arrangement would have involved taking from them again their will and thus would have been immoral. - samantha From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 00:23:12 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 20:23:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 6:05 PM, John Grigg wrote: > I wish you would bite the bullet and come out with your own book on > these subjects. No, Keith has promised dollar a gallon fuel - let him focus on that, he can write memoirs about his other ideas when we're fatter, dumber and happier with ridiculously cheap energy. :) From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Aug 3 00:52:44 2010 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 17:52:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <4C5751AD.3060702@mac.com> Message-ID: <313044.57182.qm@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 8/2/10, samantha wrote: > Tomasz Rola wrote: > > "In Britain, in 1843, the newspaper The Economist was > founded, and became an influential voice for laissez-faire > capitalism.[10] In response to the Irish famine of > 1846-1849, in which over 1.5 million people died of > starvation, they argued that for the government to supply > free food for the Irish would violate natural law." > > They were quite correct.? Private people were free to > donate as much food as they wished.? As they were the > ones who owned the food and/or money to procure it in the > first place any other arrangement would have involved taking > from them again their will and thus would have been > immoral. Save for that whole "economies of scale" thing, wherein a larger entity (the government) could distribute aid much more effectively than individual private entities, which efficiency might preclude the decision to donate individually. (A cabbage or two is nothing against a famine, so why bother? It might just get fought over and produce more suffering. 1,000 tons of food - of many varieties, even - is another story.) From dynetis at hotmail.com Tue Aug 3 00:26:35 2010 From: dynetis at hotmail.com (Jerome Renaux) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 02:26:35 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:44:32 -0700 > From: samantha > > I don't buy that criminals only arise from broken homes and other less than optimal conditions. I'd be interested in hearing what other determinants of criminality you would propose. Well, insofar as you have any to propose, maybe you don't and simply don't believe that broken homes and similar are the only ones. That would be a perfectly understandable position actually but I tend to believe that you might have a few other such determinants in mind. (I didn't change the subject of the mail since it might be relevant to the current debate). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 01:49:15 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 18:49:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Keith Henson wrote: > >> I am surprised that people on this list put such a large importance on >> religions as moving forces in the world. ?In my estimation the horse >> collar or invention of Watt's steam engine, or the Newcomen engine >> that proceeded it was more important than religions. > > Myself I am not much surprised (just a little), but I think that it's > people who move the world. So whatever moves them, moves the world too. > > As of religion giving excuse for predatory practices, there are a lot of > other philosophies doing this as well (including atheistic or > antireligious one). I have been talking about this subject for nearly 25 years now. Here is one from about 1988. http://www.evolutionzone.com/kulturezone/memetics/henson.memes.metamemes.and.politics > So let's not blame religion alone, especially if what > we care about is improving something. But I suspect the real culprit is > greed, or even more it is evolution-related wish to spread our genes at > the expense of other beings. And this subject for at least 5 years, including a mathematical analysis that put numbers on how strong the selection in the EEA was. > IMHO we can go to great lenghts trying to hide from ourselves that what we > really care about is to eat and to fsck. I find this fascinating. It's actually a good idea to hide it from yourself. If you admit you have evolutionary sensible goals, you could wind up like I did, lambasted from the bench by a federal judge. Keith From rtomek at ceti.pl Tue Aug 3 03:23:47 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 05:23:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C574A50.2040501@mac.com> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C574A50.2040501@mac.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, samantha wrote: > Being in a community is wonderful precisely to the degree that you can trade > to benefit with others freely. It allows specialization and WIN-WIN across > the board when that freedom of action is fully respected. Of course it is > beneficial to have others around. That does not mean that the collection of > all supersedes the very needs and rights of the individual which are the > context of any benefit derived. Agreed. > The crisis came precisely from massively violating individual rights and > freedom NOT from upholding them. Ok, if you say so. I wish I had more time to investigate this but I didn't. The only thing I am pretty much sure is that money don't miraculously disappear, which makes me suspicious about someone getting his pockets well stuffed. But maybe I am prejudized. > > Why you think so? My individual opinion is always relevant, but > > realistically, it will not always be paid attention to by other people. > > I should have said that your individual right and decision about what to do > with your own life and property is not relevant under your scenario. Not > merely your opinion. Rights are not a matter of opinion only. Actually, my scenario is that interests of individuals and a community should be balanced, if possible. That's theory. In real life it depends on power distribution and good wishes. And it simply cannot always be done. One can learn to live with this or try to change the community. > > > The first error is even allowing such "authorities" in the first place. > > > But > > > by the Hitler quote above that you admire I suppose you are in principle > > > find > > > with any claimed "voice for the community or collective" "authorities". > > > > Great. First of all, who should disallow such authorities? You mean, there > > is somebody on this planet who has the right to insist how people in other, > > independent countries should make their own choices? How is this different > > from what those bad authorities do? Because it is "us" telling "them" - so > > this is better than "them" telling "us"? > > The "authorities" are fine as long as they have no power whatsoever to force > their opinions on individuals. I mean that even in a single country no other > person or group of persons has any right to insist you do what they wish > rather than what you wish unless what you wish directly violates the rights of > others. The international case is just an extension. Agreed. > There is no right to chose someone to take away your rights. I think you know > better than to assume that one can always stop the rising of oppressors. So Sure, I know. I've studied such cases a little bit, because I was interested how this actually happens. > if not enough people effectively oppose a government that runs roughshod over > human rights of the people then none of the people have anything really to > complain about and it is OK? To me it is either people oppose their gov (because they have reasons and they want it) or they don't. If they do something, and they give hopes of being better than their gov and they have sufficient number of supporters (active and passive), then helping them may change things for better. This is what took place in Afghanistan, I believe, where there actually was anti-taliban militia/guerilla. But if we have no real opposition there or just few unhappy individuals, than I cannot see any realistic way of doing anything. Other than helping them run away if they are in danger. > We may not have the right to invade another country to impose our values on > them. However we had best be damn clear about what our values are and use > them to judge cleanly what is and is not acceptable behavior of governments > and authorities. Agreed. > > My personal limits are, when there is a country wide hunger and > > concentration camps (or when there is another suggestion that masses are > > being forced to something they don't like). However, from what I see, in > > such case almost nobody blows the whistle (and this repeats over and over, > > during last 100 years). > > So as long as the lights are on, most fed and most out of prison any other > abrogations of human rights are just fine with you? I think if lights are on and majority is fed, then this is majority's job to clean their own house. If they don't feel like it's important or don't know how, I may give them some suggestions. If I am good enough for suggesting, I mean. If abuses take place, nothing will improve until they themselves decide to improve. If you start pushing them too hard they will simply close up their minds to any argument. Ok, there are special cases when this works, but I think in most of the cases nothing gets better with such approach. > > > > As I have mentioned in one earlier post, such overreaction is a sign of > > > > weakness or lack of confidence. This might be connected with possible > > > > cultural shock, that Islamic world experienced after WW2. > > > > > > Are you making excuses for an inexcusable breach of human rights? Why? > > > > Am I excusing them? If I say, for example, that drug abusers and criminals > > come from dysfunctional families, is it excusing? > > No. But then it is not condemning either. It is easy to condemn. BTW I thought it was a given that I support human rights. But OK, I condemn abusers but not societies that host them. I don't have enough information to condemn the whole community. Which is the point of the whole discussion, it seems. > > One can deal with criminals, and new ones will keep coming. If you don't > > want to understand the roots of the problem, you will not solve it. Prove me > > wrong. Really, I will be delighted to improve. > > I don't buy that criminals only arise from broken homes and other less than > optimal conditions. If you are asserting they do only so arise then the > burden of proof is on you. Criminals can come from many sources. One of them are dysfunctional families. If I don't want to pay attention to this, it's just what I hear from time to time ("hang the bastards" etc). However the problem remains. It's like not treating illness but rather give someone cold water because he has high temperature. There are many sources of crime, which are like many ills of the society. Shouldn't we search and treat illnesses, one by one? But instead the public opinion calls for cold water. Sure, water is ok but not as a treatment. And all of this resembles a shamanic ritual of worst kind rather than doing what should be done. The whole reasoning applies to this "other" kind of criminals, too (just in case you didn't notice). > > There was (and is) a lot of unexcusable breach of human rights in a number > > of countries. Some (not all) of those countries are Islamic. There are also > > countries, from which I don't hear about such breaches and again, some of > > them are Islamic. So, bad things happen in some Islamic countries and don't > > happen in some other Islamic countries. > > Yep. The US abuses human rights quite a bit. And I agree that it is not at > all an Islamic problem and that not all Islamic variants are problematic. The > main discriminator of when Islam is bad may well be when there is not > sufficient separation between religion and government. Right. I subscribe to this idea too. > > > > I have no intention of moving this debate anywhere. Mr Clark, if you > > > > want to > > > > escape from belief, you cannot use belief-based arguments. So, if you > > > > would > > > > like to prove that God does not exist, you should use rational > > > > arguments. > > > > > > > *sputter* It is up to asserters to prove God does exist. Not the other > > > way > > > around. > > > > You can prove me whatever you want. Either God's existance or nonexistance. > > You are welcome. When you actually show me the proof, I will accept it (if I > > find it acceptable - my criteria are crearly stated, I think). > > You can't prove a negative. It is up to the asserter. What part of that do > you not understand? I think I understand you quite well. Now, please you try to understand this: I've heard of no decisive argument neither pro nor against. And in a situation when I have no decisive argument, I really don't get all this fuss about making up my minds anyway. Especially that I see no urgent need for it. And because of lack of proper data this is no different than throwing a coin. This is all that I am asserting. I don't see anything to prove here because I only assert that there is 50-50 chance. > The failure to decide is the failure to actually grasp what is at stake and > examine and conclude based on one's understanding. It is more about a type of > cowardice than about fairness or wisdom. It does not matter how many people > do or do not think like you or whether you find them likable folks or not. Sometimes it is better to be called a coward than to make wrong decision. I have no way of logically decide which decision to make. So I am a coward. No problem for me. You didn't convince me. > > > What? That leads me to think I am wasting my time typing this. > > > Pretending that proofs from some branch of mathematics are the type of thing > required to make up your mind in this very unmathematical realm shows a lack > of understanding and imposition of requirements before reaching conclusions > that are inappropriate to the domain. Well, group theory simply came to my mind first. I am terribly sorry for this. If you don't like it, I am sure we can agree on something else. I am happy with any mathematical theory you like, mostly because I believe they all are built in similar fashion. They start with assumptions and they use logic to build upon them. If using logic I could come to something, I am ok with this. Otherwise, it seems like you insist that I make an act of faith (either to become believer or atheist). Scarry, especially if you would like me to become atheist. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 3 03:17:34 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 23:17:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6D8DFDAB-4147-4B50-A0BB-82EFE2E93BA8@bellsouth.net> On Aug 2, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > Nazism was antireligious Quotation from a speech Adolf Hitler gave on April 12 1922: "Today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. [...] My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 3 05:03:02 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 01:03:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C574A50.2040501@mac.com> Message-ID: <9012790E-0D19-4DF3-B235-1D6D9D332F59@bellsouth.net> A friend of mine recently pointed me to a very intelligent video on this subject that I thought was excellent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4 John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 3 05:40:01 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 22:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] FYI: Stuart's First Website Message-ID: <906897.43942.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> http://eyzwyde.com Hey all, Nothing to brag about but I, in the process of trying to gain?webmastering skills, have created a citizen journalism /?crowd-sourced news website called Eyzwyde Open News. I kind of envisioned it as a "neighborhood watch" program for the global village where anybody in the world could report local happenings and?opinion pieces from their unique perspectives without big media censorship or gatekeeping. After all what gives the media giants the *right* to decide that "balloon boy" is more?newsworthy than your best friend's wedding? Because CNN said so??Why is Bill O'Reilly's opinion on immigration?more important?than yours? Because he can shout down talking heads on his own TV show? The mainstream?media is rigged to tell you what the PTB want you to know. With such reasoning in mind, this is my paltry?gift to you all so?run with it as you wish. ?I did it in my spare time and it has no profit model so don't expect any bells and whistles. Please feel free to register and?embark on your hobby as an ace reporter, photographer, or op-ed writer. Any comments/critiques and/or technical volunteers would be appreciated as this is and will be a work in progress. Thank you all?for your time.??? ? Stuart LaForge "Old men read the lesson in the setting sun. Beat the cymbal and sing in this life, or wail away the hours fearing death. Their choice is their fortune." - I Ching From olga.bourlin at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 06:48:35 2010 From: olga.bourlin at gmail.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 23:48:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: <9012790E-0D19-4DF3-B235-1D6D9D332F59@bellsouth.net> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C574A50.2040501@mac.com> <9012790E-0D19-4DF3-B235-1D6D9D332F59@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/8/2 John Clark : > A friend of mine recently pointed me to a very intelligent video on this subject that I thought was excellent: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4 > John K Clark I find Pat Condell's style so obstreperous that he makes me want to turn him off. What exactly is "intelligent" about his video? (John, perhaps you can let us know what parts of the vid you especially liked?) On the other hand, here is something I find much more "intelligent": http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/street-level-view-of-ground-zero-mosque.html Olga From protokol2020 at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 08:36:07 2010 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:36:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C574A50.2040501@mac.com> <9012790E-0D19-4DF3-B235-1D6D9D332F59@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: He was talking about people like you, Olga. On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > 2010/8/2 John Clark : > > A friend of mine recently pointed me to a very intelligent video on this > subject that I thought was excellent: > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4 > > > John K Clark > > I find Pat Condell's style so obstreperous that he makes me want to > turn him off. What exactly is "intelligent" about his video? (John, > perhaps you can let us know what parts of the vid you especially > liked?) > > On the other hand, here is something I find much more "intelligent": > > > http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/street-level-view-of-ground-zero-mosque.html > > Olga > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 10:04:01 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 03:04:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Carl Sagan once conjectured that, if things had gone right, we'd be flying to the stars today Message-ID: Who is really to blame for what appeared to Carl Sagan, to be at least 500 years of lost time and opportunity in the development of human science and technology? >From Wikiquotes, quoting COSMOS: Imagine how different our world would be if those discoveries had been explained and used for the benefit of everyone, if the humane perspective of Eratosthenes had been widely adopted and applied. But this was not to be. Alexandria was the greatest city the Western world had ever seen. People from all nations came here to live to trade to learn, on a given day these harbours were thronged with merchants and scholars and tourists, it's probably here that the word Cosmopolitan realised its true meaning of a citizen not just of a nation but of the Cosmos, to be a citizen of the Cosmos. Here were clearly the seeds of our modern world, but why didn't they take root and flourish why instead did the Western world slumber through a 1000 years of darkness until Columbus and Copernicus and their contemporaries rediscovered the work done here? I cannot give you a simple answer but I do know this, there is no record in the entire history of the library that any of the illustrious scholars and scientists who worked here ever seriously challenged a single political or economic or religious assumption of the society in which they lived. The permanence of the stars was questioned, the justice of slavery was not. >>> I remember Sagan stating how a small steam engine developed by a Greek was seen as a mere entertaining toy by his countrymen, and the great potential of it totally eluded them. And this was probably in large part due to their slave based economy. And Sagan painfully (at least for me) lamented that if not for lost opportunities due to the Greeks (I would also add the Romans), and the following darkness of the Middle Ages, we would have starships returning to Earth from expeditions to Alpha Centauri right now! And so in other words, we would be at least *500 years* more technologically advanced than we are now!!! My question is, to what extent should we really portion out blame to the Greeks, Romans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Medieval Europe for what happened? And where could things have gone very right? And why did they not? Correspondingly, what caused The Enlightment to germinate and bring forth an on-going transformation that eluded the lofty Greeks and Medieval Europe? A part of me thinks that an immature and violent 15th century Europe (or a Greek world that never fell) with nukes would be a recipe for the permanent end of civilization! lol Perhaps things actually did work out for the best, because as it is, we as a race were just barely capable of handling the awful responsibilities that come with weapons of mass destruction. What do you think? John : ) From pharos at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 10:15:15 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:15:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Carl Sagan once conjectured that, if things had gone right, we'd be flying to the stars today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:04 AM, John Grigg wrote: > Who is really to blame for what appeared to Carl Sagan, to be at least > 500 years of lost time and opportunity in the development of human > science and technology? > > A part of me thinks that an immature and violent 15th century Europe > (or a Greek world that never fell) with nukes would be a recipe for > the permanent end of civilization! lol ?Perhaps things actually did > work out for the best, because as it is, we as a race were just barely > capable of handling the awful responsibilities that come with weapons > of mass destruction. > > What do you think? > > What are doing -starting a discussion at 3 am? Go to bed! ;) Obviously it's all the Muslim's fault. Stick with the program. BillK From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 12:21:27 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 05:21:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Carl Sagan once conjectured that, if things had gone right, we'd be flying to the stars today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: BillK wrote: >What are doing -starting a discussion at 3 am? Go to bed! ;) I couldn't sleep! Now get to work answering my historical questions... John : ) On 8/3/10, BillK wrote: > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:04 AM, John Grigg wrote: >> Who is really to blame for what appeared to Carl Sagan, to be at least >> 500 years of lost time and opportunity in the development of human >> science and technology? >> > >> A part of me thinks that an immature and violent 15th century Europe >> (or a Greek world that never fell) with nukes would be a recipe for >> the permanent end of civilization! lol ?Perhaps things actually did >> work out for the best, because as it is, we as a race were just barely >> capable of handling the awful responsibilities that come with weapons >> of mass destruction. >> >> What do you think? >> >> > > > What are doing -starting a discussion at 3 am? Go to bed! ;) > > Obviously it's all the Muslim's fault. Stick with the program. > > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 3 12:22:49 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:22:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Carl Sagan once conjectured that, if things had gone right, we'd be flying to the stars today Message-ID: John Grigg wrote: > Who is really to blame for what appeared to Carl Sagan, to be at least > 500 years of lost time and opportunity in the development of human > science and technology? Excellent questions, John. I have read Contact five or?six times, and I don't remember that passage. Sounds like Ellie speaking. > My question is, to what extent should we really portion out blame to > the Greeks, Romans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Medieval Europe for > what happened? And where could things have gone very right? And why > did they not? Have you read Oswald Spengler's Decline?of the West? Besides being one of the most beautifully written books I have ever?read, he tackles these questions in two thick volumes. He divides the development of the west into three periods -- Apollonian (Greek), Magian (Middle Ages) and Faustian (Modern from Baroque onwards.) With plenty of examples from science, art, politics and philosophy from each period to back his argument, he proposes that the way these cultures thought were radically different from each other. The Greeks, for example, were primarily concerned with form and structure and shape, from Praxiteles to Euclid. They never tackled the question of infinity, for it was meaningless to them. And they left it up to the Arabs to conceive of zero. That would have mean meaningless also to a culture obsessed with tangible form. He says that Faustian or modern society?is concerned with largely with space. Our science, architecture, politics, and?art reflect this. It may be that many useful ideas languished in old libraries because, though some individuals touched on them, we just weren't thinking in a way that allowed them to root in our collective consciousness. >The permanence of the stars was questioned, the justice of > slavery was not. In his Politics, Aristotle makes?excellent arguments for good government, preferring a polity over democracy or?oligarchy. Yet he makes an argument in defense of slavery and claims that virtue and ethics are innate qualities that a person is born with and cannot develop. Anti-abolitionists used his arguments in the public debate prior to the Civil War, just as some fascist governments have held up a translated copy of Plato's Republic to defend restrictive social policy. After reading about Leo Strauss (thanks to this list) I was able to determine that Strauss read the Republic too literally. The Greeks likely saw it for what it was: a search for objective and immutable concepts of justice, love, peace, and utopia rather than a literal blueprint for structuring society. In summation, I believe we were just?incapable of implementing these ideas even though some of them were there for?the taking. Ancient intellects were not inferior or incurious or even defiant or anti-science. They were just programmed differently. Archimedes proposed the earth was round circa 250 BC and even set out to prove it by measuring the length of a shadow cast by a stick shoved vertically in the ground at different times during the day (read Heinrich Van Loon's The History of Mankind.) Yet the idea of a flat earth persisted in the west for more than a thousand years after this because it fit a certain cultural schema.?A schema that was not necessarily determined by conscious prejudice against a?round earth, but one that was literally incapable of taking it seriously. Darren ---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 03:04:01 -0700 > From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [ExI] Carl Sagan once conjectured that, if things had gone right, we'd be flying to the stars today > > Who is really to blame for what appeared to Carl Sagan, to be at least > 500 years of lost time and opportunity in the development of human > science and technology? > >>From Wikiquotes, quoting COSMOS: > Imagine how different our world would be if those discoveries had been > explained and used for the benefit of everyone, if the humane > perspective of Eratosthenes had been widely adopted and applied. But > this was not to be. Alexandria was the greatest city the Western world > had ever seen. People from all nations came here to live to trade to > learn, on a given day these harbours were thronged with merchants and > scholars and tourists, it's probably here that the word Cosmopolitan > realised its true meaning of a citizen not just of a nation but of the > Cosmos, to be a citizen of the Cosmos. > > Here were clearly the seeds of our modern world, but why didn't they > take root and flourish why instead did the Western world slumber > through a 1000 years of darkness until Columbus and Copernicus and > their contemporaries rediscovered the work done here? I cannot give > you a simple answer but I do know this, there is no record in the > entire history of the library that any of the illustrious scholars and > scientists who worked here ever seriously challenged a single > political or economic or religious assumption of the society in which > they lived. The permanence of the stars was questioned, the justice of > slavery was not. >>>> > > I remember Sagan stating how a small steam engine developed by a > Greek was seen as a mere entertaining toy by his countrymen, and the > great potential of it totally eluded them. And this was probably in > large part due to their slave based economy. And Sagan painfully (at > least for me) lamented that if not for lost opportunities due to the > Greeks (I would also add the Romans), and the following darkness of > the Middle Ages, we would have starships returning to Earth from > expeditions to Alpha Centauri right now! And so in other words, we > would be at least *500 years* more technologically advanced than we > are now!!! > > My question is, to what extent should we really portion out blame to > the Greeks, Romans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Medieval Europe for > what happened? And where could things have gone very right? And why > did they not? > > Correspondingly, what caused The Enlightment to germinate and bring > forth an on-going transformation that eluded the lofty Greeks and > Medieval Europe? > > A part of me thinks that an immature and violent 15th century Europe > (or a Greek world that never fell) with nukes would be a recipe for > the permanent end of civilization! lol Perhaps things actually did > work out for the best, because as it is, we as a race were just barely > capable of handling the awful responsibilities that come with weapons > of mass destruction. > > What do you think? > > John : ) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 13:19:47 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 06:19:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Carl Sagan once conjectured that, if things had gone right, we'd be flying to the stars today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An excerpt from episode eight of COSMOS, that shows Sagan discussing the subject of "what might have been..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2geS8JtS4PY The written text... Carl Sagan from COSMOS: It's a lovely fantasy to explore those other worlds that never were. If you had H.G. Wells' time machine, maybe you could understand how history really works if an apparently pivotal person had never lived: Paul the Apostle, or Peter the Great, or Pythagoras. How different would the world really be? What if the scientific tradition of the ancient Ionian Greeks had prospered and flourished? It would have required many social factors of the time to have been different, including the common feeling that slavery was right and natural. But what if that light that had dawned on the eastern Mediterranean some 2,500 years ago had not flickered out? What if the scientific method and experiment had been vigorously pursued 2,000 years before the industrial revolution, our industrial revolution? What if the power of this new mode of thought, the scientific method, had been generally appreciated? I think we might have saved ten or twenty centuries. Perhaps the contribution that Leonardo made would have been made a thousand years earlier and the contribution of Einstein 500 years ago. Not that it would have been those people who would have made those contributions, because they live only in our timeline. If the Ionians had won, we might be now, I think, be going to the stars. We might at this moment have the first survey ships returning with astonishing results from Alpha Centauri and Barnard Star, Sirius and (Ta Siti?) There would now be great fleets of interstellar transports being constructed in earth orbit, small unmanned survey ships, liners for immigrants, perhaps, great trading ships to ply the spaces between the stars. On all of these ships there would be symbols and inscriptions on the side. The inscriptions, if we look closely, would be written in Greek. The symbol, perhaps, would be the dodecahedron, and the inscription on the sides to the ships to the stars something like Starship Theodorus of the planet earth. >>> If only... John : ) On 8/3/10, darren shawn greer wrote: > > > > > John Grigg wrote: > > >> Who is really to blame for what > appeared to Carl Sagan, to be at least >> 500 years of lost time and > opportunity in the development of human >> science and technology? > > > > > > Excellent questions, John. I have read Contact five or?six times, and I > don't remember that passage. Sounds like Ellie speaking. > >> My question is, to what extent > should we really portion out blame to >> the Greeks, Romans, Christians, > Jews, Muslims, and Medieval Europe for >> what happened? And where could > things have gone very right? And why >> did they not? > > > > Have you read Oswald Spengler's Decline?of the West? Besides being one of > the most beautifully written books I have ever?read, he tackles these > questions in two thick volumes. He divides the > development of the west into three periods -- Apollonian (Greek), Magian > (Middle Ages) and Faustian (Modern from Baroque onwards.) With plenty of > examples from science, art, politics and philosophy from each period to back > his argument, he proposes that the way these cultures thought were radically > different from each other. The Greeks, for example, were primarily concerned > with form and structure and shape, from Praxiteles to Euclid. They never > tackled the question of infinity, for it was meaningless to them. And they > left > it up to the Arabs to conceive of zero. That would have mean meaningless > also > to a culture obsessed with tangible form. > > > He says that Faustian or modern society?is concerned with largely with > space. Our science, architecture, politics, and?art reflect this. It may be > that many useful ideas languished in old libraries > because, though some individuals touched on them, we just weren't thinking > in a > way that allowed them to root in our collective consciousness. > > > >>The permanence of the stars was > questioned, the justice of >> slavery was not. > > > > In his Politics, Aristotle makes?excellent arguments for good government, > preferring a polity over democracy or?oligarchy. Yet he makes an argument in > defense of slavery and claims that > virtue and ethics are innate qualities that a person is born with and cannot > develop. Anti-abolitionists used his arguments in the public debate prior to > the Civil War, just as some fascist governments have held up a translated > copy > of Plato's Republic to defend restrictive social policy. After reading about > Leo > Strauss (thanks to this list) I was able to determine that Strauss read the > Republic > too literally. The Greeks likely saw it for what it was: a search for > objective > and immutable concepts of justice, love, peace, and utopia rather than a > literal blueprint for structuring society. > > > > In summation, I believe we were just?incapable of implementing these ideas > even though some of them were there for?the taking. Ancient intellects were > not inferior or incurious or even defiant > or anti-science. They were just programmed differently. Archimedes proposed > the earth was round circa 250 BC and even set out to prove it by measuring > the length of a shadow cast by a stick shoved vertically in the ground at > different times during the day (read Heinrich Van Loon's The History of > Mankind.) Yet the idea of a flat earth persisted in the west for more than a > thousand years after this because it fit a certain cultural schema.?A schema > that was not necessarily determined by conscious prejudice against a?round > earth, but one that was literally incapable of taking it seriously. > > > > > > > Darren > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- >> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 03:04:01 -0700 >> From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com >> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> Subject: [ExI] Carl Sagan once conjectured that, if things had gone right, >> we'd be flying to the stars today >> >> Who is really to blame for what appeared to Carl Sagan, to be at least >> 500 years of lost time and opportunity in the development of human >> science and technology? >> >>>From Wikiquotes, quoting COSMOS: >> Imagine how different our world would be if those discoveries had been >> explained and used for the benefit of everyone, if the humane >> perspective of Eratosthenes had been widely adopted and applied. But >> this was not to be. Alexandria was the greatest city the Western world >> had ever seen. People from all nations came here to live to trade to >> learn, on a given day these harbours were thronged with merchants and >> scholars and tourists, it's probably here that the word Cosmopolitan >> realised its true meaning of a citizen not just of a nation but of the >> Cosmos, to be a citizen of the Cosmos. >> >> Here were clearly the seeds of our modern world, but why didn't they >> take root and flourish why instead did the Western world slumber >> through a 1000 years of darkness until Columbus and Copernicus and >> their contemporaries rediscovered the work done here? I cannot give >> you a simple answer but I do know this, there is no record in the >> entire history of the library that any of the illustrious scholars and >> scientists who worked here ever seriously challenged a single >> political or economic or religious assumption of the society in which >> they lived. The permanence of the stars was questioned, the justice of >> slavery was not. >>>>> >> >> I remember Sagan stating how a small steam engine developed by a >> Greek was seen as a mere entertaining toy by his countrymen, and the >> great potential of it totally eluded them. And this was probably in >> large part due to their slave based economy. And Sagan painfully (at >> least for me) lamented that if not for lost opportunities due to the >> Greeks (I would also add the Romans), and the following darkness of >> the Middle Ages, we would have starships returning to Earth from >> expeditions to Alpha Centauri right now! And so in other words, we >> would be at least *500 years* more technologically advanced than we >> are now!!! >> >> My question is, to what extent should we really portion out blame to >> the Greeks, Romans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Medieval Europe for >> what happened? And where could things have gone very right? And why >> did they not? >> >> Correspondingly, what caused The Enlightment to germinate and bring >> forth an on-going transformation that eluded the lofty Greeks and >> Medieval Europe? >> >> A part of me thinks that an immature and violent 15th century Europe >> (or a Greek world that never fell) with nukes would be a recipe for >> the permanent end of civilization! lol Perhaps things actually did >> work out for the best, because as it is, we as a race were just barely >> capable of handling the awful responsibilities that come with weapons >> of mass destruction. >> >> What do you think? >> >> John : ) >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From rtomek at ceti.pl Tue Aug 3 14:26:23 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:26:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, John Clark wrote: > On Aug 1, 2010, at 5:37 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > This was part of their official philosophy. It promoted nobilitation of > > one group (called Aryan race) while enslaving and eradicating other > > groups seen as inferior (Jews, Gypsies, Black people, and a little later, > > Slavic peoples). This was ideology, i.e. theory. > > Do you find the official Islamic philosophy to be significantly more > ennobling? That is strange question, Mr Clark. Is Islam more ennobling than Nazism? You start to scare me. > I don't, in fact most Islamic leaders were very sympathetic > to the Nazis. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem > and Osama bin Laden's intellectual godfather; he was given the > equivalent of $10,000 a month for making propaganda broadcasts on radio > Berlin. In March 1944, he said on the radio that there should be a jihad > to "kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and > religion." After the war he fled to Egypt which protected him from > extradition for war crimes, in return he recruited former Nazi thugs to > work in dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser's government. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni was a mufti in years 1921-1948. So he was a British subject, at least to some extent. And in 1921 elections, he had got the least number of votes from all four candidates (nominating him was a political decision, not majority support). [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni ] I wonder what is your point here. A number of leaders from around the world were sympathetic to the Nazis, including some Western leaders (but they had not much to say about politics of their countries). So Mohammad Amin al-Husayni is no extraordinary for me. As of Nazi thugs in Egypt, I don't think there was more of them than in one single American scientific project: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Project_Paperclip_Team_at_Fort_Bliss.jpg ] On the other hand, it could be more Nazis in Egypt than at Fort Bliss, since according to this page [ http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/nazis_postwar_egypt.htm ] their first batch in 1952 counted about 100 persons. But on the same page there are statements about connections between ODESSA (including Nazis in Egypt, I suppose) and CIA. One of ODESSA chiefs, Otto Skorzenny, is said to have some talks with Mossad, too (giving them misc info). So what exactly you want to prove now? That Islam is less evil than democracy? That part of its wrongs are to be blamed on us? With this last statement I agree, yet I think we should look rather forward not backward. > And by the way, the Arabic translation of Hitler's Mein Kampf is the > 6'th largest bestselling book of all time among Palestinians. Something like this could be expected. Number one is Qur'an, I guess. What are the other four bestsellers? > > As I have mentioned in one earlier post, such overreaction is a sign of weakness or > > lack of confidence. This might be connected with possible cultural shock, > > that Islamic world experienced after WW2 > > Maybe maybe not, who cares. Let me say yet again, explaining why > something sucks does not stop it from sucking. Let me explain again, too. It is important to know what sucks and how to stop it. Just yelling that it sucks does not stop it from sucking. If you think there is a problem (like I do) than you should try to understand what it is about. Otherwise I don't get how do you plan to solve it. > > I am not defending it. > > Like hell you're not! So we agree on this... like hell. > > I refuse to attack it before I find good reason for this. > > Holy shit! If you can't find something hateful in a philosophy as evil > and incredibly stupid as Islam then there is something seriously wrong > with you. To find something in their philosophy I have to actually start looking at it. I guess reading Qur'an is a minimum, since this looks like a basis of everything they do and say. You seem to be versatile in this subject, so great. But I haven't got much time for such things. Yet I want to make my own choice, not just because someone who already read Qur'an, like you apparently did, have told me what to think about it. I wonder why making my own choice based on my own research is wrong. From what you tell, I understand that Islam would dissalow me to make such choices, so you come surprisingly close to it. > I can neither prove nor disprove that there is a bright green teapot in > orbit around the planet Uranus, therefore there is a 50% chance there is > a bright green teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus. Exactly so. You seem to understand. In this case, however, it could be at least argued that chances are rather small, since Universe is big and for teapot to make it exactly to one of possible orbits around Uranus requires lots of good luck. But again, taking Universe size into consideration, the number of planets out there seems to be enormous. So I think there are good chances (one could actually bet money on it, rather than on some unlucky horses) that somewhere such a teapot really orbits a planet. So in case of a teapot we have some facts, upon which we could build nice and quite defendable (IMHO) theory. God, however, could either exist or not but I cannot think of any physical fact supporting one theory or another. Therefore we could only use probablity. Which gives 50-50 chances. > > if you want to escape from belief, you cannot use belief-based > > arguments. So, if you > > would like to prove that God does not exist, you should use rational > > arguments. > > Are you really suggesting that the infantile fairy tales that are the > foundation of Christian and Islamic theology needs to be taken > seriously? Is that why you took offense when I said it was all based on > a colossal lie and your insistence on putting the word lie in quotation > marks? Do really want to defend that stinking pile of colossal > BULLSHIT?!! I don't care much about fairy tales. I've already said I don't support any form of religion. At least I am not active supporter, while I reserve myself a right to feel sympathy towards goodwilling people. If they happen to be religious as well, that is their choice I have no right to question (but I feel free to ask questions). But I see the problem of God's existence as totally independent from religion. Which should be obvious because they tend to say strange things, even contradicting each other. While the problem of God is something that grownup minds could think of. If one is afraid of the other "50%" possibility, then of course one definitely is unfit to be bothered by the problem. As of offending me, well I find this to be a bit difficult to do, because I have this tendency to agree with my offenders. I could hint you at some good offences but as soon as you throwed them at me, I would probably agree with you again. I doubt there is any way out of this impass. Perhaps problem of offending me successfully could be used to test Singularity, but this is pure speculation. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 3 14:27:02 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:27:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Carl Sagan once conjectured that, if things had gone right, we'd be flying to the stars today Message-ID: > Carl Sagan from COSMOS: > It's a lovely fantasy to explore those other worlds that never were. > If you had H.G. Wells' time machine, maybe you could understand how > history really works if an apparently pivotal person had never lived: > Paul the Apostle, or Peter the Great, or Pythagoras. How different > would the world really be? What if the scientific tradition of the > ancient Ionian Greeks had prospered and flourished? > > It would have required many social factors of the time to have been > different, including the common feeling that slavery was right and > natural. But what if that light that had dawned on the eastern > Mediterranean some 2,500 years ago had not flickered out? What if the > scientific method and experiment had been vigorously pursued 2,000 > years before the industrial revolution, our industrial revolution? > What if the power of this new mode of thought, the scientific method, > had been generally appreciated? I think we might have saved ten or > twenty centuries. Perhaps the contribution that Leonardo made would > have been made a thousand years earlier and the contribution of > Einstein 500 years ago. Not that it would have been those people who > would have made those contributions, because they live only in our > timeline. > > If the Ionians had won, we might be now, I think, be going to the > stars. We might at this moment have the first survey ships returning > with astonishing results from Alpha Centauri and Barnard Star, Sirius > and (Ta Siti?) There would now be great fleets of interstellar > transports being constructed in earth orbit, small unmanned survey > ships, liners for immigrants, perhaps, great trading ships to ply the > spaces between the stars. On all of these ships there would be symbols > and inscriptions on the side. The inscriptions, if we look closely, > would be written in Greek. The symbol, perhaps, would be the > dodecahedron, and the inscription on the sides to the ships to the > stars something like Starship Theodorus of the planet earth. >>>> > > If only... It's a beautiful dream, and if the dream stays alive, its realization will eventually follow. Sagan was a great man, not least because he recognized the importance of unbridled imagination and a sense of wonder as an essential catalyst for scientific inquiry. D. ---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 06:19:47 -0700 > From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] Carl Sagan once conjectured that, if things had gone right, we'd be flying to the stars today > > An excerpt from episode eight of COSMOS, that shows Sagan discussing > the subject of "what might have been..." > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2geS8JtS4PY > > The written text... > > Carl Sagan from COSMOS: > It's a lovely fantasy to explore those other worlds that never were. > If you had H.G. Wells' time machine, maybe you could understand how > history really works if an apparently pivotal person had never lived: > Paul the Apostle, or Peter the Great, or Pythagoras. How different > would the world really be? What if the scientific tradition of the > ancient Ionian Greeks had prospered and flourished? > > It would have required many social factors of the time to have been > different, including the common feeling that slavery was right and > natural. But what if that light that had dawned on the eastern > Mediterranean some 2,500 years ago had not flickered out? What if the > scientific method and experiment had been vigorously pursued 2,000 > years before the industrial revolution, our industrial revolution? > What if the power of this new mode of thought, the scientific method, > had been generally appreciated? I think we might have saved ten or > twenty centuries. Perhaps the contribution that Leonardo made would > have been made a thousand years earlier and the contribution of > Einstein 500 years ago. Not that it would have been those people who > would have made those contributions, because they live only in our > timeline. > > If the Ionians had won, we might be now, I think, be going to the > stars. We might at this moment have the first survey ships returning > with astonishing results from Alpha Centauri and Barnard Star, Sirius > and (Ta Siti?) There would now be great fleets of interstellar > transports being constructed in earth orbit, small unmanned survey > ships, liners for immigrants, perhaps, great trading ships to ply the > spaces between the stars. On all of these ships there would be symbols > and inscriptions on the side. The inscriptions, if we look closely, > would be written in Greek. The symbol, perhaps, would be the > dodecahedron, and the inscription on the sides to the ships to the > stars something like Starship Theodorus of the planet earth. >>>> > > If only... > > John : ) > > > On 8/3/10, darren shawn greer wrote: >> >> >> >> >> John Grigg wrote: >> >> >>> Who is really to blame for what >> appeared to Carl Sagan, to be at least >>> 500 years of lost time and >> opportunity in the development of human >>> science and technology? >> >> >> >> >> >> Excellent questions, John. I have read Contact five or six times, and I >> don't remember that passage. Sounds like Ellie speaking. >> >>> My question is, to what extent >> should we really portion out blame to >>> the Greeks, Romans, Christians, >> Jews, Muslims, and Medieval Europe for >>> what happened? And where could >> things have gone very right? And why >>> did they not? >> >> >> >> Have you read Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West? Besides being one of >> the most beautifully written books I have ever read, he tackles these >> questions in two thick volumes. He divides the >> development of the west into three periods -- Apollonian (Greek), Magian >> (Middle Ages) and Faustian (Modern from Baroque onwards.) With plenty of >> examples from science, art, politics and philosophy from each period to back >> his argument, he proposes that the way these cultures thought were radically >> different from each other. The Greeks, for example, were primarily concerned >> with form and structure and shape, from Praxiteles to Euclid. They never >> tackled the question of infinity, for it was meaningless to them. And they >> left >> it up to the Arabs to conceive of zero. That would have mean meaningless >> also >> to a culture obsessed with tangible form. >> >> >> He says that Faustian or modern society is concerned with largely with >> space. Our science, architecture, politics, and art reflect this. It may be >> that many useful ideas languished in old libraries >> because, though some individuals touched on them, we just weren't thinking >> in a >> way that allowed them to root in our collective consciousness. >> >> >> >>>The permanence of the stars was >> questioned, the justice of >>> slavery was not. >> >> >> >> In his Politics, Aristotle makes excellent arguments for good government, >> preferring a polity over democracy or oligarchy. Yet he makes an argument in >> defense of slavery and claims that >> virtue and ethics are innate qualities that a person is born with and cannot >> develop. Anti-abolitionists used his arguments in the public debate prior to >> the Civil War, just as some fascist governments have held up a translated >> copy >> of Plato's Republic to defend restrictive social policy. After reading about >> Leo >> Strauss (thanks to this list) I was able to determine that Strauss read the >> Republic >> too literally. The Greeks likely saw it for what it was: a search for >> objective >> and immutable concepts of justice, love, peace, and utopia rather than a >> literal blueprint for structuring society. >> >> >> >> In summation, I believe we were just incapable of implementing these ideas >> even though some of them were there for the taking. Ancient intellects were >> not inferior or incurious or even defiant >> or anti-science. They were just programmed differently. Archimedes proposed >> the earth was round circa 250 BC and even set out to prove it by measuring >> the length of a shadow cast by a stick shoved vertically in the ground at >> different times during the day (read Heinrich Van Loon's The History of >> Mankind.) Yet the idea of a flat earth persisted in the west for more than a >> thousand years after this because it fit a certain cultural schema. A schema >> that was not necessarily determined by conscious prejudice against a round >> earth, but one that was literally incapable of taking it seriously. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Darren >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------- >>> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 03:04:01 -0700 >>> From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com >>> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> Subject: [ExI] Carl Sagan once conjectured that, if things had gone right, >>> we'd be flying to the stars today >>> >>> Who is really to blame for what appeared to Carl Sagan, to be at least >>> 500 years of lost time and opportunity in the development of human >>> science and technology? >>> >>>>From Wikiquotes, quoting COSMOS: >>> Imagine how different our world would be if those discoveries had been >>> explained and used for the benefit of everyone, if the humane >>> perspective of Eratosthenes had been widely adopted and applied. But >>> this was not to be. Alexandria was the greatest city the Western world >>> had ever seen. People from all nations came here to live to trade to >>> learn, on a given day these harbours were thronged with merchants and >>> scholars and tourists, it's probably here that the word Cosmopolitan >>> realised its true meaning of a citizen not just of a nation but of the >>> Cosmos, to be a citizen of the Cosmos. >>> >>> Here were clearly the seeds of our modern world, but why didn't they >>> take root and flourish why instead did the Western world slumber >>> through a 1000 years of darkness until Columbus and Copernicus and >>> their contemporaries rediscovered the work done here? I cannot give >>> you a simple answer but I do know this, there is no record in the >>> entire history of the library that any of the illustrious scholars and >>> scientists who worked here ever seriously challenged a single >>> political or economic or religious assumption of the society in which >>> they lived. The permanence of the stars was questioned, the justice of >>> slavery was not. >>>>>> >>> >>> I remember Sagan stating how a small steam engine developed by a >>> Greek was seen as a mere entertaining toy by his countrymen, and the >>> great potential of it totally eluded them. And this was probably in >>> large part due to their slave based economy. And Sagan painfully (at >>> least for me) lamented that if not for lost opportunities due to the >>> Greeks (I would also add the Romans), and the following darkness of >>> the Middle Ages, we would have starships returning to Earth from >>> expeditions to Alpha Centauri right now! And so in other words, we >>> would be at least *500 years* more technologically advanced than we >>> are now!!! >>> >>> My question is, to what extent should we really portion out blame to >>> the Greeks, Romans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Medieval Europe for >>> what happened? And where could things have gone very right? And why >>> did they not? >>> >>> Correspondingly, what caused The Enlightment to germinate and bring >>> forth an on-going transformation that eluded the lofty Greeks and >>> Medieval Europe? >>> >>> A part of me thinks that an immature and violent 15th century Europe >>> (or a Greek world that never fell) with nukes would be a recipe for >>> the permanent end of civilization! lol Perhaps things actually did >>> work out for the best, because as it is, we as a race were just barely >>> capable of handling the awful responsibilities that come with weapons >>> of mass destruction. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> John : ) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 3 14:34:00 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:34:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C574A50.2040501@mac.com> <9012790E-0D19-4DF3-B235-1D6D9D332F59@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Aug 3, 2010, at 2:48 AM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > I find Pat Condell's style so obstreperous that he makes me want to turn him off. There is no disputing matters of taste. > What exactly is "intelligent" about his video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4 He says several things that are true, he says nothing that is untrue, and he says things that need to be said. > On the other hand, here is something I find much more "intelligent": > http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/street-level-view-of-ground-zero-mosque.html Among the skyscrapers of Downtown Manhattan it's not unusual to be unable to see something less than 500 feet away if you are a ground level, but if you are in a skyscraper in Downtown Manhattan you are unlikely to be at ground level. I should be reconciled with the phenomenon by now but it is still fascinating to watch a certain breed of self hating liberal frantically making excuses for the medieval and repulsive actions of Islam, while if their own culture had done things one tenth as evil and stupid would be foaming at the mouth with self righteous indignation. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Tue Aug 3 14:22:20 2010 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:22:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] Carl Sagan once conjectured that, if things had gone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <166214.66937.qm@web27008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Regarding whether or not the ancient greeks questioned the wisdom of slavery, a quick google reveals the following page http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Live/Writer/ZenoCitium.htm which claims Zeno, founder of Stoicism, had at one point been a slave and was the first philosopher to condemn slavery. Googling "zeno slavery quote" reveals several pages making the statement "Stoicism was the first philosophical school of thought to morally condemn slavery" which suggests there's probably a history or philosophy textbook somewhere which says it. As for delays to learning and collapse of the mighty cities and libraries of Rome, Alexandria and the like - large cities bring a need for skilled and literate administrators and bring about opportunities for merchants to employ literate people. The specialist trades and wealth the cities generate pay for all the food that needs importing, and the excess wealth can support such things as schools and universities (as people want to educate their offspring for a better life). This whole system relies on being able to ensure food is taken from the countryside (maybe by force, as in Ancient Egypt, or paid for by trade in the Roman Empire), goods from the cities are traded and that this can all be done without fear of violent crime or invasion. When the system works, stable and wealthy cities grow and many activities flourish - whether the centres of learning of the ancient world, or the sites of great religious and ceremonial buildings, or whether you end up with your modern cities full of trade, skyscrapers everywhere and a large public university or three. When it doesn't work, cities fall and everyone looks to where their next meal is coming from rather than on preserving the delicate fruits of civilisation. It happened at the end of many ancient empires, it happened to Islamic civilisation after the Mongol sack of Baghdad, it happened to the Byzantine civilisation, and in the twentieth century we've seen how civil wars or bad leadership can destroy functioning states and the damage to rule of law has knock-on effects to the economy, to healthcare, to agriculture and to cities. Tom From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 3 15:25:51 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:25:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <60B1E1A8-15C3-4FF4-9D46-EBCB8D1D2EA4@bellsouth.net> On Aug 3, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > That is strange question, Mr Clark. Is Islam more ennobling than Nazism? I think it's a damn good question. > You start to scare me. Fine, but answer the question. >> And by the way, the Arabic translation of Hitler's Mein Kampf is the >> 6'th largest bestselling book of all time among Palestinians. > > Something like this could be expected. Agreed. > It is important to know what sucks and how to stop it. Agreed. > Just yelling that it sucks does not stop it from sucking. And yelling that it sucks for this and that historical reason does not stop it from sucking. > I guess reading Qur'an is a minimum, since this looks like a basis of > everything they do and say. But you've got to read it in Arabic! It's blasphemous to translate the Quran and a grave sin to read such an abomination. If you read the English version then you are being insensitive to the norms of another culture and proving you are a foe of multiculturalism, not a true liberal, and should be ashamed of yourself. Only after you have read the Quran in Arabic are you allowed to say that throwing acid in the face of a young girl for trying to get an education or flying a civilian airliner into a civilian skyscraper might not be a good idea. And only after you have read Mein Kampf in German are you allowed to criticize the Nazis. >> I can neither prove nor disprove that there is a bright green teapot in >> orbit around the planet Uranus, therefore there is a 50% chance there is >> a bright green teapot in orbit around Uranus. > > Exactly so. You seem to understand. Mr. Rola your grasp of logic is amazing. > God, however, could either exist or not but I cannot think of any physical > fact supporting one theory or another. Therefore we could only use > probablity. Which gives 50-50 chances. Aristotle watch out, and you too Kurt G?del, Tomasz Rola is here and he is challenging your crown as the greatest logician who ever lived. > I reserve myself a right to feel sympathy towards goodwilling people. Good for you, and I reserve the right to feel contempt for people who believe in idiocy, especially evil idiocy. > If they happen to be religious as well, that is their choice I have no right to question Of course you have the right to question! > but I feel free to ask questions. I see, you can ask questions but not question. Yet another triumph of logic. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 15:34:41 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:34:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Carl Sagan once conjectured that, if things had gone right, we'd be flying to the stars today Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:00 AM, John Grigg wrote: > Correspondingly, what caused The Enlightment to germinate and bring > forth an on-going transformation that eluded the lofty Greeks and > Medieval Europe? And the Chinese and Indians. Dr. Gregory Clark thinks it is genetic, the product of intense selection for "capitalist" genes, i.e., genes for a bunch of psychological traits that contribute to economic success in a particularly stable and relatively non violent society. > A part of me thinks that an immature and violent 15th century Europe > (or a Greek world that never fell) with nukes would be a recipe for > the permanent end of civilization! lol ?Perhaps things actually did > work out for the best, because as it is, we as a race were just barely > capable of handling the awful responsibilities that come with weapons > of mass destruction. > > What do you think? You make a case. Keith From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 16:55:12 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 18:55:12 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On 1 August 2010 23:37, Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, John Clark wrote: >> On Jul 31, 2010, at 7:33 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: >> >> Let me ask you one question, do you condemn the whole Nazi group? >> > No, because condemning groups was - I believe - exactly what Nazi did. >> >> Did the entire Nazi group do exactly that? > > This was part of their official philosophy. It promoted nobilitation of > one group (called Aryan race) while enslaving and eradicating ?other > groups seen as inferior (Jews, Gypsies, Black people, and a little later, > Slavic peoples). This was ideology, i.e. theory. In practice, they didn't > object much against giving "subhumans" guns and SS uniforms, especially > closer to their end. Be it as it may, even though I am far from being a social atomist, we must admit that groups as such do not perpetrate any wrong nor suffer any personal injuries. Only individuals really do. That is, unless in a very metaphoric sense. And, yes, the abuse of such metaphors lead to very undesirable and paradoxical consequences at both ends. Affirmative action, e.g., may have plenty of plausible justifications, but the reparation of past misdeeds (by somebody else on somebody else) is definitely not one. So, I think that we may and must have better arguments to oppose to a given philosophy or religion than the behaviour of its supporters. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 17:00:43 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:00:43 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/2 Jebadiah Moore : > But it's pretty clear that it's > worthwhile to view a community as an entity (due to various emergent > phenomena), and that a lot of people do view communities this way, and that > people *value* communities this way. ?In particular, they seem invested in > trying to maintain the stability, influence, and "essence" (as they perceive > it) of the communities they belong to, both during their own lifetimes and > into the future. My own ideas fit rather well in your description. But I am waaaaay reluctant in admitting that, say, a community could and should be kept legally or ethically responsible for the behaviour of its members. Say, as in "they shall pay for what they have done until the umpteenth generation". -- Stefano Vaj From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Aug 3 17:06:16 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:06:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <60B1E1A8-15C3-4FF4-9D46-EBCB8D1D2EA4@bellsouth.net> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <60B1E1A8-15C3-4FF4-9D46-EBCB8D1D2EA4@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4C584C88.5090600@satx.rr.com> On 8/3/2010 10:25 AM, John Clark wrote: >> God, however, could either exist or not but I cannot think of any >> physical fact supporting one theory or another. Therefore we could only use >> probablity. Which gives 50-50 chances. > Aristotle watch out, and you too Kurt G?del, Tomasz Rola is here and he > is challenging your crown as the greatest logician who ever lived. Both Aristotle and Kurt G?del believed in a god, a conclusion they reached on the basis of their (arguably faulty) logic, so they would welcome Mr. Rola to their company. Damien Broderick From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 17:08:33 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:08:33 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <60B1E1A8-15C3-4FF4-9D46-EBCB8D1D2EA4@bellsouth.net> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <60B1E1A8-15C3-4FF4-9D46-EBCB8D1D2EA4@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/8/3 John Clark : > And yelling that it sucks for this and that historical reason does not stop > it from sucking. I am with you on that. The only thing is that in order to believe that it sucks I need no recourse to some universal suprematist or white-horse principle. Not any more than some other universal principle may justify its sucking. We may well simmetrically suck for it. Who cares? I may well be determined to protect my diversity and identity as they are. Simply because it's mine. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 17:15:06 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:15:06 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C584C88.5090600@satx.rr.com> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <60B1E1A8-15C3-4FF4-9D46-EBCB8D1D2EA4@bellsouth.net> <4C584C88.5090600@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3 August 2010 19:06, Damien Broderick wrote: > Both Aristotle and Kurt G?del believed in a god, a conclusion they reached > on the basis of their (arguably faulty) logic, so they would welcome Mr. > Rola to their company. Why, I do believe that Natasha is a living goddess, but you can rest assured that my meaning has really little to do with anything related to Jehovah/Allah/the Holy Trinity. So, not only Aristotle's and Kurt G?del's views are quite different, but I would hesitate to enroll either in the club of Holy Scriptures. -- Stefano Vaj From rtomek at ceti.pl Tue Aug 3 18:45:29 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:45:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C584C88.5090600@satx.rr.com> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <60B1E1A8-15C3-4FF4-9D46-EBCB8D1D2EA4@bellsouth.net> <4C584C88.5090600@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 8/3/2010 10:25 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > God, however, could either exist or not but I cannot think of any > > > >> physical fact supporting one theory or another. Therefore we could only > > > use > > > >> probablity. Which gives 50-50 chances. > > > > > > > Aristotle watch out, and you too Kurt G?del, Tomasz Rola is here and he > > > > is challenging your crown as the greatest logician who ever lived. > > > > > > Both Aristotle and Kurt G?del believed in a god, a conclusion they > > > reached on the basis of their (arguably faulty) logic, so they would > > > welcome Mr. Rola to their company. > > > > > > Damien Broderick I think it would be interesting to see where exactly I claim so. I have tried to explain it and I'm not going to repeat. It is however a bit sad to see, how my explanations don't stick to your brains. But I don't think it is my problem. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From rtomek at ceti.pl Tue Aug 3 18:47:37 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:47:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <6D8DFDAB-4147-4B50-A0BB-82EFE2E93BA8@bellsouth.net> References: <6D8DFDAB-4147-4B50-A0BB-82EFE2E93BA8@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, John Clark wrote: > On Aug 2, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > Nazism was antireligious I don't remember me saying this, Mr Clark. However I remember me saying this: - Nazism (this is complicated, while Nazism was antireligious it incorporated religion inspired elements) Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From rtomek at ceti.pl Tue Aug 3 19:04:36 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 21:04:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <60B1E1A8-15C3-4FF4-9D46-EBCB8D1D2EA4@bellsouth.net> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <60B1E1A8-15C3-4FF4-9D46-EBCB8D1D2EA4@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, John Clark wrote: > On Aug 3, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > > That is strange question, Mr Clark. Is Islam more ennobling than Nazism? > > I think it's a damn good question. I think this question is too general to be good. It can be answered, just as any question can, if one wants it. But that doesn't mean the answer will have anything to do with reality. > Fine, but answer the question. It is interesting to see, how you try to put me in a situation when I will have to make some general remarks about Muslims. This is not going to happen because I cannot make such remarks without proper data supporting them. Since it is difficult to get to know more than bilion people, I could content myself with results of research giving me some clues about the whole. But I didn't have time to look for them. I think that Muslims commiting crimes are on par with Nazis commiting crimes. As of other Nazis, some of them (those caught) have been tried in Nuremberg. I don't see reason to mix them with criminals, if the court didn't find such reason. As of non-criminals among Muslims, I don't know enough about them to judge them. Finished? Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Aug 3 19:13:10 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:13:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> Message-ID: <4C586A46.5050404@mac.com> Stefano Vaj wrote: > 2010/8/2 Jebadiah Moore : > >> But it's pretty clear that it's >> worthwhile to view a community as an entity (due to various emergent >> phenomena), and that a lot of people do view communities this way, and that >> people *value* communities this way. In particular, they seem invested in >> trying to maintain the stability, influence, and "essence" (as they perceive >> it) of the communities they belong to, both during their own lifetimes and >> into the future. >> > > My own ideas fit rather well in your description. > > But I am waaaaay reluctant in admitting that, say, a community could > and should be kept legally or ethically responsible for the behaviour > of its members. > For damn good reason it should not. The individual is the unit of ethics and moral responsibility. To hold and individual liable for what she did not do is utterly broken. > Say, as in "they shall pay for what they have done until the umpteenth > generation". > > Yet another pseudo-religious hideous thought to be sure. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 3 19:38:09 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:38:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C584C88.5090600@satx.rr.com> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <60B1E1A8-15C3-4FF4-9D46-EBCB8D1D2EA4@bellsouth.net> <4C584C88.5090600@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Aug 3, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Both Aristotle and Kurt G?del believed in a god I know, and Godel was I think an even greater logician than Aristotle; nevertheless he was a very odd man. He sealed his windows shut because he thought night air was deadly, he wore heavy woolen coats on even the hottest days because he though the cold was deadly too, and for unknown reasons he insisted on putting cheap plastic flamingos on his front lawn. He ended up starving himself to death, he refused to eat because he thought unnamed sinister forces were trying to poison him. He weighed 65 pounds when he died. > a conclusion they reached on the basis of their (arguably faulty) logic, so they would welcome Mr. Rola to their company. I'm sure Mr. Rola is an atheist regarding Thor and Zeus and Amun and most of the thousands of Gods human beings have invented for themselves over the centuries, I just go one God further than he does and include Yahweh (aka Allah), certainly the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Aug 3 19:45:23 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:45:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4C5871D3.50604@mac.com> Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, John Clark wrote: > > >> On Aug 1, 2010, at 5:37 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: >> >> >>> This was part of their official philosophy. It promoted nobilitation of >>> one group (called Aryan race) while enslaving and eradicating other >>> groups seen as inferior (Jews, Gypsies, Black people, and a little later, >>> Slavic peoples). This was ideology, i.e. theory. >>> >> Do you find the official Islamic philosophy to be significantly more >> ennobling? >> > > That is strange question, Mr Clark. Is Islam more ennobling than Nazism? > You start to scare me. > > You totally ducked a very obvious question in the context. Claiming you are scared while you do so is irrelevant if not misdirection. There was nothing to be scared of. The question of whether Islam also promotes the idealization of itself and denigrates to the point of worthless infidels or devils everyone else is a good one. instead you chose to lift skirts while claiming the asker is engaging in such bad behavior as to be scary just by asking. Interesting way of seeking truth you have there. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Aug 3 19:47:55 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:47:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <60B1E1A8-15C3-4FF4-9D46-EBCB8D1D2EA4@bellsouth.net> <4C584C88.5090600@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4C58726B.4060802@satx.rr.com> On 8/3/2010 1:45 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: >>>>> Aristotle watch out, and you too Kurt G?del, Tomasz Rola is here and he >>>>> is challenging your crown as the greatest logician who ever lived. > > Both Aristotle and Kurt G?del believed in a god, a conclusion they > > reached on the basis of their (arguably faulty) logic, so they would > > welcome Mr. Rola to their company. > > Damien Broderick > I think it would be interesting to see where exactly I claim so. > I have tried to explain it and I'm not going to repeat. It is however a > bit sad to see, how my explanations don't stick to your brains. But I > don't think it is my problem. Perhaps I expressed that badly. I didn't mean that, like Aristotle and G?del, you believed in a deity--just that John Clark's parallel seemed rather ill advised, given this unpalatable fact about his heroes. (On the other hand, proposing that the probability of a god existing is 50% due to our alleged ignorance is indeed very very silly. We now know a vastly greater amount about the universe than was known by the ancients who invented their desperate warlord analogies, and none of it is consistent with the reality of such a deity, nor of almost any other kind. When this information is taken into account, the probability of a god is negligible.) Damien Broderick From rtomek at ceti.pl Tue Aug 3 20:51:09 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:51:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C58726B.4060802@satx.rr.com> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <60B1E1A8-15C3-4FF4-9D46-EBCB8D1D2EA4@bellsouth.net> <4C584C88.5090600@satx.rr.com> <4C58726B.4060802@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 8/3/2010 1:45 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > > > > Aristotle watch out, and you too Kurt G?del, Tomasz Rola is here and > > > > > > he > > > > > > >>>>> is challenging your crown as the greatest logician who ever > > > > > > lived. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both Aristotle and Kurt G?del believed in a god, a > > > > > > conclusion they > > > > > > > > reached on the basis of their (arguably faulty) logic, so > > > > > > they > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > welcome Mr. Rola to their company. > > > > > > > > Damien Broderick > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be interesting to see where exactly I claim so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have tried to explain it and I'm not going to repeat. It is > > > > > > however a > > > > > > > bit sad to see, how my explanations don't stick to your brains. > > > > > > But I > > > > > > > don't think it is my problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps I expressed that badly. I didn't mean that, like Aristotle > > > > > > and > > > > > > G?del, you believed in a deity--just that John Clark's parallel > > > > > > seemed > > > > > > rather ill advised, given this unpalatable fact about his heroes. > > > > > > > > > > > > (On the other hand, proposing that the probability of a god existing > > > > > > is > > > > > > 50% due to our alleged ignorance is indeed very very silly. We now > > > > > > know > > > > > > a vastly greater amount about the universe than was known by the > > > > > > ancients who invented their desperate warlord analogies, and none of > > > > > > it > > > > > > is consistent with the reality of such a deity, nor of almost any > > > > > > other > > > > > > kind. When this information is taken into account, the probability > > > > > > of a > > > > > > god is negligible.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Damien Broderick He sure can take care of himself, with 50% probability. So, no need to make noise about all this. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 21:11:51 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:11:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, John Clark wrote: snip >> Maybe maybe not, who cares. Let me say yet again, explaining why >> something sucks does not stop it from sucking. > > Let me explain again, too. It is important to know what sucks and how to > stop it. Just yelling that it sucks does not stop it from sucking. If you > think there is a problem (like I do) than you should try to understand > what it is about. Otherwise I don't get how do you plan to solve it. As a bet, John has no plan to solve it, beyond the "wired in to our genes" approach of getting worked up by memes till we kill all the males in the other tribe. Incidentally, understanding the problem may not help at all. My understanding of what was the root cause for the IRA going inactive was cultural changes where Irish women reduced the number of children to replacement level. If that model is correct, then Iran (which has reached replacement level) could become a stable country in the next few decades. None of the Arab Islamic countries I can think of have reached that point, though some may be approaching it. World wide we may be overdue for a war that causes a major population reduction. The dropping grain stores that carry over may be an indication of how close we are. The only reason we have not had one since WWII is that engineering and farming have kept ahead of the population. Actually, it is a wonder we don't have cultural clashes and wars more often. Humans have been shaped by evolution to overpopulate and get worked up about it just as John demonstrates. And he may be right. It may be easier to off a billion people than to get a few hundred to understand what is going on. And even if we did understand, can we do anything about it? I have no idea of why the Irish women reduced the number of kids they had. And even if I did, I have no suggestions as to how the same could be done in Arab countries. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Aug 3 21:12:03 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:12:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <60B1E1A8-15C3-4FF4-9D46-EBCB8D1D2EA4@bellsouth.net> <4C584C88.5090600@satx.rr.com> <4C58726B.4060802@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4C588623.4010405@satx.rr.com> On 8/3/2010 3:51 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > He sure can take care of himself, with 50% probability. So, no need to > make noise about all this. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Who is "he"? Some god or other? John Clark? If you mean a supposed god, your reply is very feeble. That would be disappointing, since most of your other posts have been intelligent although deliberately provocative (but there's nothing wrong with that). Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Tue Aug 3 20:53:46 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 13:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] anorexic geniuses, was Re: Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <301837.44005.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 8/3/10, John Clark wrote: ? >...I know, and Godel was I think an even greater logician than Aristotle... ? Sorry I haven't followed this thread closely, very busy, but I must break in here at the risk of posting something far from the point of the conversation. ? >...nevertheless he was a very odd man... ? Fortunate are we for that.? May we all be so odd. ? >...?He sealed his windows shut because he thought night air was deadly... ? As one who escaped from a nation which had used poison gas and wanted his genotype to be extinct, that would be understandable.? If an enemy wanted to use a WMD attack to greatest effect, they would release some poisonous agent in the middle of the night.? Most of the proles would quietly wake up dead.? In that context, sealing the windows is?not so?odd. ? >...he wore heavy woolen coats on even the hottest days because he though the cold was deadly too... ? He was a really skinny guy who didn't eat much.? People who are built like that have a very high surface area to volume ratio, we?are cold all the time, even when others are comfortable or warm.? These?will tend to wear wool.? I don't know why, but that particular material is (to me) comfortable in both cool weather and warm.? I have nothing other than wool.? I do get puzzled stares on the hottest days, but better that than no stares at all. ? >...and for unknown reasons he insisted on putting cheap plastic flamingos on his front lawn... ? Hey, just because Godel wasn't a redneck doesn't mean he was immune from delightfully tacky yet unrefined taste in lawn ornaments.? Besides, flamingos are very interesting beasts.? They have that odd upsidedown smile going, that lets them devour revolting goo along the bottom of the shallow waters.? Regarding cheap plastic, I have never seen flamingo figurines in any other material or any other price?range besides cheap and plastic.? I find him guilty of Walmartishness, but innocent of insanity.? ? >...?He ended up starving himself to death, he refused to eat because he thought unnamed sinister forces were trying to poison him... ? Considering he escaped the Nazis and was a powerful propaganda device, I wouldn't be surprised if he had plenty of enemies that would want nothing more than to slay that gentle genius.? I don't think anyone was trying to poison him, but I give him a hall pass for being suspicious of everyone. ? >...?He weighed 65 pounds when he died... ? Dayum that's skinny, even by my standards.? Srinivasa?Ramanujan is another monster intellect we also lost to? tragic self starvation.? {8-[? And Karen Carpenter.? {8-[ ? My favorite Godel story:?He didn't realize fully the danger from the Nazis, being as Godel wasn't always on exactly the same planet with the rest of us, so the?scientific community managed to get him to the US.? Einstein and others were trying to get him US citizenship.? At the US consulate, he was given a copy of the US constitution, which he read carefully.? An embassy worker asked "Dr. Godel, what do you think of our constitution?"? Godel: "According to this document, the US could legally become a dictatorship." ? That sure doesn't sound crazy to me.? We need a thousand like him, a million. ? spike ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Aug 3 21:35:42 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:35:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] anorexic geniuses, was Re: Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <301837.44005.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <301837.44005.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C588BAE.3080606@satx.rr.com> On 8/3/2010 3:53 PM, Gregory Jones wrote: > My favorite Godel story: He didn't realize fully the danger from the > Nazis, being as Godel wasn't always on exactly the same planet with the > rest of us, so the scientific community managed to get him to the US. > Einstein and others were trying to get him US citizenship. At the US > consulate, he was given a copy of the US constitution, which he read > carefully. An embassy worker asked "Dr. Godel, what do you think of our > constitution?" Godel: "According to this document, the US could legally > become a dictatorship." The way I heard it, Godel was studying up for the required test and got a bee in his bonnet about that vulnerability in the constitution. As his pals prepped him for the hearing, they told him urgently, "And for the luvva Christ, Kurt, DON'T MENTION THE GODDAM FLAW IN THE CONSTITUTION!" He brought it up anyway, but the Judge shut him up, and allowed his citizenship. Let's see, here's a source: http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/ Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Tue Aug 3 21:59:50 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] anorexic geniuses, was Re: Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C588BAE.3080606@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <931809.30369.qm@web81506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 8/3/10, Damien Broderick wrote: ? >...The way I heard it, Godel was studying up for the required test and got a bee in his bonnet about that vulnerability in the constitution. As his pals prepped him for the hearing, they told him urgently, "And for the luvva Christ, Kurt, DON'T MENTION THE GODDAM FLAW IN THE CONSTITUTION!" He brought it up anyway, but the Judge shut him up, and allowed his citizenship...? Damien ? I like that version.? Were I?a judge, if?a candidate pointed out this particular flaw in the constitution, I would climb down off the bench and hug that man, not just?allow citizenship but recommend him for a citizenship medal. ? Regarding Godel's work, compare to the other great intellectual breakthroughs.? If Newton hadn't discovered calculus when he did,?Liebniz was?right there.? If not Darwin?with evolution, then Wallace.? If not?Einstein, there were several others on the verge of discovering special relativity.? But Godel was sailing uncharted waters alone.? I have?found no one even close to discovering the incompleteness theorems, not Russell, not Ulam, not Goldstein,?none of the giants of the time.? God hadn't even?figured it out before Godel came along.? It is possible we would still not know of that field even today, were it not for Godel's work.? If not for Hofstadter's admirable?efforts to explain incompleteness and self reference to the rest of us, Godel's work would still be completely opaque to all but the elite mathematicians of the world. ? spike ? ??? ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 3 22:04:35 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 18:04:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anorexic geniuses, was Re: Religions and violence. Message-ID: ? I'm not sure if he was anorexic, but Eric Satie only ate white foods. ? I don't think there's a single white food in my fridge besides milk, so poor musical genius fare here. ? MY favorite genius story is regarding Mikhail Bakhtin and his nicotine addiction. In Russia during World War II there was a massive paper shortage. Bakhtin got so desperate for a smoke he eventually tore up and used the paper from a manuscript called The Novel of Education and Its Significance in the History of Realism. Apparently he started with the conclusion and smoked his way though pretty much the whole thing. All that remains is a snippet about Goethe from the introduction. ? As a writer and a smoker, I can appreciate the dilemma. ? Thanks Spike. I like this topic a lot better. Darren________________________________ > Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 13:53:46 -0700 > From: spike66 at att.net > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [ExI] anorexic geniuses, was Re: Religions and violence. > > > > --- On Tue, 8/3/10, John Clark wrote: > >>...I know, and Godel was I think an even greater logician than Aristotle... > > Sorry I haven't followed this thread closely, very busy, but I must > break in here at the risk of posting something far from the point of > the conversation. > >>...nevertheless he was a very odd man... > > Fortunate are we for that. May we all be so odd. > >>... He sealed his windows shut because he thought night air was deadly... > > As one who escaped from a nation which had used poison gas and wanted > his genotype to be extinct, that would be understandable. If an enemy > wanted to use a WMD attack to greatest effect, they would release some > poisonous agent in the middle of the night. Most of the proles would > quietly wake up dead. In that context, sealing the windows is not > so odd. > >>...he wore heavy woolen coats on even the hottest days because he > though the cold was deadly too... > > He was a really skinny guy who didn't eat much. People who are built > like that have a very high surface area to volume ratio, we are cold > all the time, even when others are comfortable or warm. These will > tend to wear wool. I don't know why, but that particular material is > (to me) comfortable in both cool weather and warm. I have nothing > other than wool. I do get puzzled stares on the hottest days, but > better that than no stares at all. > >>...and for unknown reasons he insisted on putting cheap plastic > flamingos on his front lawn... > > Hey, just because Godel wasn't a redneck doesn't mean he was immune > from delightfully tacky yet unrefined taste in lawn ornaments. > Besides, flamingos are very interesting beasts. They have that odd > upsidedown smile going, that lets them devour revolting goo along the > bottom of the shallow waters. Regarding cheap plastic, I have never > seen flamingo figurines in any other material or any other price range > besides cheap and plastic. I find him guilty of Walmartishness, but > innocent of insanity. > >>... He ended up starving himself to death, he refused to eat because > he thought unnamed sinister forces were trying to poison him... > > Considering he escaped the Nazis and was a powerful propaganda device, > I wouldn't be surprised if he had plenty of enemies that would want > nothing more than to slay that gentle genius. I don't think anyone was > trying to poison him, but I give him a hall pass for being suspicious > of everyone. > >>... He weighed 65 pounds when he died... > > Dayum that's skinny, even by my standards. Srinivasa Ramanujan is > another monster intellect we also lost to tragic self starvation. > {8-[ And Karen Carpenter. {8-[ > > My favorite Godel story: He didn't realize fully the danger from the > Nazis, being as Godel wasn't always on exactly the same planet with the > rest of us, so the scientific community managed to get him to the US. > Einstein and others were trying to get him US citizenship. At the US > consulate, he was given a copy of the US constitution, which he read > carefully. An embassy worker asked "Dr. Godel, what do you think of > our constitution?" Godel: "According to this document, the US could > legally become a dictatorship." > > That sure doesn't sound crazy to me. We need a thousand like him, a million. > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing > list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From rtomek at ceti.pl Tue Aug 3 22:22:26 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 00:22:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C588623.4010405@satx.rr.com> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <60B1E1A8-15C3-4FF4-9D46-EBCB8D1D2EA4@bellsouth.net> <4C584C88.5090600@satx.rr.com> <4C58726B.4060802@satx.rr.com> <4C588623.4010405@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 8/3/2010 3:51 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > He sure can take care of himself, with 50% probability. So, no need to > > make noise about all this. > > I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Who is "he"? Some god or > other? John Clark? > > If you mean a supposed god, your reply is very feeble. That would be > disappointing, since most of your other posts have been intelligent although > deliberately provocative (but there's nothing wrong with that). Yes, I mean God. Actually to be sex neutral I should probably say It, not He or She. Anyway, I have written about my views on God's existence first to make some mental exchange with Mr Clark. Failing to explain what I wanted to say, I tried twice to explain again and it seems I failed twice. IMHO I did my best, so there is no point really to push it any farther. In my country they say, "try three times" (very loose translation). I think this folk wisdom was obviously based on something that had been lost during eons but the saying summed this up and was saved from oblivion. No bad feelings about it. Seems like I wasn't up to it. FYI, while some claim to have jumped over Allah, Yehova, Zeus, Thor and other buddies living in baobab (I can easily believe this, having done my jumps long ago), they have yet to jump over what I meant. It could be truly interesting spectacle, if for example we are pure simulation, to see how high one can jump and still not touch the ceiling. So I consider proofs based on our knowledge to be lacking a bit. This knowledge is from our side of the ceiling. This wasn't fourth time, I hope. Just a few reflections. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 3 22:43:42 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 18:43:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anorexic geniuses, was Re: Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C588BAE.3080606@satx.rr.com> References: <301837.44005.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, <4C588BAE.3080606@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: > Let's see, here's a source: > > http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/ Great story, Damien. I've never read the U.S constitution so of course I was hoping the Morgenstern document would say what was specifically troubling Godel. The general consensus on the 'net, in maybe ten minutes of hunting, was that it was the paradox of self-amendment. Is that correct? Does anyone actually know what he said? He must have been a very interesting guy, if Einstein got exasperated with him. Einstein wasn't exactly Mr. Normal.? Darren ---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:35:42 -0500 > From: thespike at satx.rr.com > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] anorexic geniuses, was Re: Religions and violence. > > On 8/3/2010 3:53 PM, Gregory Jones wrote: >> My favorite Godel story: He didn't realize fully the danger from the >> Nazis, being as Godel wasn't always on exactly the same planet with the >> rest of us, so the scientific community managed to get him to the US. >> Einstein and others were trying to get him US citizenship. At the US >> consulate, he was given a copy of the US constitution, which he read >> carefully. An embassy worker asked "Dr. Godel, what do you think of our >> constitution?" Godel: "According to this document, the US could legally >> become a dictatorship." > > The way I heard it, Godel was studying up for the required test and got > a bee in his bonnet about that vulnerability in the constitution. As his > pals prepped him for the hearing, they told him urgently, "And for the > luvva Christ, Kurt, DON'T MENTION THE GODDAM FLAW IN THE CONSTITUTION!" > He brought it up anyway, but the Judge shut him up, and allowed his > citizenship. > > > Damien Broderick > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pharos at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 23:22:17 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 00:22:17 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > As a bet, John has no plan to solve it, beyond the "wired in to our > genes" approach of getting worked up by memes till we kill all the > males in the other tribe. ?Incidentally, understanding the problem may > not help at all. ?My understanding of what was the root cause for the > IRA going inactive was cultural changes where Irish women reduced the > number of children to replacement level. > > If that model is correct, then Iran (which has reached replacement > level) could become a stable country in the next few decades. ?None of > the Arab Islamic countries I can think of have reached that point, > though some may be approaching it. > >?I have no idea of why the Irish women reduced the > number of kids they had. ?And even if I did, I have no suggestions as > to how the same could be done in Arab countries. > > You have to make clear whether you are talking about Northern Ireland or Eire. The Northern Ireland women (where the IRA were bombing) reduced their birth rate at almost exactly the same rate as the rest of the UK because they were all part of a society that was in the process of reducing the birth rate. No special reason for Northern Ireland. Eire was also reducing its birth rate partly for the same reasons as the UK, but also because of the reducing influence of the Roman Catholic church which banned contraception and encouraged large families. The IRA went inactive when they became part of the government and the victimisation of the Northern Irish catholics began to reduce. As you know, all modern first world countries have reduced their birth rates. So if you want to reduce the birth rate of a third world country, the solution is obvious. BillK From rtomek at ceti.pl Wed Aug 4 01:52:57 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 03:52:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Supercomputer oil slick sims predict greasy Atlantic Message-ID: This is not new news, but rather a month old one: [ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/07/ncar_oil_slick_sim/ ] Note: the simulations had been done with ink, not oil. To check for oil they would have to change the code, I think. (...) "I've had a lot of people ask me, 'Will the oil reach Florida?'" Synte Peacock, one of the NCAR researchers who did the simulation, said in a report on the early findings released by NCAR. "Actually, our best knowledge says the scope of this environmental disaster is likely to reach far beyond Florida, with impacts that have yet to be understood." (...) The simulations show that once the dye (and hence the oil slick) hits the Loop Current, a fast-moving, clockwise whirl linking the tip of the Yucatan Peninsula to the western edge of the Florida Panhandle, it can quickly run up the Atlantic Coast as far north as Cape Hatteras in North Carolina before being sucked out into the Atlantic where it disperses across a wide area. So not only will the BP slick reach Florida, it will absolutely engulf it. The Loop Current runs at about 40 miles per day, but the Gulf Stream current in the Atlantic can do 100 miles per day, so the oil could really move fast once it rounds the Panhandle, heading east. The BP slick could have a dramatic effect on Europe as well. Martin Visbeck, of the University of Kiel in Germany, is part of the team trying to figure that out using these simulations. "Our assumption is that the enormous lateral mixing in the ocean together with the biological disintegration of the oil should reduce the pollution to levels below harmful concentrations." Visbeck explained in the NCAR statement. "But we would like to have this backed up by numbers from some of the best ocean models." (...) Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From sparge at gmail.com Wed Aug 4 01:46:05 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 21:46:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anorexic geniuses, was Re: Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <301837.44005.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <301837.44005.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/3 Gregory Jones > Srinivasa Ramanujan is another monster intellect we also lost to tragic > self starvation. Wikipedia says otherwise: "A 1994 analysis of Ramanujan's medical records and symptoms by Dr. D.A.B. Young concluded that it was much more likely he had hepatic amoebiasis, a parasitic infection of the liver. This is supported by the fact that Ramanujan had spent time in Madras, where the disease was widespread. He had two episodes of dysentery before he left India. When not properly treated, dysentery can lie dormant for years and lead to hepatic amoebiasis. It was a difficult disease to diagnose, but once diagnosed, could have been readily cured." -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Aug 4 02:23:31 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:23:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anorexic geniuses, was Re: Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <301837.44005.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/3 Dave Sill : > 2010/8/3 Gregory Jones >> >> Srinivasa?Ramanujan is another monster intellect we also lost to? tragic >> self starvation. > > Wikipedia says otherwise: > "A 1994 analysis of Ramanujan's medical records and symptoms by Dr. D.A.B. > Young concluded that it was much more likely he had hepatic amoebiasis, a > parasitic infection of the liver. This is supported by the fact that > Ramanujan had spent time in Madras, where the disease was widespread. He had > two episodes of dysentery before he left India. When not properly treated, > dysentery can lie dormant for years and lead to hepatic amoebiasis. It was a > difficult disease to diagnose, but once diagnosed, could have been readily > cured." I wonder if the boost in brainpower is due to extra oxygen+sugar available for thinking that might have otherwise gone to physical processes. I imagine solving math problems on a small chalkboard does not have the same caloric requirement as ... whatever labor normal people did for work each day. From max at maxmore.com Wed Aug 4 02:00:04 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (max at maxmore.com) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:00:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100803210004.6ee0ot27ks0osggg@webmail.maxmore.com> This is dedicated to John Clark: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/02/iran-supreme-leader-music-islam From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Aug 4 02:21:10 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:21:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50C26EF9-7669-4693-AA42-62C6C0E3E544@bellsouth.net> On Aug 3, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > As a bet, John has no plan to solve it That is correct, I have no idea how to undue the evil Islam has created in the world through it's stupidity and superstition, I wish I did. However I think I know what won't work, making feeble excuses for Islamic atrocities. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Aug 4 04:46:44 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 21:46:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values In-Reply-To: <20100803210004.6ee0ot27ks0osggg@webmail.maxmore.com> References: <20100803210004.6ee0ot27ks0osggg@webmail.maxmore.com> Message-ID: I found this somewhat surprising because normally music is used as a key means to indoctrinate believers (whatever the religion). But perhaps the operatic-like daily calls to prayer are sufficient for fundamentalist Muslims. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/02/iran-supreme-leader-music-islam John On 8/3/10, max at maxmore.com wrote: > This is dedicated to John Clark: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/02/iran-supreme-leader-music-islam > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Aug 4 09:50:06 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 02:50:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] humor: Inception "explained!" Message-ID: I thought this was very well done... http://io9.com/5603013/inception-characters-try-to-explain-their-film-fail John ; ) From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Aug 4 09:41:16 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 02:41:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Film: Deux Ex Machina Message-ID: An upcoming science fiction film that depicts a cyberpunk-style dystopia. I really like the proproduction artwork. http://io9.com/5602969/first-details-on-pearry-teos-cyberpunk-dystopic-flick-deus-ex-machina/gallery/ John From bbenzai at yahoo.com Wed Aug 4 10:17:11 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 03:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <357360.59243.qm@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> max at maxmore.com wrote: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/02/iran-supreme-leader-music-islam "...was thinking of starting music lessons, but wanted to know if they were acceptable according to Islam" I think this pretty much gets to the heart of the matter. People so thoroughly brainwashed that *every single decision* has to be referred to a higher authority to check if it is 'acceptable'. Truly frightening, that human beings can be turned into robotic sheep like this. Islam is supposed to mean "submission". That's bad enough, but in reality, it seems more like "abject slavery" to me. Not to mention that some individuals will gleefully take advantage of this degraded state to gain and retain positions of power. (Actually, delete that 'robotic', it's demeaning to robots) Ben Zaiboc From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Aug 4 13:58:44 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 08:58:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] humor: Inception "explained!" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <27C2EFF841F044B28FE4FEBD71517FA9@DFC68LF1> I haven't seen the movie, but this put the plot into perspective :-) Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Grigg Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 4:50 AM To: ExI chat list; World Transhumanist Association Discussion List; transfigurism; SciFi_Discussion Subject: [ExI] humor: Inception "explained!" I thought this was very well done... http://io9.com/5603013/inception-characters-try-to-explain-their-film-fail John ; ) _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From olga.bourlin at gmail.com Wed Aug 4 14:28:06 2010 From: olga.bourlin at gmail.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:28:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C574A50.2040501@mac.com> <9012790E-0D19-4DF3-B235-1D6D9D332F59@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/8/3 John Clark : > On Aug 3, 2010, at 2:48 AM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > > I find Pat Condell's style so obstreperous that he makes me want to?turn him > off. > > There is no disputing matters of taste. > > What exactly is "intelligent" about his video? > ?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4 > > He says several things that are true, he says nothing that is untrue, and he > says things that need to be said. > > On the other hand, here is something I find much more "intelligent": > http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/street-level-view-of-ground-zero-mosque.html > > Among the skyscrapers of Downtown Manhattan it's not unusual to be unable to > see something less than 500 feet away if you are a ground level, but if you > are in a skyscraper in Downtown Manhattan you are unlikely to be at ground > level. > I should be reconciled with the phenomenon by now but it is still > fascinating to watch a certain breed of self hating liberal frantically > making excuses for the medieval and repulsive actions of Islam, while if > their own culture had done things one tenth as evil and stupid would be > foaming at the mouth with self ???righteous indignation. > ??John K Clark Hmmm. John, do you think the Constitution is a liberal rag? "Mayor Michael Bloomberg got it just right in a speech on Governors Island, within view of the Statue of Liberty. He called the proposed mosque 'as important a test of separation of church and state as any we may see in our lifetime, and it is critically important that we get it right.'? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/opinion/04wed1.html?_r=1 Olga From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Aug 4 15:51:00 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 01:51:00 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values In-Reply-To: <20100803210004.6ee0ot27ks0osggg@webmail.maxmore.com> References: <20100803210004.6ee0ot27ks0osggg@webmail.maxmore.com> Message-ID: On 4 August 2010 12:00, wrote: > This is dedicated to John Clark: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/02/iran-supreme-leader-music-islam Interestingly, he thinks peoples' time is better spent doing science: 'Khamenei's comments came in response to a request for a ruling by a 21-year-old follower of his, who was thinking of starting music lessons, but wanted to know if they were acceptable according to Islam, the semi-official Fars news agency reported. "It's better that our dear youth spend their valuable time in learning science and essential and useful skills and fill their time with sport and healthy recreations instead of music," he said.' -- Stathis Papaioannou From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Aug 4 16:06:32 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:06:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C574A50.2040501@mac.com> <9012790E-0D19-4DF3-B235-1D6D9D332F59@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <8CE5E154-AA2B-42F8-A07D-772B3A2EF6F1@bellsouth.net> On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:28 AM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > John, do you think the Constitution is a liberal rag? No. > > "Mayor Michael Bloomberg got it just right in a speech And Mayor Bloomberg is free to say what's on his mind because of something that is in that very same Constitution; just as I am free to say that Islam is a collection of repulsive and amazingly stupid ideas that is causing great harm to the world, as are weak minded effetes in the west, who would label themselves a bad person in their own mind, if they did not defend the actions of a gang of thugs and drooling imbeciles from criticism. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Aug 4 16:28:12 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <776247.13253.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ? ?"...It's better that our dear youth spend their valuable time in learning science and essential and useful skills..." Khamenei ? ? Perhaps the science and essential useful skills he was?referring to?were theology and pyrotechnology. ? spike ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Aug 4 18:50:14 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 11:50:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values In-Reply-To: <776247.13253.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <776247.13253.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Their leader doesn't want a bunch of female seducing wannabe rockstars performing at coffee houses throughout Iran! Can you blame him? lol But on the other hand, having lots of jocks around with certain scientific skills *in particular* could be extremely useful to the regime's goals of spreading terror... John On 8/4/10, Gregory Jones wrote: > > ?"...It's better that > our dear youth spend their valuable time in learning science and > essential and useful skills..." Khamenei > > > Perhaps the science and essential useful skills he was?referring to?were > theology and pyrotechnology. > > spike > > > From spike66 at att.net Wed Aug 4 23:41:48 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 16:41:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food Message-ID: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike> This is something I have been thinking about for years, raising bugs for food: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-08/humanity-needs-start-farming-b ugs-food-says-united-nations-policy-paper It just seems like with all our technology, we should be able to figure out some way to eat the little bastards. They have been eating us for all this time, and eating our food. Failing that, we should at least be able to figure out how to make them eat each other. I never did find out if a mosquito will bite a tick. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 00:13:25 2010 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:13:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike> References: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike> Message-ID: A mosquito will bite a tick, but only if the tick slept with the mosquito's spouse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 5 00:23:48 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:23:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values Message-ID: >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/02/iran-supreme-leader-music-islam A quote from the article: ["There were times I sang a song by Banan (a popular vocalist) for him and he told me to avoid music and instead pray to God", said Asadi, who shared a cell with Khamenei for four months in Moshtarak prison in Tehran in 1976 and stayed friends with him for several years after the revolution.] I wonder if Khamenei wanted to be a musician when he was a kid, and all he could get out his piano was arabesque kitsch, kind of like der Fuhrer with the canvas and the paint. ---------------------------------------- > From: stathisp at gmail.com > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 01:51:00 +1000 > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values > > On 4 August 2010 12:00, wrote: >> This is dedicated to John Clark: >> > > Interestingly, he thinks peoples' time is better spent doing science: > > 'Khamenei's comments came in response to a request for a ruling by a > 21-year-old follower of his, who was thinking of starting music > lessons, but wanted to know if they were acceptable according to > Islam, the semi-official Fars news agency reported. "It's better that > our dear youth spend their valuable time in learning science and > essential and useful skills and fill their time with sport and healthy > recreations instead of music," he said.' > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 00:27:26 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:27:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike> References: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike> Message-ID: 2010/8/4 spike : > > This is something I have been thinking about for years, raising bugs for > food: > > http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-08/humanity-needs-start-farming-bugs-food-says-united-nations-policy-paper > > It just seems like with all our technology, we should be able to figure out > some way to eat the little bastards.? They have been eating us for all this > time, and eating our food.? Failing that, we should at least be able to > figure out how to make them eat each other. > > I never did find out if a mosquito will bite a tick. I think people generally freak out because of the crawlies and crunchiness. "Ew, eat a bug? no way" But if we generally had any exposure to livestock with the same frequency as local bugs we'd probably think, "Ew, eat a pig? They're gross" I don't think it's going to take a huge amount of technology as much as psychology to start eating bugs. Although if the FDA approves an unintelligible name for "bugs" on the ingredients list of manufactured/processed foods we won't know or likely care - as long as they don't remove any of our salt, fat, or HFCS. I'll eat bugs. I'm just not going to start catching my own any more than I catch my own chickens, fish or cows. From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 5 00:28:50 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 17:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <744359.65821.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 8/4/10, Will Steinberg wrote: ? >...A mosquito will bite a tick, but only if the tick slept with the mosquito's spouse... ? Or if the tick is in the process of biting a mosquito which had previously bitten some other beast.? It is an interesting question to me, to figure out what chemical signals these bugs need to tell their nanobrains that a particular beast is biteable.? Then?we?make a photo of a tick biting a mosquito with?the mosquito biting the tick, sort of a buggery version of 69.? Then we make one of those nifty "Epic Fail" posters: ? http://www.lifelounge.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=182 ? spike ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 00:30:39 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:30:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > "Ew, eat a pig? ?They're gross" No they're not. They're intelligent and clean, when they're not raised in a factory. And goats don't eat tin cans. -Dave From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 00:43:15 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:43:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values In-Reply-To: <357360.59243.qm@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <357360.59243.qm@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > Truly frightening, that human beings can be turned into robotic sheep like this. > > (Actually, delete that 'robotic', it's demeaning to robots) The sheep don't like what you are insinuating either. From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 5 00:51:03 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:51:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike>, Message-ID: >> It just seems like with all our technology, we should be able to figure out >> some way to eat the little bastards. They've figured it out in Asia. I stayed on Khaosan Road in Bangkok once, where all the backpackers' inns are, and the sidewalks are lined with vendors selling cheap food from carts -- spring-rolls and pad thai and the usual fare. My first stroll down I came across an old woman proudly hawking roasted insects -- they looked liked beetles but I couldn't be sure and her English wasn't that good. They definitely looked crispy though. And she assured me they were delicious. I passed. I read once that the average person eats fifteen spiders a year. They crawl into our open mouths while we're asleep and we swallow them. That's enough insect protein for me, thanks. In this case, consider me anti-tech. I'd rather dine on nutra-loaf. Darren P.S. If anyone wants to point out that a spider is an arachnid and not an insect, forget it. The distinction is lost. The closest I get to eating creatures with more than four legs is lobster. ---------------------------------------- > Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:27:26 -0400 > From: msd001 at gmail.com > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > 2010/8/4 spike : >> >> This is something I have been thinking about for years, raising bugs for >> food: >> >> http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-08/humanity-needs-start-farming-bugs-food-says-united-nations-policy-paper >> >> It just seems like with all our technology, we should be able to figure out >> some way to eat the little bastards. They have been eating us for all this >> time, and eating our food. Failing that, we should at least be able to >> figure out how to make them eat each other. >> >> I never did find out if a mosquito will bite a tick. > > I think people generally freak out because of the crawlies and > crunchiness. "Ew, eat a bug? no way" But if we generally had any > exposure to livestock with the same frequency as local bugs we'd > probably think, "Ew, eat a pig? They're gross" > > I don't think it's going to take a huge amount of technology as much > as psychology to start eating bugs. Although if the FDA approves an > unintelligible name for "bugs" on the ingredients list of > manufactured/processed foods we won't know or likely care - as long as > they don't remove any of our salt, fat, or HFCS. > > I'll eat bugs. I'm just not going to start catching my own any more > than I catch my own chickens, fish or cows. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sparge at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 00:54:05 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:54:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:51 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > P.S. If anyone wants to point out that a spider is an arachnid and not an insect, forget it. The distinction is lost. The closest I get to eating creatures with more than four legs is lobster. Yeah, lobsters and crabs are *nothing* like spiders... :rolleyes: -Dave From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 00:57:16 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:57:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: >> "Ew, eat a pig? ?They're gross" > > No they're not. They're intelligent and clean, when they're not raised > in a factory. > > And goats don't eat tin cans. Ok, 'sounds like you might have a pet pig. I know someone with a pet pig. Certainly the pig is smarter than their dog. Having met both, I doubt I'd be willing to process either one from walkin-around animals to skillet-ready. I'm pretty happy with the modern approach to meat: shrink-wrapped in a foam tray at the grocery store. If there's a substance that provides the same nutrition and is as tasty as meat that doesn't require chopping up animals, I'm all for it. Quorn is pretty good. That TVP riblet substance is pretty good too. I'll give bugburgers a try when I see them in my grocer's freezer. When I first saw this subject line from spike, I assume he was offering to provide a service in exchange for food. Then I realized, "No, he is talking about literally eating bugs" :) From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 5 01:07:21 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 21:07:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike>, , , Message-ID: > Yeah, lobsters and crabs are *nothing* like spiders... :rolleyes: One major difference, besides their genus and species: I don't have an evolutionary aversion to eating lobster and crab, or even touching them. Perhaps because my mid-brain doesn't immediately classify them as likely having poisonous venom. Or could be that I grew up on the ocean in Nova Scotia and not in Bangkok. Take your pick. Darren ---------------------------------------- > From: sparge at gmail.com > Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:54:05 -0400 > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:51 PM, darren shawn greer > wrote: >> P.S. If anyone wants to point out that a spider is an arachnid and not an insect, forget it. The distinction is lost. The closest I get to eating creatures with more than four legs is lobster. > > > -Dave > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From wincat at swbell.net Thu Aug 5 01:35:52 2010 From: wincat at swbell.net (Norman Jacobs) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:35:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike>, , , Message-ID: <000501cb343e$8a87bf80$9f973e80$@net> Good thinking! Tel.: 713-784-1388 Cell: 713-498-1424 Fax: 775-628-7350 -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of darren shawn greer Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 8:07 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > Yeah, lobsters and crabs are *nothing* like spiders... :rolleyes: One major difference, besides their genus and species: I don't have an evolutionary aversion to eating lobster and crab, or even touching them. Perhaps because my mid-brain doesn't immediately classify them as likely having poisonous venom. Or could be that I grew up on the ocean in Nova Scotia and not in Bangkok. Take your pick. Darren ---------------------------------------- > From: sparge at gmail.com > Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:54:05 -0400 > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:51 PM, darren shawn greer > wrote: >> P.S. If anyone wants to point out that a spider is an arachnid and not an insect, forget it. The distinction is lost. The closest I get to eating creatures with more than four legs is lobster. > > > -Dave > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 5 01:37:44 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 18:37:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <143631.35809.qm@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 8/4/10, Mike Dougherty wrote: ? >...When I first saw this subject line from spike, I assume he was offering to provide a service in exchange for food.? Then I realized, "No, he is talking about literally eating bugs"? :) ? ? Ja.? Of course that carries its own moral dilemmas for some.? We slay one cow to feed many proles, but many bugs would need to be slain to feed a single prole.? On the other hand, most bugs are revolting beasts, at least to normal people.? Shrimp would be the seagoing version of the same moral dilemma.? These too are revolting looking beasts, but so good are they to devour. ? spike ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Thu Aug 5 04:34:37 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:34:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The end of Google Wave Message-ID: <201008050434.o754YjQU024047@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Even the mighty Google doesn't succeed with everything: http://mashable.com/2010/08/04/rip-google-wave/ From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 06:01:47 2010 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:31:47 +0930 Subject: [ExI] The end of Google Wave In-Reply-To: <201008050434.o754YjQU024047@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201008050434.o754YjQU024047@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 5 August 2010 14:04, Max More wrote: > Even the mighty Google doesn't succeed with everything: > > http://mashable.com/2010/08/04/rip-google-wave/ That's a bit sad, google wave has great nerdage. OTOH, it's very difficult to figure out what's a good use case (and I tried). But, the code's still out there, and the protocol, so the important parts aren't dead. -- Emlyn http://www.blahblahbleh.com - A simple youtube radio that I built http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog Find me on Facebook and Buzz From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 09:37:57 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:37:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C574A50.2040501@mac.com> <9012790E-0D19-4DF3-B235-1D6D9D332F59@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On 4 August 2010 16:28, Olga Bourlin wrote: > "Mayor Michael Bloomberg got it just right in a speech ?on Governors > Island, within view of the Statue of Liberty. He called the proposed > mosque 'as important a test of separation of church and state as any > we may see in our lifetime, and it is critically important that we get > it right.'? This is a funny US way of seeing thing, which denounces itself some obsession with "religion", whatever the term may mean. What if 9/11 had been organised by the KGB and the plan were to open a section of the American Communist Party in the neighboroughood? What if it had been a WTA thing and it were a H+ conference center? While I am inclined to err on the side of freedom of speech, why should a "religion" be dealt with in any different fashion than, say, philosophies or secular lifestyles? One can easily understand why scientology decided at a point in time to call and consider itself a "church"... -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 09:40:10 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:40:10 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The robot that visits your cubicle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1 August 2010 12:26, BillK wrote: > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 10:47 AM, BillK wrote: >> Telepresence robots soon available. > Singapore has them also. > > Telepresence bots? This would be a no-no in terms of Italian labour law... :-) -- Stefano Vaj From pharos at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 08:56:43 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:56:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike> References: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike> Message-ID: On 8/5/10, spike wrote: > I never did find out if a mosquito will bite a tick. > > In theory, maybe. In practice, very, very unlikely. Just say No. The tick got the blood from a live human, animal or bird. The mosquito's sensors would be swamped by all these delicious humans, animals and birds full of warm blood. It wouldn't even notice the tick. The female mosquito proboscis (only females bite) is designed to go into soft mammal flesh, so anything with a hard shell (tick?) would be ignored. See: BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 09:56:27 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:56:27 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. and EP In-Reply-To: <4C563350.4050605@mac.com> References: <4C563350.4050605@mac.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/2 samantha : > Please explain how a belief that the Non-Agression Principle is the basis of > any reasonable ethics leads to extermination.? I could an agree more about > the inherent evil and violence of States as the have a legal monopoly on the > initiation of force. Easy. It is enough that its supporters accept a high enough degree of ideological inconsistency to allow for the extermination of those who do not support it. See for that matter buddhist Sri Lanka, etc. :-) Conversely, Vikings, e.g., had no real qualms about violence, and were certainly not too peaceful, but as a society were not especially more violent than the middle-age christians preaching the "gospel of love". >> The real issue, IMHO, is that while a "heathen/pagan" may or may not >> really care upon the fact that a bordering culture lives according to >> different values or beliefs, monotheism *requires* conversion or >> destruction of the unfaithful. > No, it doesn't.? Many monotheists could care less if others go straight to > whatever version of hell or if they do care understand the importance of > free choice. Sure, as many could not care less about chastity, etc. My contention is that monotheism *philosophically* requires and implies it. Something which is not of the essence to other worldviews. Transhumanism, for instance... ;-) -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 10:04:41 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 12:04:41 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The end of Google Wave In-Reply-To: References: <201008050434.o754YjQU024047@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 5 August 2010 08:01, Emlyn wrote: > On 5 August 2010 14:04, Max More wrote: >> Even the mighty Google doesn't succeed with everything: >> >> http://mashable.com/2010/08/04/rip-google-wave/ > > That's a bit sad, google wave has great nerdage. OTOH, it's very > difficult to figure out what's a good use case (and I tried). Yes, I liked the idea, but for my personal needs it was the proverbial solution in search of a problem... :-/ -- Stefano Vaj From pharos at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 10:11:56 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:11:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C574A50.2040501@mac.com> <9012790E-0D19-4DF3-B235-1D6D9D332F59@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On 8/5/10, Stefano Vaj wrote: > What if 9/11 had been organised by the KGB and the plan were to open a > section of the American Communist Party in the neighboroughood? What > if it had been a WTA thing and it were a H+ conference center? While I > am inclined to err on the side of freedom of speech, why should a > "religion" be dealt with in any different fashion than, say, > philosophies or secular lifestyles? > > I agree that we shouldn't allow mosquitoes at ground zero. Let?s root out the terrorist sympathizers who decided to install REFLECTING POOLS of water at Ground Zero! Oh sure, we?ll foster understanding?of WEST NILE VIRUS!!!! Does nobody understand how these vile creatures breed? BillK From sparge at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 11:09:35 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 07:09:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > Ok, 'sounds like you might have a pet pig. No, I just don't like to see ignorant stereotypes propagated. I live on acreage and have kept livestock. I've never had pigs, but I've talked to people who did. >?I know someone with a pet > pig. ?Certainly the pig is smarter than their dog. They have a reputation for being dirty and smelly. Dirty, yes. They wallow in mud to cool off and protect themselves from sunburn and insects. But given proper habitat, they're careful to isolate their wastes away from the wallow and sleeping areas. And by all accounts they're the most intelligent farm animals, except possibly for some of the smarter farmers. :-) >?Having met both, I > doubt I'd be willing to process either one from walkin-around animals > to skillet-ready. ?I'm pretty happy with the modern approach to meat: > shrink-wrapped in a foam tray at the grocery store. The vast majority of meat consumers would be unwilling or unable to convert an animal to a meal. I think doing that at least once is something everyone should experience. Heck, even killing and cleaning a fish would be eye opening for most modern proles. >?If there's a > substance that provides the same nutrition and is as tasty as meat > that doesn't require chopping up animals, I'm all for it. ?Quorn is > pretty good. ?That TVP riblet substance is pretty good too. ?I'll give > bugburgers a try when I see them in my grocer's freezer. Never heard of Quorn. I'll have to check it out. Maybe cultured meat will become practical someday soon. -Dave From sparge at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 11:19:56 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 07:19:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:07 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > One major difference, besides their genus and species: I don't have an evolutionary aversion to eating lobster and crab, > or even touching them. Perhaps because my mid-brain doesn't immediately classify them as likely having poisonous venom. > Or could be that I grew up on the ocean in Nova Scotia and not in Bangkok. Take your pick. People aren't grossed out about eating spiders or insects because some of them are venomous, it's because they find the idea repulsive. The fact that lobsters, crabs, shrimp, crayfish, etc., are pretty much just large water bugs and are not only edible but delectable means that making insects a desirable food product is probably not insurmountable, provided they really do taste good. -Dave From wincat at swbell.net Thu Aug 5 13:14:12 2010 From: wincat at swbell.net (Norman Jacobs) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:14:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike> Message-ID: <002701cb34a0$1930ee80$4b92cb80$@net> After some breeding to improve the amount of meat on the insect, perhaps? Who will be the first farmer? Tel.: 713-784-1388 Cell: 713-498-1424 Fax: 775-628-7350 -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 6:20 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:07 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > One major difference, besides their genus and species: I don't have an evolutionary aversion to eating lobster and crab, > or even touching them. Perhaps because my mid-brain doesn't immediately classify them as likely having poisonous venom. > Or could be that I grew up on the ocean in Nova Scotia and not in Bangkok. Take your pick. People aren't grossed out about eating spiders or insects because some of them are venomous, it's because they find the idea repulsive. The fact that lobsters, crabs, shrimp, crayfish, etc., are pretty much just large water bugs and are not only edible but delectable means that making insects a desirable food product is probably not insurmountable, provided they really do taste good. -Dave _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 5 14:34:44 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 10:34:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: <002701cb34a0$1930ee80$4b92cb80$@net> References: <4B1EF2FE932E448E8D869D758AA0618A@spike> , , , , <002701cb34a0$1930ee80$4b92cb80$@net> Message-ID: > People aren't grossed out about eating spiders or insects because some > of them are venomous, it's because they find the idea repulsive. The > fact that lobsters, crabs, shrimp, crayfish, etc., are pretty much > just large water bugs and are not only edible but delectable means > that making insects a desirable food product is probably not > insurmountable, provided they really do taste good. I never suggested that eating insects was insurmountable. Only that many of us have a deep physical aversion to them that is likely left-over evolutionary conditioning because so many of them are toxic, or were, at some stage in human development. This is kind of gross, but human beings also find their own excrement repulsive, which is also probably an evolutionary safe-guard to keep us from eating it in times of extreme hunger and getting sick. But not all mammals do. Dogs, for example, often indulge, finding in their own and other animal scat a rich source of protein which they will eat when nothing else is available. But genetic mutation and natural selection has provided them with saliva that kills more bacteria than human saliva. As a result their brains don't classify scat to be as repulsive as we do, because there is a benefit to them eating it, when for us there is only danger. There is nothing to say that human beings can't think our way past an evolutionary imperative. We have enough technology to determine which insects are poisonous, and have been bitten enough times to be cautious. ?Any biological conditioning can be over-come by force of will, necessity, and enough social conditioning.? The lobster comment was really just a joke anyway. Although I do like them and eating spider meat doesn't really appeal to me. Who knows? Maybe one day I'll be considered a culinary boor.? D. ---------------------------------------- > From: wincat at swbell.net > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:14:12 -0500 > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > After some breeding to improve the amount of meat on the insect, perhaps? > Who will be the first farmer? > > Tel.: 713-784-1388 > Cell: 713-498-1424 > Fax: 775-628-7350 > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 6:20 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:07 PM, darren shawn greer > wrote: >> One major difference, besides their genus and species: I don't have an > evolutionary aversion to eating lobster and crab, >> or even touching them. Perhaps because my mid-brain doesn't immediately > classify them as likely having poisonous venom. >> Or could be that I grew up on the ocean in Nova Scotia and not in Bangkok. > Take your pick. > > People aren't grossed out about eating spiders or insects because some > of them are venomous, it's because they find the idea repulsive. The > fact that lobsters, crabs, shrimp, crayfish, etc., are pretty much > just large water bugs and are not only edible but delectable means > that making insects a desirable food product is probably not > insurmountable, provided they really do taste good. > > -Dave > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 15:09:16 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:09:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 3:04 AM, John Clark wrote: > And Mayor Bloomberg is free to say what's on his mind because of something that is in that very same Constitution; just as I am free to say that Islam is a collection of repulsive and amazingly stupid ideas that is causing great harm to the world, Sigh. Islam is a meme set that affects humans the same as every other religious meme set. The current xenophobic nature of it to be expected since the majority of its holders are facing a bleak future. The same goes for the fundamentalist sects in the US for exactly the same reason. A majority of them were members of the middle class, now much shrunken. Between fundamentalist Islam in Arab countries and fundamentalist Christianity in the US, can you really make a judgment call as to which is worse? At least Islam (here) isn't trying to take a major part of science out of the curriculum Unless economic conditions get substantially better, wired in human psychological mechanisms from the stone age will make memes like those of John increasingly common and eventually lead to wars. > as are weak minded effetes in the west, who would label themselves a bad person in their own mind, if they did not defend the actions of a gang of thugs and drooling imbeciles from criticism. Political correctness is part of the "prosperous times between wars" ways that we try to pretend that groups of people are essentially the same to reduce the xenophobia that builds up in times leading up to wars. Groups are *not* the same, having been under different selective pressures at least since the beginning of agriculture. Even the evolutionary psychologists are caught in this. Depending on when selection for specific traits happened, humans can be very similar. Nazi Germany, Cambodia and Rwanda are examples of "evolved in the stone age" psychological mechanisms. Without some wild card such as nanotech, AI or other aspects of the singularity, the odds are that John's attitude will eventually become dominate in the US. The end point is the US going to war with Islamic populations and being responsible for the deaths of perhaps a billion people (or more). Or maybe the Russians will do it instead. They have more Islamics and a common boarder with some of the Islamic countries. So far, EP is a really unsatisfactory field of study. It is relatively easy to understand such things as the current direction of Islamic memes or the meme set that has captured John, but it doesn't suggest courses of action that are sensible or acceptable. Stone age psychological mechanisms and weapons for killing masses of people are an explosive mix. Keith From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 5 15:13:11 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <101234.50933.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 8/5/10, Dave Sill wrote: ? People aren't grossed out about eating spiders or insects because some of them are venomous, it's because they find the idea repulsive...? - Dave ? Sure but that argument skips an important step:? Why are insects repulsive?? Why is the revulsion (to some extent) instinctive?? Why are some people way more repulsed by bugs than others?? Why is it that even if pains are taken to not instill revulsion in children, that most somehow develop it anyway, or just seem to have it?? Why is it that some people (moi) pick up bugs with their hands, and others have the classic "eeeewwwww yuck" reaction?? Why do even dogs and cats to some extent have bug revulsion? ? Suppose I were to figure out a way to breed tons of bugs, get them to go out and grow large by devouring other bugs, then return home, where I put them into some kind of giant blender?and create a huge vat of repulsive high protein goo, with a microwave irradiator to sterilize the revolting glop.? Then I figured out way to make cookies or biscuits out of it.? Why is it that no one would want to?devour them?? Or even?use them for?pet food?? But for some reason they would agree to giving them to the hogs, then eating the bacon?? ? spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kat at mindspillage.org Thu Aug 5 14:56:26 2010 From: kat at mindspillage.org (Kat Walsh) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 10:56:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Extropian-friendly t-shirts Message-ID: Spotted at the Imaginary Foundation t-shirt store: "Toward the Singularity": http://www.imaginaryfoundation.com/index.php?pagemode=detail&type=Mens%20T&uid=C190B0 Actually, there are many other technologically-optimistic flavored designs there too, if you're into wearing your heart on your sl... er, your thoughts on your chest. Cheers, Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: kat at wikimedia.org * Personal: kat at mindspillage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:mindspillage IRC(freenode,OFTC):mindspillage * identi.ca:mindspillage * phone:ask From rtomek at ceti.pl Thu Aug 5 15:24:47 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 17:24:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Coronal Mass Ejection Hits Earth Message-ID: Howdy, http://news.discovery.com/space/impact-coronal-mass-ejection-hits-earth.html We have just been hit by CME (coronal mass ejection). I wonder if anybody noticed :-). Any kind of strange phenomenon, like interruptions in power and signal transmission? Auroras don't count, they are always out there, more or less. "August 2010 Coronal mass ejections On August 1, 2010, scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), using images taken from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, observed a series of four large CMEs emanating from the Earth-facing hemisphere. At an observed velocity varying between 670,560 m/s and 1,118,000 m/s (meters per second), they were expected to strike the Earth's geomagnetic field sometime between August 4 and early August 5. As of 05:00 UTC August 4, the estimated time of arrival of the series was as follows: Wednesday, August 4 07:00 UTC Wednesday, August 4 17:00 UTC Thursday, August 5 00:00 UTC Thursday, August 5 06:00 UTC[8] All four were described as large and, according to scientists, possessed enough energy to cause aurorae to be observed by the naked eye in non-polar regions.[9] According to reports, aurorae would be visible at night toward the northern horizon in temperate latitudes between 45?? to 50??, and near overhead in regions farther north.[10]"" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection ] Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 5 15:28:20 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <875303.25644.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 8/5/10, BillK wrote: ? >...The tick got the blood from a live human, animal or bird. The mosquito's sensors would be swamped by all these delicious humans, animals and birds full of warm blood. It wouldn't even notice the tick... ? OK ja, I didn't state the question very clearly.? The experiment would be done under controlled circumstances, where the mosquito(es) and the engorged tick(s) would be in an isolated environment with no other beasts to distract them and to make it easier to photograph the ensuing hilarity.? A small glass bell might work, or a plexiglass cube about 5 cm on a side. ? >...The female mosquito proboscis (only females bite) is designed to go into soft mammal flesh, so anything with a hard shell (tick?) would be ignored... Hmmm, disagree.? Ticks do not have shells, but you might be right that the mosquito cannot penetrate whatever it is the ticks do have.? It is tough material, but I would not describe it as a shell, and it will fail if you pull on an engorged tick incorrectly, splooshing the blood all over the place (please?pardon the?squick on a Thursday morning.)? {8^D? Then I would need the appropriate chemical to apply to the tick to give the mosquito the "bite me here" signal.? I seriously doubt I could compel the tick to bite the mosquito however, even if I managed to constrain the beasts. ? spike ? ? ? From: BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food To: "ExI chat list" Date: Thursday, August 5, 2010, 1:56 AM On 8/5/10, spike? wrote: > I never did find out if a mosquito will bite a tick. > > In theory, maybe. In practice, very, very unlikely. Just say No. The tick got the blood from a live human, animal or bird. The mosquito's sensors would be swamped by all these delicious humans, animals and birds full of warm blood. It wouldn't even notice the tick. The female mosquito proboscis (only females bite) is designed to go into soft mammal flesh, so anything with a hard shell (tick?) would be ignored. See: BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Aug 5 16:59:44 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 12:59:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > Islam is a meme set that affects humans Agreed. > the same as every other religious meme set. All religious meme sets are stupid and destructive, but some are more stupid and destructive than others. > The current xenophobic nature of it to be expected since the majority of its holders are facing a bleak future. The same goes for the fundamentalist sects in the US for exactly the same reason. A majority of them were members of the middle class, now much shrunken. I have no problem with any of those explanations, except that I don't see what it has to do with what we were talking about. Explaining the complex environmental social and genetic factors that came together to produce a tangible object in the real world, an asshole for example, does not prove the asshole in question does not in fact exist; rather it is yet more confirmation, not that such is needed, that the physical property of existence is possessed by the aforementioned asshole. > > Between fundamentalist Islam in Arab countries and fundamentalist Christianity in the US, can you really make a judgment call as to which is worse? I don't see why judging which turd stinks worse is necessary, but if you insist I would say fundamentalist Islam because as seriously as Christians take their religion they don't take it as seriously as Islam takes theirs. Yes that means Christians are more hypocritical, but in this case hypocrisy is a good thing. I'll take a hypocritical Christian who says he believes everything in the Bible but doesn't act that way over a sincere Muslim who says he believes everything in the Quran and actually does act that way. > Unless economic conditions get substantially better, wired in human > psychological mechanisms from the stone age will make memes like those > of John increasingly common and eventually lead to wars. Then I guess economic conditions need to get substantially better, but that's easier said than done. And yes some (perhaps most) of my likes and dislikes are wired in, but unless you are of a different species than me much the same could be said about you. > Without some wild card such as nanotech, AI or other aspects of the > singularity, the odds are that John's attitude will eventually become > dominate in the US. The trend seems to be going in the opposite direction, yet more people in the west making lame excuses for Islam, or assuming that if you can explain why Islam became destructive and stupid that means it's not destructive and stupid anymore. > It is relatively easy to understand such things as the current direction of > Islamic memes or the meme set that has captured John, but it doesn't > suggest courses of action that are sensible or acceptable. It's true that I don't have a solution to the problem, but at least I know there is a problem that needs a solution. By the way, do you have a sensible or acceptable course of action? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Aug 5 17:28:35 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:28:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anorexic geniuses, was Re: Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <301837.44005.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <301837.44005.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Aug 3, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Gregory Jones wrote: > he [Godel] escaped the Nazis True, but Godel was not Jewish and there is no evidence any of his ancestors were Jewish. But that didn't prevent him from getting beaten up by a teenage mob of Hitler Youth; they knew he was an intellectual and apparently they thought he looked Jewish, and that was good enough for them. Even as liberal a person as Bertrand Russell assumed he was Jewish and said that group had a undue fondness for metaphysics, Goedel responded cooly, "I am not a Jew, even though I don't think this question is of any importance". John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Thu Aug 5 18:07:35 2010 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 12:07:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sexy Robot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <367EDA596C3942A398B2E34F648E51B8@3DBOXXW4850> For the robot lovers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbNnwFhnymo (there is another unofficial version here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNW882YnUjo) Gina "Nanogirl" Miller http://www.nanogirl.com From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Aug 5 18:14:07 2010 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:14:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: <875303.25644.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <875303.25644.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > > Hmmm, disagree. Ticks do not have shells, but you might be right that the mosquito > cannot penetrate whatever it is the ticks do have. Ticks have an exoskeleton. Chitin. Hard. Spike, you might enjoy looking at this site although it is not US based. http://www.borislavdopudja.net/en/writings/ticks/ Regards, MB From sparge at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 18:16:49 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:16:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anorexic geniuses, was Re: Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <301837.44005.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/5 John Clark : > Even as liberal > a person as Bertrand Russell assumed he was Jewish and said that group had a > undue fondness for metaphysics, Goedel responded cooly, "I am not a Jew, > even though I don't think this question is of any importance". He also said: "I like Islam: it is a consistent idea of religion and open-minded." -Dave From pharos at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 18:25:26 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:25:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The robot that visits your cubicle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Telepresence bots? This would be a no-no in terms of Italian labour law... :-) > > Did you notice the video of the Olivia receptionist robot? She gestures with her arms to aid communication, so she should be well suited to speaking Italian! :) Old joke: How do you silence an Italian? Tie his arms. BillK From wincat at swbell.net Thu Aug 5 18:41:59 2010 From: wincat at swbell.net (Norman Jacobs) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:41:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: <101234.50933.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <101234.50933.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <008401cb34cd$e39899c0$aac9cd40$@net> I think believe that refined insect protein would be acceptable as a food additive without too much resistance from a good many of consumers. Flavor would not be an issue and such a practice would not be so unusual in the prepared foods industry. People would soon not bother if there was no taste and no apparent presence. From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Jones Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:13 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food --- On Thu, 8/5/10, Dave Sill wrote: People aren't grossed out about eating spiders or insects because some of them are venomous, it's because they find the idea repulsive... - Dave Sure but that argument skips an important step: Why are insects repulsive? Why is the revulsion (to some extent) instinctive? Why are some people way more repulsed by bugs than others? Why is it that even if pains are taken to not instill revulsion in children, that most somehow develop it anyway, or just seem to have it? Why is it that some people (moi) pick up bugs with their hands, and others have the classic "eeeewwwww yuck" reaction? Why do even dogs and cats to some extent have bug revulsion? Suppose I were to figure out a way to breed tons of bugs, get them to go out and grow large by devouring other bugs, then return home, where I put them into some kind of giant blender and create a huge vat of repulsive high protein goo, with a microwave irradiator to sterilize the revolting glop. Then I figured out way to make cookies or biscuits out of it. Why is it that no one would want to devour them? Or even use them for pet food? But for some reason they would agree to giving them to the hogs, then eating the bacon? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 5 19:12:36 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 12:12:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <387656.8710.qm@web81505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 8/5/10, MB wrote: ? http://www.borislavdopudja.net/en/writings/ticks/ ? Cool article, thanks MB! > >> Hmmm, disagree.? Ticks do not have shells, but you might be right that the mosquito >> cannot penetrate whatever it is the ticks do have. >Ticks have an exoskeleton.? Chitin. Hard. ? I do stand corrected on that.? The article claims ticks have shells, and the rest of the stuff sounds like they know from ticks: ? "...Ticks are robustly built and their shell is extremely hard. A female tick (if not enlarged as a result of feeding on the host?s blood) or a male tick is very difficult to destroy. Ticks bodies are able to withstand great pressure without any consequences and still be able to crawl away from you..." ? This I can confirm by firsthand experience.? One cannot crush a tick between one's fingers, or at least I can't.? I could collect some and next ExI-schmooze we could have a tick crushing contest.? ? On the other hand, just the sound of that seems somehow out of character with the nature of ExI-schmooze activities, such as the now-legendary Hakosote incident at my house instigated by Eliezer, even though he was as sober as a Methodist minister when we did it. ? spike ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 5 22:08:33 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:08:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food Message-ID: > I think believe that refined insect protein would be acceptable as a > food additive without too much resistance from a good many of > consumers. I think it would too, especially if manufacturers used phrases like "extracted from" and "by-product of." Some are already being used in cosmetics and as food additives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal Quote from the article: " . . . most consumers are unaware that the phrases "cochineal extract", "carmine", "crimson lake", "natural red 4", "C.I. 75470", "E120", or even "natural colouring" refer to a dye that is derived from an insect." Darren ________________________________ > From: wincat at swbell.net > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:41:59 -0500 > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > > I think believe that refined insect protein would be acceptable as a > food additive without too much resistance from a good many of > consumers. Flavor would not be an issue and such a practice would not > be so unusual in the prepared foods industry. People would soon not > bother if there was no taste and no apparent presence. > > > > > > > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Gregory > Jones > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 10:13 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > > > > --- On Thu, 8/5/10, Dave Sill wrote: > > > > People aren't grossed out about eating spiders or insects because some > of them are venomous, it's because they find the idea repulsive... - Dave > > > > Sure but that argument skips an important step: Why are insects > repulsive? Why is the revulsion (to some extent) instinctive? Why are > some people way more repulsed by bugs than others? Why is it that even > if pains are taken to not instill revulsion in children, that most > somehow develop it anyway, or just seem to have it? Why is it that > some people (moi) pick up bugs with their hands, and others have the > classic "eeeewwwww yuck" reaction? Why do even dogs and cats to some > extent have bug revulsion? > > > > Suppose I were to figure out a way to breed tons of bugs, get them to > go out and grow large by devouring other bugs, then return home, where > I put them into some kind of giant blender and create a huge vat of > repulsive high protein goo, with a microwave irradiator to sterilize > the revolting glop. Then I figured out way to make cookies or biscuits > out of it. Why is it that no one would want to devour them? Or > even use them for pet food? But for some reason they would agree to > giving them to the hogs, then eating the bacon? > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing > list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 5 22:32:38 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:32:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food Message-ID: > The article claims ticks have shells, > and the rest of the stuff sounds like they know from ticks: Ticks are arachnids, so they have chitinous exoskeletons like other arachnids, as someone said, but much, much harder. I can attest to that. I live in a very rural area where in the summer you have to check yourself for the nasty little buggers often, and your dog more often. > I could collect some and > next ExI-schmooze we could have a tick crushing contest. Here we don't even bother to try crushing them. We pick them off, place them on a hard surface, and hold the flame of a lighter to them for a few seconds. They explode. Not kidding. That is the preferred method for disposing of ticks in these parts. They make a very satisfying pop when they go. Perhaps you could have a tick burning contest also, and whoever has the most flame-resistant tick wins. Darren ________________________________ > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 12:12:36 -0700 > From: spike66 at att.net > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > > > --- On Thu, 8/5/10, MB wrote: > > http://www.borislavdopudja.net/en/writings/ticks/ > > Cool article, thanks MB! >> >>> Hmmm, disagree. Ticks do not have shells, but you might be right > that the mosquito >>> cannot penetrate whatever it is the ticks do have. > >>Ticks have an exoskeleton. Chitin. Hard. > > I do stand corrected on that. The article claims ticks have shells, > and the rest of the stuff sounds like they know from ticks: > > "...Ticks are robustly built and their shell is extremely hard. A > female tick (if not enlarged as a result of feeding on the host?s > blood) or a male tick is very difficult to destroy. Ticks bodies are > able to withstand great pressure without any consequences and still be > able to crawl away from you..." > > This I can confirm by firsthand experience. One cannot crush a tick > between one's fingers, or at least I can't. I could collect some and > next ExI-schmooze we could have a tick crushing contest. > > On the other hand, just the sound of that seems somehow out of > character with the nature of ExI-schmooze activities, such as the > now-legendary Hakosote incident at my house instigated by Eliezer, even > though he was as sober as a Methodist minister when we did it. > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing > list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 22:33:56 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:33:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sexy Robot In-Reply-To: <367EDA596C3942A398B2E34F648E51B8@3DBOXXW4850> References: <367EDA596C3942A398B2E34F648E51B8@3DBOXXW4850> Message-ID: A sweet music video! I was thinking more along the lines of Sorayama's gynoids. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIQ1eydc0aA&feature=related And just for fun... What happens when a guy meets the time traveling android of his dreams... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAqIWJf4UKE&feature=related Beware of dating women who are actually *robots...* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWhEtCIo6U&feature=related John ; ) On 8/5/10, Gina Miller wrote: > For the robot lovers: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbNnwFhnymo > > (there is another unofficial version here: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNW882YnUjo) > > Gina "Nanogirl" Miller > http://www.nanogirl.com > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 22:12:55 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:12:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/8/5 John Clark : > The trend seems to be going in the opposite direction, yet more people in > the west making lame excuses for Islam, or assuming that if you can explain > why Islam became destructive and stupid that means it's not destructive and > stupid anymore. If you can explain how the presents get under the tree on the morning of 12/26 you don't have to worry about Santa Claus coming down the chimney anymore; doesn't the same principle apply? From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 22:10:28 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:10:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > Stone age psychological mechanisms and weapons for killing masses of > people are an explosive mix. was that a pun? From rtomek at ceti.pl Thu Aug 5 22:35:29 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 00:35:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Supercomputer oil slick sims predict greasy Atlantic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > This is not new news, but rather a month old one: Oh, this was to be months old, not month. > [ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/07/ncar_oil_slick_sim/ ] > > Note: the simulations had been done with ink, not oil. To check for oil > they would have to change the code, I think. On the other hand, as oil disperses into zilions of droplets (which is going to happen, as everybody happily states), it will behave much more like dye, viscosity-wise. But there is still a question about how sea water would carry on such droplets compared to ink particles. And besides, oil could be in full spectrum of different states of dissolution, so this complicates computations a lot (it is not just oil - no oil). Anyway, it could be interesting to compare future reality to this sim - I wonder if there will be much talk about it. US gov agencies seem to be rather optimistic, while some scientists are not: "MacDonald also pointed out that NOAA officials denied the existence of underwater plumes of oil for weeks, until a university research vessel discovered them 75 miles from the spill site. Now, NOAA officials say that 49 percent of the oil has been dispersed into the water." [ http://news.discovery.com/earth/oil-spill-estimates-report.html ] Ian MacDonald is professor at Florida State University: [ http://directory.fsu.edu/cgi-bin/search/searchList.cgi?searchStr=macdonald+&searchBy=lastname&submit=Search ] [ http://www.gulfbase.org/person/view.php?uid=imacdonald ] One such underwater plume: "On May 15, researchers from the National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology,[81] aboard the research vessel RV Pelican, identified oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico,[82] including one as large as 10 miles (16 km) long, 3 miles (4.8 km) wide and 300 feet (91 m) thick in spots." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Underwater_oil_plumes ] Quite interesting, I think. Rather interesting than scary, however. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 22:35:46 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:35:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: <101234.50933.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <101234.50933.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/5 Gregory Jones > Suppose I were to figure out a way to breed tons of bugs, get them to go out and grow large by devouring other bugs, then return home, where I put them into some kind of giant blender?and create a huge vat of repulsive high protein goo, with a microwave irradiator to sterilize the revolting glop.? Then I figured out way to make cookies or biscuits out of it.? Why is it that no one would want to?devour them?? Or even?use them for?pet food?? But for some reason they would agree to giving them to the hogs, then eating the bacon? I say make that HPG (high protein goo) - turn it into something "fun" to eat. Either nuggetize it or extrude it into high-temperature oils (HPG funnel cake) and put it in a brightly colored box with a cartoon character endorsing it. If it is ready in under 2 minutes via microwave, you'll sell millions. I imagine the same doubt was present in "pizza rolls" - but now? forget about it. If you advertise on children's tv shows that it's cool to eat HPG because it comes from bugs but adults won't eat it because they're squeamish sissies, I'm sure you can force a market into existence. All you need is the right meme. If that fails, you can rely on the environmental friendliness of eating bugs instead of cows - you know because of all those horrible greenhouse gases from cow "moo"s... From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 22:38:11 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:38:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:32 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > Perhaps you could have a tick burning contest also, and whoever has the most flame-resistant tick wins. that's just what we need, selection pressure evolving flame-resistant ticks :p drug resistant bacteria, flame-resistant ticks, i supposed next you'll want to make swatter-resistant flies? From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 5 22:46:59 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:46:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food Message-ID: > that's just what we need, selection pressure evolving flame-resistant ticks :p Never considered that. Maybe we could have the contest at your place then. Darren :> "Dumb people do dumb things. Smart people do really dumb things." -- Anonymous ---------------------------------------- > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:38:11 -0400 > From: msd001 at gmail.com > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:32 PM, darren shawn greer > wrote: >> Perhaps you could have a tick burning contest also, and whoever has the most flame-resistant tick wins. > > that's just what we need, selection pressure evolving flame-resistant ticks :p > > drug resistant bacteria, flame-resistant ticks, i supposed next you'll > want to make swatter-resistant flies? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sparge at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 23:21:17 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:21:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:32 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > > Ticks are arachnids, so they have chitinous exoskeletons like other arachnids, as someone said, but much, much harder. Not to be contrary, but no, not they're not *hard*, they're *tough*. If they were hard, they'd be brittle, and females wouldn't expand to 100 times their normal size, they'd pop. Yes, they're hard to crush, but, no, they're not brittle. > Here we don't even bother to try crushing them. We pick them off, place them on a hard surface, and hold the flame of a lighter to them for a few seconds. They explode. Not kidding. That is the preferred method for disposing of ticks in these parts. They make a very satisfying pop when they go. Which suggests a new edible tick snack: popticks. -Dave From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 5 23:26:47 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <965883.82016.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 8/5/10, Mike Dougherty wrote: ? > ...If that fails, you can rely on the environmental friendliness of eating bugs instead of cows - you know because of all those horrible greenhouse gases from cow "moo"s... . . . This is exactly where I am going with this.? Currently we devour warm blooded beasts, which is highly inefficent because so much energy is wasted keeping the beast warm, and because it takes up so much real estate to raise them.? It doesn't work to adapt cold blooded beasts?for food animals (other than?snake meat and alligator tails) because in general they grow too slowly. ? But insects produce protein, grow fast and are cold blooded.? So we somehow figure out how to program them to go out and eat kudzu?and morning glory, then when grown, return home lay eggs and climb into a vat of some sort, which is mixed with caustic solvents and heated to render a huge protein rich soup, from which low cost fat and oils are extracted, most likely to be mixed with low quality silage of some sort and fed to hogs. ? spike ? ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Aug 5 23:44:54 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:44:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > >> Islam is a meme set that affects humans > > Agreed. > >> the same as every other religious meme set. > > All religious meme sets are stupid and destructive, but some are more stupid and destructive than others. The reason we have religious meme sets at all is to drive stressed populations into irrational behavior that (in the stone age) was to our gene's advantage. A particular meme set will drift in the direction it needs to accomplish this in a stressed population. When the stress goes away, the memes mellow out. As you know, there have been times in the past when Islam was fairly mellow. >> The current xenophobic nature of it to be expected since the majority of its holders are facing a bleak future. The same goes for the fundamentalist sects in the US for exactly the same reason. ?A majority of them were members of the middle class, now much shrunken. > > I have no problem with any of those explanations, except that I don't see what it has to do with what we were talking about. Explaining the complex environmental social and genetic factors that came together to produce a tangible object in the real world, an asshole for example, does not prove the asshole in question does not in fact exist; rather it is yet more confirmation, not that such is needed, that the physical property of existence is possessed by the aforementioned asshole. I happen to be concerned about the environmental conditions that will drive fundamentalist Christianity to excesses in stupidity beyond those of Islam. It's happened. Read the Wikipedia page on pope Urban II to see why. >> Between fundamentalist Islam in Arab countries and fundamentalist Christianity in the US, can you really make a judgment call as to which is worse? > > I don't see why judging which turd stinks worse is necessary, but if you insist I would say fundamentalist Islam because as seriously as Christians take their religion they don't take it as seriously as Islam takes theirs. Yes that means Christians are more hypocritical, but in this case hypocrisy is a good thing. I'll take a hypocritical Christian who says he believes everything in the Bible but doesn't act that way over a sincere Muslim who says he believes everything in the Quran and actually does act that way. At least in the US, fundamentalist Islam has had relatively few consequences such as the nonsense you get at airports. Fundamentalist Christianity is having a very serious effect on the science education of the population. In the long run this may be more serious. >> Unless economic conditions get substantially better, wired in human >> psychological mechanisms from the stone age will make memes like those >> of John increasingly common and eventually lead to wars. > > Then I guess economic conditions need to get substantially better, but that's easier said than done. No kidding! > And yes some (perhaps most) of my likes and dislikes are wired in, but unless you are of a different species than me much the same could be said about you. Of course. I must say that stating you have a standard set of human drives is not a particularly good idea. People will hate you for enumerating human psychological drives. Fooling other people is an essential social strategy among humans. To do so, it seems we have to fool ourselves as well. I think this is the origin of the bias against understanding what motivates us. >> Without some wild card such as nanotech, AI or other aspects of the >> singularity, the odds are that John's attitude will eventually become >> dominate in the US. > > The trend seems to be going in the opposite direction, yet more people in the west making lame excuses for Islam, or assuming that if you can explain why Islam became destructive and stupid that means it's not destructive and stupid anymore. The people making lame excuses are not the segment of the population where the highly xenophobic memes are gaining strength. What used to be the middle class in the US is under great "bleak future" stress. It's not that in absolute terms they are bad off, it's mostly that they were better off 20 years ago and people respond to relative economics just like they do to temperature. I.e., a cold room will feel warm if you have been out in the cold. It's hard to say which of the many potential targets the xenophobic memes in the US might settle on. In Nazi Germany the Jews were the main target, but a number of other groups that were also targeted. >> It is relatively easy to understand such things as the current direction of >> Islamic memes or the meme set that has captured John, but it doesn't >> suggest courses of action that are sensible or acceptable. > > It's true that I don't have a solution to the problem, but at least I know there is a problem that needs a solution. By the way, do you have a sensible or acceptable course of action? The stone age problem was always too many people for the ecosystem to feed. And the solution that worked every time was to kill the neighboring tribe(s) and take their land and young women. Other than engineering projects to increase wealth, the sensible solutions are not acceptable. At least, not yet. It's hard to say how nasty things might get if the increased wealth is not forthcoming. "Civilized" countries are still populated by humans with stone age psychological mechanisms. With enough pressure for a long time, what happened in Rwanda could happen anywhere. But to answer your question, I don't have a sensible or acceptable course of action. Except to work on the engineering aspects. Keith From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 6 00:19:33 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 20:19:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: > Not to be contrary, but no, not they're not *hard*, they're *tough*. > If they were hard, they'd be brittle, and females wouldn't expand to > 100 times their normal size, they'd pop. Yes, they're hard to crush, > but, no, they're not brittle. My bad. (I love that phrase.) You're right. Darren "Dumb people do dumb things. Smart people do really dumb things." -- Anonymous ---------------------------------------- > From: sparge at gmail.com > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:21:17 -0400 > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:32 PM, darren shawn greer > wrote: >> >> Ticks are arachnids, so they have chitinous exoskeletons like other arachnids, as someone said, but much, much harder. > > Not to be contrary, but no, not they're not *hard*, they're *tough*. > If they were hard, they'd be brittle, and females wouldn't expand to > 100 times their normal size, they'd pop. Yes, they're hard to crush, > but, no, they're not brittle. > >> Here we don't even bother to try crushing them. We pick them off, place them on a hard surface, and hold the flame of a lighter to them for a few seconds. They explode. Not kidding. That is the preferred method for disposing of ticks in these parts. They make a very satisfying pop when they go. > > Which suggests a new edible tick snack: popticks. > > -Dave > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 6 00:36:15 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 20:36:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food Message-ID: > somehow figure out how to program them to go out and eat kudzu and > morning glory, then when grown, return home lay eggs and climb into a > vat of some sort, which is mixed with caustic solvents and heated to > render a huge protein rich soup, from which low cost fat and oils are > extracted And shortly after such technology is developed and put into practice, some animal rights organization starts loudly lamenting the cruel treatment of insects by cold-hearted scientists and profit-minded corporations. It would be tough to make fuzzy, heart-warming posters and TV commercials of insects being genetically herded into acid vats, however. Unless it was butterflies. Darren "Dumb people do dumb things. Smart people do really dumb things." -- Anonymous ________________________________ > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:26:47 -0700 > From: spike66 at att.net > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > > > --- On Thu, 8/5/10, Mike Dougherty wrote: > >> ...If that fails, you can rely on the > environmental friendliness of eating bugs instead of cows - you know > because of all those horrible greenhouse gases from cow "moo"s... > . > . > . > This is exactly where I am going with this. Currently we devour warm > blooded beasts, which is highly inefficent because so much energy is > wasted keeping the beast warm, and because it takes up so much real > estate to raise them. It doesn't work to adapt cold blooded beasts for > food animals (other than snake meat and alligator tails) because in > general they grow too slowly. > > But insects produce protein, grow fast and are cold blooded. So we > somehow figure out how to program them to go out and eat kudzu and > morning glory, then when grown, return home lay eggs and climb into a > vat of some sort, which is mixed with caustic solvents and heated to > render a huge protein rich soup, from which low cost fat and oils are > extracted, most likely to be mixed with low quality silage of some sort > and fed to hogs. > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ 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 Aug 6 00:42:55 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 20:42:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:36 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > And shortly after such technology is developed and put into practice, some animal rights organization starts loudly lamenting the cruel treatment of insects by cold-hearted scientists and profit-minded corporations. It would be tough to make fuzzy, heart-warming posters and TV commercials of insects being genetically herded into acid vats, however. > > Unless it was butterflies. "Mommy, I want butterfly crunchies." From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 6 01:06:17 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 21:06:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food Message-ID: > "Mommy, I want butterfly crunchies." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA7QFfnMYPc Here's a pioneer in the field, though apparently he didn't know much about monarchs. Or maybe it was a very original suicide attempt. Darren "Dumb people do dumb things. Smart people do really dumb things." -- Anonymous ---------------------------------------- > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 20:42:55 -0400 > From: msd001 at gmail.com > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:36 PM, darren shawn greer > wrote: >> And shortly after such technology is developed and put into practice, some animal rights organization starts loudly lamenting the cruel treatment of insects by cold-hearted scientists and profit-minded corporations. It would be tough to make fuzzy, heart-warming posters and TV commercials of insects being genetically herded into acid vats, however. >> >> Unless it was butterflies. > > "Mommy, I want butterfly crunchies." > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Aug 6 03:24:30 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 23:24:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:06 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA7QFfnMYPc > Here's a pioneer in the field, though apparently he didn't know much about monarchs. Or maybe it was a very original suicide attempt. Have you ever seen a Regal Moth [1] up close? One landed on my building at work; a coworker asked me to verify if this thing was real - see the link below, a moth with a wingspan of 9.5-15.5 cm! Very few of the pictures I could find online have any appreciable scale to imagine so large a moth. I described it as an orange tarantula with wings. The bottom picture on the Wikipedia page gives some scale of the larvae in a human hand. So if Spike is looking for a candidate source for HPG, it won't take many of these fatties to make a filling snack. [1] Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citheronia_regalis [2] picture with scale: http://davesgarden.com/guides/bf/showimage/2826/ (#7 of 15) From spike66 at att.net Fri Aug 6 05:11:29 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 22:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <496392.35252.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 8/5/10, Mike Dougherty wrote: ? >...Have you ever seen a Regal Moth [1] up close?? ? I have not, but I want to.? ? The critical part of raising bugs for food actually isn't their size.? Regardless of what?we use, we need to process them and extract the useful parts.? I never had in mind frying and devouring the bugs in any way similar to the way we eat shrimp. ? The critical part is what they eat, and how well we can control that.? For instance, there are two great domesticated plants for maximum efficiency in converting sunlight to calories: corn and potatoes.? In both cases, there is plenty of biomass left over after the food parts have been removed.? Some of?the remaining biomass?can be converted to silage, but if we could engineer a bug that can go devour everything above ground on a potato plant leaving the roots for easy robotic harvest, we have really invented something useful.? Or?perhaps we can create a bug that devours the remains of the corn plant after the ears have been removed, then crawls into the vat and gets reduced to protein, fat and oils, which are used directly to fuel machines or as livestock feed, or possibly novelty food additives. ? spike ? ? ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Aug 6 07:57:40 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 08:57:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: <496392.35252.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <496392.35252.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/6 Gregory Jones > > The critical part of raising bugs for food actually isn't their size. > Regardless of what?we use, we need to process them and extract the useful parts. > I never had in mind frying and devouring the bugs in any way similar to the way we > eat shrimp. > > Ask Damiem to tell you all about wichetty grubs. The aborigines used to eat it live and raw, imagine you to be pick-eaters, picking up the little pieces of larvae and popping them in snack-time...I am not changing the concept of finger foods. Well, upscale restaurants roast the grubs like satays, these barbecue food is served as an appetizer and is highly nutritious. The center of the grub is quite juicy, it has a sweet, juicy flavor, quite like chicken, and to some it tastes like eggs. Not to confuse you much this weird food tastes weird, which is a crazy cross between chicken and prawn. Supermarkets in Australia are selling tinned witchetty soups. BillK From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 6 11:30:49 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 07:30:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food Message-ID: > Have you ever seen a Regal Moth [1] up close? Strangely enough, I had the larva for this beast on the side of my house last week. My friend's kids pointed it out and were freaking. It was bright green, seven or eight cms in length, and fat as a good cuban cigar. It also had four red-tipped spikes on its foremost segment. We looked it up on the 'net and decided it was the larva for a regal moth (which I had never heard of until that day.) Coincidence? I think not. I suspect Yahweh wants me to breed them for food. Darren "Dumb people do dumb things. Smart people do really dumb things." -- Anonymous ---------------------------------------- > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 23:24:30 -0400 > From: msd001 at gmail.com > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:06 PM, darren shawn greer > wrote: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA7QFfnMYPc >> Here's a pioneer in the field, though apparently he didn't know much about monarchs. Or maybe it was a very original suicide attempt. > > Have you ever seen a Regal Moth [1] up close? One landed on my > building at work; a coworker asked me to verify if this thing was real > - see the link below, a moth with a wingspan of 9.5-15.5 cm! Very few > of the pictures I could find online have any appreciable scale to > imagine so large a moth. I described it as an orange tarantula with > wings. The bottom picture on the Wikipedia page gives some scale of > the larvae in a human hand. So if Spike is looking for a candidate > source for HPG, it won't take many of these fatties to make a filling > snack. > > [1] Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citheronia_regalis > [2] picture with scale: > http://davesgarden.com/guides/bf/showimage/2826/ (#7 of 15) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Aug 6 15:07:19 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:07:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67C814BE-352B-43F1-B337-E11BB4E8EA4C@bellsouth.net> On Aug 5, 2010, at 7:44 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > I happen to be concerned about the environmental conditions that will > drive fundamentalist Christianity to excesses in stupidity beyond those of Islam. Wow, that would be very stupid indeed! Look, even in the Bible Belt (aka the Hookworm and Incest Belt) they don't stone to death women who's husbands accuse them of adultery even though the Bible says you should, instead they will engage in doublethink and say every single word of the Bible should be taken literally and the part about stoning in the Bible should be taken figuratively. In contrast Muslims are more logically consistent, they note similar hateful passages in their silly holy book and just say fine lets go for it. > It's happened. Read the Wikipedia page on pope Urban II to see why. I don't care about pope Urban II, he died over 900 years ago. The good things Islam did 900 years ago don't impress me and the bad things Christianity did 900 years ago don't worry me. > Fundamentalist Christianity is having a very serious effect on the science education > of the population. You will get no argument from me on that, and it's true that fundamentalist Islam has little effect on science education in Islamic countries, but that's because there is virtually no science education in Islamic countries. > At least in the US, fundamentalist Islam has had relatively few consequences That's because in the USA Islam is relatively rare, but that hasn't stopped them from opening over a hundred religious schools in America all teaching Islamic Creationism that is every bit as stupid as its Christian cousin. > But to answer your question, I don't have a sensible or acceptable course of action. > Except to work on the engineering aspects. That's the best I could come up with as well, and I think you would agree that at best that is a long term solution, so what do we do in the meantime? I don't think pretending that we don't see the elephant in the living room and all is right with Islam is the way to go. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Aug 6 15:21:15 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:21:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anorexic geniuses, was Re: Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <301837.44005.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Aug 5, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > > He [Goedel] also said: "I like Islam: it is a consistent idea of religion and > open-minded." And Isaac Newton spent more time on alchemy than he did on Science, and more time on finding the exact dimensions of the Temple of Solomon from biblical quotations than he did on Science and alchemy combined, showing that even a great genius can do and say silly things. And I'll bet if Godel was asked to defend his view he would, just like everybody else, bring up examples that were 900 years old. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Aug 6 15:05:32 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 08:05:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24634.23825.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> As the old saying goes, the sheep will find the butcher. Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: Keith Henson To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Thu, August 5, 2010 7:44:54 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM,? John Clark wrote: > On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > >> Islam is a meme set that affects humans > > Agreed. > >> the same as every other religious meme set. > > All religious meme sets are stupid and destructive, but some are more stupid >and destructive than others. The reason we have religious meme sets at all is to drive stressed populations into irrational behavior that (in the stone age) was to our gene's advantage.? A particular meme set will drift in the direction it needs to accomplish this in a stressed population.? When the stress goes away, the memes mellow out.? As you know, there have been times in the past when Islam was fairly mellow. >> The current xenophobic nature of it to be expected since the majority of its >>holders are facing a bleak future. The same goes for the fundamentalist sects in >>the US for exactly the same reason. ?A majority of them were members of the >>middle class, now much shrunken. > > I have no problem with any of those explanations, except that I don't see what >it has to do with what we were talking about. Explaining the complex >environmental social and genetic factors that came together to produce a >tangible object in the real world, an asshole for example, does not prove the >asshole in question does not in fact exist; rather it is yet more confirmation, >not that such is needed, that the physical property of existence is possessed by >the aforementioned asshole. I happen to be concerned about the environmental conditions that will drive fundamentalist Christianity to excesses in stupidity beyond those of Islam.? It's happened.? Read the Wikipedia page on pope Urban II to see why. >> Between fundamentalist Islam in Arab countries and fundamentalist Christianity >>in the US, can you really make a judgment call as to which is worse? > > I don't see why judging which turd stinks worse is necessary, but if you insist >I would say fundamentalist Islam because as seriously as Christians take their >religion they don't take it as seriously as Islam takes theirs. Yes that means >Christians are more hypocritical, but in this case hypocrisy is a good thing. >I'll take a hypocritical Christian who says he believes everything in the Bible >but doesn't act that way over a sincere Muslim who says he believes everything >in the Quran and actually does act that way. At least in the US, fundamentalist Islam has had relatively few consequences such as the nonsense you get at airports.? Fundamentalist Christianity is having a very serious effect on the science education of the population.? In the long run this may be more serious. >> Unless economic conditions get substantially better, wired in human >> psychological mechanisms from the stone age will make memes like those >> of John increasingly common and eventually lead to wars. > > Then I guess economic conditions need to get substantially better, but that's >easier said than done. No kidding! > And yes some (perhaps most) of my likes and dislikes are wired in, but unless >you are of a different species than me much the same could be said about you. Of course.? I must say that stating you have a standard set of human drives is not a particularly good idea.? People will hate you for enumerating human psychological drives.? Fooling other people is an essential social strategy among humans.? To do so, it seems we have to fool ourselves as well.? I think this is the origin of the bias against understanding what motivates us. >> Without some wild card such as nanotech, AI or other aspects of the >> singularity, the odds are that John's attitude will eventually become >> dominate in the US. > > The trend seems to be going in the opposite direction, yet more people in the >west making lame excuses for Islam, or assuming that if you can explain why >Islam became destructive and stupid that means it's not destructive and stupid >anymore. The people making lame excuses are not the segment of the population where the highly xenophobic memes are gaining strength.? What used to be the middle class in the US is under great "bleak future" stress. It's not that in absolute terms they are bad off, it's mostly that they were better off 20 years ago and people respond to relative economics just like they do to temperature.? I.e., a cold room will feel warm if you have been out in the cold. It's hard to say which of the many potential targets the xenophobic memes in the US might settle on.? In Nazi Germany the Jews were the main target, but a number of other groups that were also targeted. >> It is relatively easy to understand such things as the current direction of >> Islamic memes or the meme set that has captured John, but it doesn't >> suggest courses of action that are sensible or acceptable. > > It's true that I don't have a solution to the problem, but at least I know >there is a problem that needs a solution. By the way, do you have a sensible or >acceptable course of action? The stone age problem was always too many people for the ecosystem to feed.? And the solution that worked every time was to kill the neighboring tribe(s) and take their land and young women. Other than engineering projects to increase wealth, the sensible solutions are not acceptable.? At least, not yet.? It's hard to say how nasty things might get if the increased wealth is not forthcoming. "Civilized" countries are still populated by humans with stone age psychological mechanisms.? With enough pressure for a long time, what happened in Rwanda could happen anywhere. But to answer your question, I don't have a sensible or acceptable course of action. Except to work on the engineering aspects. Keith From colin.dodson at gmail.com Fri Aug 6 02:36:25 2010 From: colin.dodson at gmail.com (Colin D) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 21:36:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ticks will crush between fingernails. I discovered this while in Tennessee for a summer. Pick one of the big ones up before it bites and squish it between thumbnails and *crunch* On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:06 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > > > "Mommy, I want butterfly crunchies." > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA7QFfnMYPc > > > Here's a pioneer in the field, though apparently he didn't know much about > monarchs. Or maybe it was a very original suicide attempt. > > > Darren > > > > > > > "Dumb people do dumb things. Smart people do really dumb things." > > -- Anonymous > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 20:42:55 -0400 > > From: msd001 at gmail.com > > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:36 PM, darren shawn greer > > wrote: > >> And shortly after such technology is developed and put into practice, > some animal rights organization starts loudly lamenting the cruel treatment > of insects by cold-hearted scientists and profit-minded corporations. It > would be tough to make fuzzy, heart-warming posters and TV commercials of > insects being genetically herded into acid vats, however. > >> > >> Unless it was butterflies. > > > > "Mommy, I want butterfly crunchies." > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Aug 6 17:00:17 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <236652.66491.qm@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 8/6/10, darren shawn greer wrote: ? Strangely enough, I had the larva for this beast on the side of my house last week. My friend's kids pointed it out and were freaking... ? Examine please: why were they freaking?? If they saw an unfamiliar bird, would they freak?? If they saw some odd unidentifiable soft warm furry beast, would they freak?? If that warm furry beast had eyes that focus forward, like a dog or a human, would they freak more than if the eyes were on either side of the head, like a horse or a rabbit?? So why did they freak at the unusual bug?? These were kids, so they likely hadn't studied up on poisonous bugs, which are rare. ? Check this: ? http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2010/08/06/natures-horror-show-ugly-creatures/?test=faces#slide=1 ? Why does this fall into the category of ugly beasts?? It makes my mouth water just looking at all that meat. ? What do you think of when you see this guy: ? http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2010/08/06/natures-horror-show-ugly-creatures/?test=faces#slide=2 ? I think suuuuuushiiiiiii! ? For the newer guys, it is an extropian tradition whenever an actual gathering takes place to?brutally devour sushi to the brink of utter extinction.? No one demonstrates this better than our own Anders Sandberg, the reigning champion of sushi devouring.? It is truly a sight to behold, in awed admiration. ? Slide #2 above is a great example of what?we can imagine?in future food production technology.? Clearly this beast doesn't waste much energy swimming, as can be seen by her lack of hydrodynamic propulsion appendages, but rather survives by "eating whatever?drifts?in front of it."? The photo shows some unfortunate beast hanging from the mouth of the blobfish, which makes my point perfectly.? ? We could perhaps?genetically modify?or just find in nature?some insect that?devours some noxious weed, breed it to absurd numbers, find its mating hormone to call it home, give it a night to have fun and lay eggs, then collect the remainders to process and feed to the blobfish, then pretty soon?"...Sandberg, party of twelve, your table is now ready..." ? spike ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? From: darren shawn greer Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Date: Friday, August 6, 2010, 4:30 AM > Have you ever seen a Regal Moth [1] up close? Strangely enough, I had the larva for this beast on the side of my house last week. My friend's kids pointed it out and were freaking. It was bright green, seven or eight cms in length, and fat as a good cuban cigar. It also had four red-tipped spikes on its foremost segment. We looked it up on the 'net and decided it was the larva for a regal moth (which I had never heard of until that day.) Coincidence? I think not. I suspect Yahweh wants me to breed them for food. Darren "Dumb people do dumb things. Smart people do really dumb things." -- Anonymous ---------------------------------------- > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 23:24:30 -0400 > From: msd001 at gmail.com > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:06 PM, darren shawn greer > wrote: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA7QFfnMYPc >> Here's a pioneer in the field, though apparently he didn't know much about monarchs. Or maybe it was a very original suicide attempt. > > Have you ever seen a Regal Moth [1] up close? One landed on my > building at work; a coworker asked me to verify if this thing was real > - see the link below, a moth with a wingspan of 9.5-15.5 cm! Very few > of the pictures I could find online have any appreciable scale to > imagine so large a moth. I described it as an orange tarantula with > wings. The bottom picture on the Wikipedia page gives some scale of > the larvae in a human hand. So if Spike is looking for a candidate > source for HPG, it won't take many of these fatties to make a filling > snack. > > [1] Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citheronia_regalis > [2] picture with scale: > http://davesgarden.com/guides/bf/showimage/2826/ (#7 of 15) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ? _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Aug 6 17:08:32 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <968427.75673.qm@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 8/6/10, BillK wrote: ? >...Ask Damiem to tell you all about wichetty grubs. ? Ja but of course the critical part of all this is not how it tastes but rather what it eats.? A hungry population of proles can likely be trained to eat anything, or rather we can process any kind of high protein matter to anything we want.? But we need to be able to supply the raw materials in enormous quantities at low cost and low environmental impact, or preferrably to environmental benefit.? We need to be able to program bugs to seek out and devour noxious?weeds for instance, and leave the?useful crops behind.? Then report to base to breed and be devoured. ? spike ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Aug 6 17:34:21 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 18:34:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: <968427.75673.qm@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <968427.75673.qm@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 8/6/10, Gregory Jones wrote: > Ja but of course the critical part of all this is not how it tastes but rather what it eats. > A hungry population of proles can likely be trained to eat anything, or rather we can > process any kind of high protein matter to anything we want. But we need to be > able to supply the raw materials in enormous quantities at low cost and low > environmental impact, or preferrably to environmental benefit. We need to be able > to program bugs to seek out and devour noxious weeds for instance, and leave the > useful crops behind. Then report to base to breed and be devoured. > > There's a word for it - Entomophagy. Quote: Today, most cultures around the globe feast on insects. There are 1,417 species of edible insects and nearly 3,000 ethnic groups that currently practice entomophagy around the world [source: Ramos-Elorduy]. Most of these insects are eaten in the larval and pupal stages, though some are good all the way into adulthood. Topping the list of edibles is the beetle, with 344 varieties to choose from for dinner. Ants, bees and wasps are close behind with 314. Butterflies, moths, grasshoppers and crickets are the other heavy hitters. So who's doing all of this bug eating? Asians lead the way. All over Asia, moth larvae, crickets, moth pupae, beetles and dragonflies are eaten. Crickets are dry-roasted for snacking or cooked into rice. The larvae are added to soups, stews and stir-fried meals. The Japanese consider the silk moth pupae a delicacy. But none of these hold a candle to the giant water bug. This critter is a favorite in Asia. It can be roasted and eaten whole or ground into a paste for sauces. Africans also enjoy the crickets and grasshoppers, but mix things up a little by eating termites and caterpillars, too. Things get a little wacky in South America. Here, arthropods are often found on the menu. Scorpions and even tarantulas are cooked and eaten with regularity. Tarantulas are said to be a little on the greasy side, and the taste often leaves brave westerners with a loss for words. The fact that most Americans and Europeans might find eating arthropods gross is due to cultural bias and history. ---------- They also caution Westerners not to rush outside and start eating the bugs. Urban bugs will probably be full of pesticides. And, finally, the military already know all about this. Quote: Military survival manuals clearly state that insects should be eaten as a perfect alternative when other food sources are not available. The success of this suggestion was widely publicized in 1996, when Lieutenant Scott O'Grady lost his plane to enemy forces in Bosnia, then survived in the forests by eating ants. ------- BillK From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Aug 6 17:37:52 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:37:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: <24634.23825.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <24634.23825.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <433790.85384.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Clarification: I meant that in regard to the memes. People who already play the sheep -- i.e., adopt these ideas willy nilly -- will likely find a butcher -- i.e., someone who will use them up. This goes for religious memes, nationalist memes, and all the like. By the way, the gigatonne devices have been placed -- for those who want to know. Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: Dan To: ExI chat list Sent: Fri, August 6, 2010 11:05:32 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero As the old saying goes, the sheep will find the butcher. Regards, Dan From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Aug 6 18:32:52 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:32:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: <433790.85384.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <24634.23825.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <433790.85384.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C5C5554.8060700@satx.rr.com> On 8/6/2010 12:37 PM, Dan Ust wrote: > By the way, the gigatonne devices have been placed -- for those who want to > know. Placed where? By whom? For what purpose? How do you know? Or is this one of those sheep/wolf memes? Damien Broderick From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 6 19:24:24 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 15:24:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food Message-ID: > Examine please: why were they freaking? If they saw an unfamiliar > bird, would they freak? If they saw some odd unidentifiable soft warm > furry beast, would they freak? If that warm furry beast had eyes that > focus forward, like a dog or a human, would they freak more than if the > eyes were on either side of the head, like a horse or a rabbit? So why > did they freak at the unusual bug? These were kids, so they likely > hadn't studied up on poisonous bugs, which are rare." You likely know my theory on this, from recent posts on this topic. There is a program in their heads, or a series of them likely, formed by adaptive pressures from as far back as the stone age that tells them to avoid unknown species of insects in case they are poisonous. I theorize that it is not JUST because some species of insect are poisonous, but that so many are also actively aggressive. In other words, they bite. Often without warning and because they are small it's hard to defend ourselves from them or even know they are there. And because we don't get to choose which ones crawl on us, we also don't get to choose which might be poisonous. Bees, hornets, beetles, ticks, spiders, earwigs, ants, mites, horseflies, stump-lifters, fleas, lice, mosquitoes, black flies, centipedes, millipedes. At least two local varieties of butterfly here are poisonous to eat, because they feed on milkweed. Thus, I hazard, the admonition by my parents when I was young not to touch a butterfly in case I 'stopped it from flying.' At some period, and likely a long one, in our evolutionary history, our likely-hood of staying alive was probably increased by avoiding insects in general and brushing them away in a hurry when we found them on our bodies. I can think of no examples of natural symbiotic relationships between insects and humans, so there would be no benefit to keeping them around even if they didn't bite. Re: freaking. Because of their own programming, adults often teach children to hate most bugs, so there is a lot of social conditioning conspiring with evolutionary psychology to fuel their reactions. Last point: I travelled to Japan once and it was the greatest culture shock I have experienced in a lifetime of traveling. The language and the culture there is almost as far as you can get from the culture I hail from. Perhaps the same thing goes for insects, in a biological context. Those other animals you mentioned? All mammals, except for the bird. Even the word 'beast" conjured up a mammal. Perhaps we recognize, even sub-consciously, an evolutionary kinship with them. Even if you substantially changed features and built a mammalian chimera that kinship might still be strong enough to over-come any initial fear and revulsion. But if you built an insect chimera, especially a big one, we'd all run screaming. Not just the kids. In summation, insects are fundamentally alien to us. Our science and technology has revealed that in so many ways they are beneficial -- to our environment, as a source of valuable pharmacueticals, as cosmetics and food additives and maybe even someday, as has been suggested here, a major food source. But try telling that to homo-erectus or a little modern-day kid, who are likely to find in them a source of pain, infection, toxin or at the very least a nasty little bite and something too ugly to look at. If occasionally a culture finds nutritional and taste value in one or two, good on 'em. I bet not much else was available and their ancestors got very hungry before they could circumvent the programming in their heads and give it a try. Of course, we live in a different world now. But that pesky programming: it still runs. Much of what we think of as objective reality is shaped and formulated by it, in my opinion. Darren "Dumb people do dumb things. Smart people do really dumb things." -- Anonymous ________________________________ > Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:00:17 -0700 > From: spike66 at att.net > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > > > --- On Fri, 8/6/10, darren shawn greer wrote: > > Strangely enough, I had the larva for this beast on the side of my > house last week. My friend's kids pointed it out and were freaking... > > Examine please: why were they freaking? If they saw an unfamiliar > bird, would they freak? If they saw some odd unidentifiable soft warm > furry beast, would they freak? If that warm furry beast had eyes that > focus forward, like a dog or a human, would they freak more than if the > eyes were on either side of the head, like a horse or a rabbit? So why > did they freak at the unusual bug? These were kids, so they likely > hadn't studied up on poisonous bugs, which are rare. > > Check this: > > http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2010/08/06/natures-horror-show-ugly-creatures/?test=faces#slide=1 > > Why does this fall into the category of ugly beasts? It makes my mouth > water just looking at all that meat. > > What do you think of when you see this guy: > > http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2010/08/06/natures-horror-show-ugly-creatures/?test=faces#slide=2 > > I think suuuuuushiiiiiii! > > For the newer guys, it is an extropian tradition whenever an actual > gathering takes place to brutally devour sushi to the brink of utter > extinction. No one demonstrates this better than our own Anders > Sandberg, the reigning champion of sushi devouring. It is truly a > sight to behold, in awed admiration. > > Slide #2 above is a great example of what we can imagine in future food > production technology. Clearly this beast doesn't waste much energy > swimming, as can be seen by her lack of hydrodynamic propulsion > appendages, but rather survives by "eating whatever drifts in front of > it." The photo shows some unfortunate beast hanging from the mouth of > the blobfish, which makes my point perfectly. > > We could perhaps genetically modify or just find in nature some insect > that devours some noxious weed, breed it to absurd numbers, find its > mating hormone to call it home, give it a night to have fun and lay > eggs, then collect the remainders to process and feed to the blobfish, > then pretty soon "...Sandberg, party of twelve, your table is now > ready..." > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > From: darren shawn greer > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Date: Friday, August 6, 2010, 4:30 AM > > > >> Have you ever seen a Regal Moth [1] up close? > > > Strangely enough, I had the larva for this beast on the side of my > house last week. My friend's kids pointed it out and were freaking. It > was bright green, seven or eight cms in length, and fat as a good cuban > cigar. It also had four red-tipped spikes on its foremost segment. We > looked it up on the 'net and decided it was the larva for a regal moth > (which I had never heard of until that day.) Coincidence? I think not. > I suspect Yahweh wants me to breed them for food. > > > Darren > > > > "Dumb people do dumb things. Smart people do really dumb things." > > -- Anonymous > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- >> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 23:24:30 -0400 >> From: > msd001 at gmail.com >> To: > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food >> >> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:06 PM, darren shawn greer >> wrote: >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA7QFfnMYPc >>> Here's a pioneer in the field, though apparently he didn't know much > about monarchs. Or maybe it was a very original suicide attempt. >> >> Have you ever seen a Regal Moth [1] up close? One landed on my >> building at work; a coworker asked me to verify if this thing was real >> - see the link below, a moth with a wingspan of 9.5-15.5 cm! Very few >> of the pictures I could find online have any appreciable scale to >> imagine so large a moth. I described it as an orange tarantula with >> wings. The bottom picture on the Wikipedia page gives some scale of >> the larvae in a human hand. So if Spike is looking for a candidate >> source for HPG, it won't take many of these fatties to make a filling >> snack. >> >> [1] Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citheronia_regalis >> [2] picture with scale: >> http://davesgarden.com/guides/bf/showimage/2826/ (#7 of 15) >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing > list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From painlord2k at libero.it Fri Aug 6 20:01:02 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 22:01:02 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C586A46.5050404@mac.com> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C586A46.5050404@mac.com> Message-ID: <4C5C69FE.50900@libero.it> Il 03/08/2010 21.13, samantha ha scritto: > Stefano Vaj wrote: >> 2010/8/2 Jebadiah Moore : >>> But it's pretty clear that it's worthwhile to view a community as >>> an entity (due to various emergent phenomena), and that a lot of >>> people do view communities this way, and that people *value* >>> communities this way. In particular, they seem invested in >>> trying to maintain the stability, influence, and "essence" (as >>> they perceive it) of the communities they belong to, both during >>> their own lifetimes and into the future. >> My own ideas fit rather well in your description. >> But I am waaaaay reluctant in admitting that, say, a community >> could and should be kept legally or ethically responsible for the >> behaviour of its members. > For damn good reason it should not. The individual is the unit of > ethics and moral responsibility. To hold and individual liable for > what she did not do is utterly broken. This is in principle correct. But we must look to the details. The community (as a collection of individuals) must dissociate from the acts of the individual they don't want be responsible. This can be done with acts or words. Sometimes the latter are sufficient, but often the first are needed. The point where the Muslims are lacking is this. Their dissociations are words rich and deeds poor. And also the words often, when closely analyzed, are two-tongued, with words that can be interpreted in different ways by different people. on purpose. And then, so many that are labeled as "moderate" when looked a bit closer than show they are moderated only in the tone, not in what they would do and allow others to do without raising a finger to dissent or contrast. For example, the renowed Egypt's University of Al-Azhar, maybe the most important religious education university of all of the Sunni world, concord with many discrimination measure against Muslims changing their religion and not-Muslims and many of its teachers teach these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rechtsgutachten_betr_Apostasie_im_Islam.jpg > Author: al-Azhr, the Egyptian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs > > This Fatawa describes how an Egyptian man turned apostate and the > subsequent punishment prescribed for him by the Al-Azhr Fatawa > council. The following translation is a rough guide: > > In the Name of Allah the Most Beneficient the Most Merciful. > > Al-Azhr Council of Fatawa. This question was presented by Mr. Ahmed > Darwish and brought forward by [name obscured] who is of German > nationality. A man whose religion was Islam and his nationality is > Egyptian married a German Christian and the couple agreed that the > husband would join the Christian faith and doctrine. > > 1) What is the Islamic ruling in relation to this man? What are the > punishments prescribed for this act? 2) Are his children considered > Muslim or Christian? > > The Answer: > > All praise is to Allah, the Lord of the Universe and salutations on > the leader of the righteous, our master Muhammed, his family and all > of his companions. Thereafter: This man has committed apostasy; he > must be given a chance to repent and if he does not then he must be > killed according to Shariah. As far as his children are concerned, > as long as they are children they are considered Muslim, but after > they reach the age of puberty, then if they remain with Islam they > are Muslim, but if they leave Islam and they do not repent they must > be killed and Allah knows best. > > Seal of Al-Azhr Head of the Fatawa Council of Al-Azhr. Abdullah > al-Mishadd (??? ???? ??????) > > 23rd September 1978 http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503547222&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaEAskTheScholar > Dear questioner, May Allah grant you guidance and illumination for > bearing with us and sending us this good question. Thank you very > much for the confidence in our service and we hope you receive our > answer objectively. > > Coming to your question on the basis of the punishment of apostasy, > we would like to start with the following words of the prominent > Moroccan scholar Sheikh Abdul Bari Az-Zamzamy: > > "It should be noted that Islam never compels any person to accept it > or embrace its teachings. It gives the freedom of thinking to people, > with full respect to their mentalities and way of thinking. However, > Islam is not a man-made religion that is subject to scrutiny or > biased criticism that is based on mere suspicion, since it was > originated by Allah, the Supreme Creator of all minds and > mentalities. In addition, apostasy causes a total disruption and > confusion in the Muslim community, and thus, a severe punishment was > set for it to deter anyone from thinking of it. It was originally put > into force following the Jewish conspiracy against Islam. The details > of that conspiracy were simply mass conversion to Islam and then mass > apostasy. The main ill aim was to cause confusion and to lead people > astray. Thus, the punishment was set as a precautionary measure to > stop all these offenses." > > Speaking of the authority of the punishment and its being genuine and > based on the authentic sources of Islam, Sheikh `Attiyah Saqr, former > Head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states: > > "It is not right to deny the punishment of apostasy claiming that it > has not been reported in the Qur'an, because it has been recorded in > the mutawatir (Hadith which has been reported by at least four of the > Companions in different times and places in a way that make a person > sure that such Hadith is not fabricated) and the non-mutawatir Sunnah > of the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him). Hudud (Islamic > punishment specified for certain crimes) may, of course, be based on > the non-mutawatir Sunnah." > > Detailing the issue and showing some of the evidence for the > punishment of apostasy, the prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf > Al-Qaradawi, states: > > "All Muslim jurists agree that the apostate is to be punished. > However, they differ regarding the punishment itself. The majority of > them go for killing; meaning that an apostate is to be sentenced to > death. > > Many authentic Hadiths have been reported in this regard. Ibn `Abbas > reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, > "Whoever changes his religion, you kill him." (Reported by all the > group except Muslim, and at-Tabarani also reported it with a sound > chain of narrators. Also recorded in Majma` Az-Zawa'id by > Al-Haythamiy.) > > There is also the Hadith of Ibn Mas`ud that the Prophet (peace and > blessings be upon him) said, "The blood of a Muslim individual who > bears witness that there is no god but Allah and that I am the > Messenger of Allah, is not to be shed except in three cases: in > retaliation (in murder crimes), married adulterers (and > adulteresses), and the one who abandons his religion and forsakes the > Muslim community." (Reported by the Group) > > The actual example of one of the greatest Companions, `Ali ibn Abi > Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) gives credit to this also. He > himself carried out the punishment on some people who had deified > him. He gave them three days respite to repent and go back to their > senses. When they proved adamant, he put them to fire.? > > Read more: > http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503547222&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaEAskTheScholar#ixzz0vrBskujB >> Say, as in "they shall pay for what they have done until the >> umpteenth generation". > Yet another pseudo-religious hideous thought to be sure. Well, at the time when it come up it was a big improvement; before of it there was no temporal limit. Anyway, as you can read in the fatwa I cited, there is not a problem, in Islam, with the umpteenth generation. They simply kill the offspring if they don't bow fast enough. Now, if the Muslims community don't want be bundled together with their shahids and jihadists, they must say with clear words that they don't support these ideas. That their religion is against these rules. And they must actively reject association with and refuse to help these pious killers that say they are doing it for Islam. AND they must not be caught telling this in English and the reverse in Arab to other Muslims. Anyone that is caught doing so is unreliable and, after too many of them are caught, they all can be considered unreliable. The same happenend in Iwo Jima and Okinawa. After a few Japaneses faked their surrender to be able to close in with the US soldiers and kill them, the other US soldiers learned the lesson and killed any and all Japanese soldier that tried to close in to surrender in some improper way (usually not completely naked). The blame of the killing of the real surrenders is on the Japaneses that don't respected the laws of war. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog * * Leggimi su Estropico Blog * * * * *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3054 - Data di rilascio: 08/06/10 09:37:00 From michaelanissimov at gmail.com Fri Aug 6 21:55:03 2010 From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:55:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Singularity Summit 2010: Just a Week Away! Message-ID: Hi Extropians, Here's my reminder for Singularity Summit 2010, coming up in just a week in San Francisco! Registrations are still wide open! Interested in emerging technologies like brain-computer interfacing, regenerative medicine, human enhancement, and artificial intelligence? A fan of skeptics like James Randi or futurists like Ray Kurzweil? If so, check out the upcoming Singularity Summit, an August 14-15 conference put on by the Singularity Institute in San Francisco. The speakers list this year is better than ever, and encompasses more than twenty speakers. Speakers include Ray Kurzweil, James Randi, Irene Pepperberg (animal intelligence expert), John Tooby (co-founder of evolutionary psychology), Dr. Anita Goel (leading bionanotechnologist), Prof. Steven Mann ("the world's first cyborg"), Dr. Gregory Stock (famed bioethicist and author of Engineering Humans), Ellen Haber-Katz (scientist who studies fast-regenerating mice), Joe Z. Tsien (creator of the smarter "Doogie Mouse"), David Hanson (creator of the world's most realistic humanoid robots), Brian Litt (inventor of silk brain implants), and many others. The Singularity Summit is both the premier event on the Singularity and among the most ambitious interdisciplinary emerging technologies conferences today. Registration for Singularity Summit is $585. The cost reflects the quality and effort put into the event. Discounts are available for students, VC-funded young entrepreneurs, academics, and those who refer non-students. Discounted hotel rooms at available at the Hyatt(event venue), and booking a room at the Hyatt gives you a $100 discount on registration. There is also a Meet the Speakers eventon Saturday night we are promoting. See you in San Francisco for this awesome event! -- michael.anissimov at singinst.org Media Director, Summit Organizer Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jims at eos.arc.nasa.gov Fri Aug 6 22:45:18 2010 From: jims at eos.arc.nasa.gov (Jim Stevenson) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 15:45:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] plain text was Singularity Summit 2010: Just a Week Away! Message-ID: <201008062245.o76MjI5Y015612@eos.arc.nasa.gov> Hi. Is the attached html really of any use to those who read with speech? -- Please answer in plain text, not mime attached html. Thanks much again as always. Jim Please forgive if you really want to attach html and are using its features. Do you know that you are posting in mime attached duplicate html? Can you please explain why the mime attached html? If so, may I please ask which mail program is creating these html attachments, under which OS, and why? I am absolutely certain that it is not my mail program, or anything on my end, though your mail program may hide them from you. This is why others may not have pointed out the mime attached html problem. Your mime attached html post, which I have appended, is exactly what I received. Are you using html to display anything other than plain text? Unless you really are using the html features, the defaults should be set to both post and answer in plain text, or uuencode, if plain text is not an option. your answer mode should also be set to answer in plain text, or answer in uuencode, not to answer in kind. I am most concerned about viruses in unintended attachments. If you must quote me, please put your comments first. I have already listened to mine. I read email with speech, So it is not possible to scroll past the html and quotes without listening to them again, and the mime code after the header is not speech friendly. to quickly get to the new information. The mime attached html is far from speech friendly! -- Thanks much again as always. -- Jim Stevenson Ph.D experimental psychologist, conducting sonification research, & certified master Ericksonian clinical hypnotherapist. jims at eos.arc.nasa.gov (650) 604-5720 w or leave message any time. ham call wb6yoy ------- Signature Memetic Virus I speak for myself and all who are or may become ill with any disease including aging. This does *not* speak for any agency for whom I do or may work. The worst enemy of those who now or will need medical care is the politician who proscribes what doctors are allowed to prescribe and research, with the consent of their patients. For those who wait until they are sick, it will be too late. Those who suffer from diseases which might have been cured by fetal tissue research or schedule 1 drugs banned by Big Brother have the right to hold those accountable who sat on their hands while they remained ill. Those who understand this are strongly encouraged to modify this to fit their personality, and add this to their signature file, and organize to recover our freedom from Big Brother. Long healthy life. From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Aug 7 00:55:25 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 20:55:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] plain text was Singularity Summit 2010: Just a Week Away! In-Reply-To: <201008062245.o76MjI5Y015612@eos.arc.nasa.gov> References: <201008062245.o76MjI5Y015612@eos.arc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: to answer your question: html is the default for many email clients these days. In an effort to provide backwards compatibility for html unavailable clients, the recommendation is to duplicate the text portion of the html in a text-only section of the mime-encoded email. You think the html is needlessly tacked on at the end but it is actually the text-only portion that is prepended thoughtlessly to honor an old recommendation for email compatibility. I would like to ask what email reader and OS you are using. Why does it not have a feature to ignore the html parts of 'normal' emails? My gmail intelligently monitors an entire email thread and injects a "show quotes" feature (which is collapsed from visibility by default) This feature is not dependent on any particular quote character or proper syntax requirement that would likely not be honored. So I wonder why the email reader that converts text to speech is not at least as capable as the default threading controls for gmail. It seems your difficulty with what you believe is erroneously configured email clients in the world would be common to TTS readers and that should drive greater innovation in those tools. per your request, I have top-posted against the general protocol of email discussion lists to bottom post. I also prefer people trim the irrelevant parts of the quoted material; however, it seems the threading features of email clients effectively hide the extraneous noise so effectively that few people seem to mind the redundancy anymore. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Jim Stevenson wrote: > Hi. > Is the attached html really of any use to those who read with speech? > -- > Please answer in plain text, not mime attached html. > > Thanks much again as always. > Jim [trimmed] From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Fri Aug 6 17:52:36 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 13:52:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: <968427.75673.qm@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: And another great thing to remember is that insects and bugs as a whole can be domesticated. And I would like a clarification. Are we talking about bugs as food? Or insects (bugs with head, abdomen, and thorax)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From swestrup at gmail.com Fri Aug 6 18:15:28 2010 From: swestrup at gmail.com (Stirling Westrup) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:15:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food In-Reply-To: References: <968427.75673.qm@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I just wanted to chime in here with a suggestion to check out meal worms if one is looking for a cheap and easy protein source. They are already raised in industrial quantities in North America because they are a favorite food source for many different animals. Plus, I've been informed by folks who've tried them, that they're delicious. -- Stirling Westrup Programmer, Entrepreneur. https://www.linkedin.com/e/fpf/77228 http://www.linkedin.com/in/swestrup http://technaut.livejournal.com From ryanobjc at gmail.com Sat Aug 7 00:01:44 2010 From: ryanobjc at gmail.com (Ryan Rawson) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 17:01:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] plain text was Singularity Summit 2010: Just a Week Away! In-Reply-To: <201008062245.o76MjI5Y015612@eos.arc.nasa.gov> References: <201008062245.o76MjI5Y015612@eos.arc.nasa.gov> Message-ID: An innocent question... Don't speech readers handle the HTML/text stuff fairly well now? If I had screen read my gmail of that particular email I would have heard the email only once. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Jim Stevenson wrote: > Hi. > > > Is the attached html really of any use to those who read with speech? > > -- > > Please answer in plain text, not mime attached html. > > Thanks much again as always. > Jim > > Please forgive if you really want to attach html > and are using its features. > > Do you know that you are posting in mime attached duplicate html? > Can you please explain why the mime attached html? > If so, may I please ask ?which mail program is creating these html attachments, > under which OS, and why? > I am absolutely certain that it is not my mail program, or anything on my end, > though your mail program may hide them from you. > This is why others may not have pointed out the mime attached html problem. > > Your mime attached html post, which I have appended, > is exactly what I received. > > Are you using html to display anything other than plain text? > Unless you really are using the html features, > the defaults should be set to both post and answer in plain text, > or uuencode, if plain text is not an option. > your answer mode should also be set to > answer in plain text, or answer in uuencode, > not to answer in kind. > > I am most concerned about viruses in unintended attachments. > > If you must quote me, please put your comments first. > I have already listened to mine. > > I read email with speech, > So it is not possible to scroll past the html and quotes > without listening to them again, > and the mime code after the header is not speech friendly. > to quickly get to the new information. > The mime attached html is far from speech friendly! > > -- > > Thanks much again as always. > > > -- > > Jim Stevenson Ph.D > experimental psychologist, conducting sonification research, > ?& certified master Ericksonian clinical hypnotherapist. > jims at eos.arc.nasa.gov > (650) 604-5720 w > or leave message any time. > > ham call > wb6yoy > > > > ------- > > Signature Memetic Virus > > I speak for myself and all who are or may become ill with any disease > including aging. > This does *not* speak for any agency for whom I do or may work. > > The worst enemy of those who now or will need medical care is the politician > who proscribes what doctors are allowed to prescribe and research, > ? with the consent of their patients. > > For those who wait until they are sick, it will be too late. > > Those who suffer from diseases which might have been cured by fetal tissue > research or schedule 1 drugs banned by Big Brother have the right to > hold those accountable who sat on their hands while they remained ill. > > Those who understand this are strongly encouraged to modify this to > fit their personality, and add this to their signature file, and > organize to recover our freedom from Big Brother. > > Long healthy life. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat Aug 7 06:03:45 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 23:03:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] one tenderloin, hold the face, please Message-ID: Newts' ability to regenerate tissue replicated in mouse cells by scientists http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2010/august/blau.html This article was about one thing, but embedded, I noticed something else: "... Pajcini and Pomerantz found that blocking the expression of both Rb and ARF allowed individual myocytes isolated from mouse muscle to dedifferentiate and begin dividing. When they put the cells back into the mice, they were able to merge with existing muscle fibers ?" Sounds like part of the pathway to meat -from-a-vat. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard til you know how to do it." Ray Charles From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 7 10:56:42 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 06:56:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] will raise bugs for food Message-ID: And I would like a clarification. Are we talking > about bugs as food? Or insects (bugs with head, abdomen, and thorax)? Good question. I've been using the term to denote insects and arachnids, as I usually do, but not crustaceans. (or of course micro-organisms.) All three fall under the Phyllum arthropod, so you could argue that bug refers to all of them, I suppose. Then the raising bugs for food argument would be kind of moot. We've been doing it for centuries. Dictionary gives "bug" the loose definition as any insect or insect-like invertabrate and its specific definition as an hemipteron, for which is doesn't bother to give a working definition. thefreedictionary.com defines hemipteron as follows: Noun1. hemipteron - insects with sucking mouthparts and forewings thickened and leathery at the base; usually show incomplete metamorphosis. So yes, I guess a clarification of terms would be in order. Darren "Dumb people do dumb things. Smart people do really dumb things." -- Anonymous ________________________________ > Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 13:52:36 -0400 > From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] will raise bugs for food > > And another great thing to remember is that insects and bugs as a whole > can be domesticated. And I would like a clarification. Are we talking > about bugs as food? Or insects (bugs with head, abdomen, and thorax)? > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing > list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Aug 7 14:21:32 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 10:21:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <823C2209-A59C-468A-86BD-E11AC2FFDDE8@bellsouth.net> Me: >> The trend seems to be going in the opposite direction, yet more people in >> the west making lame excuses for Islam, or assuming that if you can explain >> why Islam became destructive and stupid that means it's not destructive and >> stupid anymore. You, Mike Dougherty: > If you can explain how the presents get under the tree on the morning > of 12/26 you don't have to worry about Santa Claus coming down the > chimney anymore; doesn't the same principle apply? I recognize all the words and although I'm no expert you seem to have followed the rules of English grammar correctly, but I can't find any meaning in the above. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Sat Aug 7 08:34:10 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 04:34:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C586A46.5050404@mac.com> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C586A46.5050404@mac.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/3 samantha > For damn good reason it should not. The individual is the unit of ethics > and moral responsibility. To hold and individual liable for what she did > not do is utterly broken. > I agree about holding people liable for things they didn't do is dumb. Obviously. But I question your belief that the individual is the unit of ethics and moral responsibility. If you're using something as ephemeral and ill-definable as a person as your basic unit, something's probably wrong. Moral responsibility is an extremely dubious concept, philosophically at least. (Practically, the concept has some advantages.) For instance, it's pretty easy to argue that continuity of being doesn't exist, so you could easily argue that the person that just committed whatever crime isn't you. What if a criminal has amnesia and no longer remembers their crime? What if the criminal gets Ship of Theseus'd? What if a criminal has a split personality disorder? And why are only individuals subject to ethics? Consider cases where corporations do things that would be considered unethical if they were individuals, but where the breach is not easily attributable to any particular individual within the corporation. What about institutions such as Soviet-style "communism"? What about dangerous memes? What about distributed AIs? What about drug crime and the related imprisonment? In all these cases, you might be able assign blame to an individual (or some individuals) somewhere, if you stretch, but doing so isn't really very useful. It seems much more useful to study our values (which underlie our moral intuitions and desires more generally), and then devise ways of putting together rules or implementing some other form of organization in order to spur progress towards them. This still functionally fulfils the shoes of ethics, but does so without having to invoke some hokey natural law mess, and which allows a more rational and scientific approach. For obvious reasons it's often going to be easiest to talk about what we should and should not do in terms of individuals, but that doesn't mean that we should necessarily put them on a pedestal. Say, as in "they shall pay for what they have done until the umpteenth > generation". > > > > Yet another pseudo-religious hideous thought to be sure. > Hideous, yes. But only religious in the sense that it invokes natural law and justice--which you yourself have done. (The language is evocative of religious law, sure, but it's the same kind of language that most ancient law codes have used, secular or religious.) -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Sat Aug 7 08:08:53 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 04:08:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > My own ideas fit rather well in your description. > > But I am waaaaay reluctant in admitting that, say, a community could > and should be kept legally or ethically responsible for the behaviour > of its members. > > Say, as in "they shall pay for what they have done until the umpteenth > generation". > Although at least historically a lot of people do go for that sort of thing (I don't), that's not what I was talking about at all. For one, that's treating a community like it's an individual, which is sort of missing the whole point--the community is an entity worthy of study as such, but it's not gonna look exactly like a person. As for your specific example, I don't go for the whole "they shall pay" thing in general, since I don't believe in "justice". Perhaps such a sentence would make sense in some specific case in a make-an-example sort of way, but that sort of thing is pretty heavily in violation of my moral intuitions, and if you allow such examples to be made it leads down a slippery slope. What I meant was more in the other direction; it would do us well to recognize communities as things to be studied, built, improved, and protected. -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Sat Aug 7 07:58:34 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 03:58:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C574252.5070705@mac.com> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C574252.5070705@mac.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/2 samantha > This is the wrong way to look at it. Either individuals have rights just > on the basis of being human beings or they do not. If they do then it does > not matter how many may benefit from violating those rights. It is still > wrong. > I don't believe in natural law or natural rights, as you seem to do and as most of the Western world definitely does ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"). It's rather strange that so many atheists do. After all, they are clearly an intellectual product of religion, and more importantly, they assert a form of universal morality which really doesn't make sense independently of a belief in some sort of spiritualism or divinity or non-physical reality of some kind. I'm all for positivist rights, though; I think it's a good thing that we have a system of rights, since they protect both my interests and the interests of most others. But, obviously, if there are no natural rights and no universal code of morality, then what rights we observe is malleable, and we ought to think about what rights we assign, and be willing to alter our law. Again, without a universal code of morality there isn't a "best" set of rights, way of observing them, etc., and so which code of morality we choose to follow (if we use the framework of morality at all) is in a sense arbitrary. However, if you think about morality from an evolutionary (both genetic and memetic) standpoint, you can see that while it may not matter (in a universal sense) what code of morality we ascribe to, we can understand why our intuitions are the way they are, and perhaps even derive a universal-with-a-little-u code of morality (or set of codes of morality) that we would expect all intelligent social beings to evolve towards. One particularly strong moral meme is the one which favours the many over the few, especially in a relatively homogeneous population, because an individual in a society which favours the 99% over the 1% benefits from such favouring 99% of the time (on average). In this light, your assertion that it is always wrong to violate the individual's rights doesn't really make sense. (Of course, I'm operating under a completely different framework, so perhaps it doesn't make sense to evaluate your assertion at all in this way.) People will tend to favour moral systems which benefit the majority, therefore it is likely to be considered moral to violate some previously assigned rights of a small number of individuals in order to provide a benefit to a large number. I think most people would disagree with this assertion, even if they are staunch laissez-faire libertarians. Most people would agree that the right to not be intentionally killed by another human is the most essential basic right, but by your logic it would be wrong to kill someone who was about to kill some other people in order to prevent it. You can get around this by saying that you can violate the rights of people in order to prevent them from violating the rights of others, or that killers don't have rights, but I think you'd be hard pressed to explicitly describe a code of morality in which the individual's rights could never be violated which wouldn't have some reprehensible conclusion. It is also wrong in that it implies that any numerically more numerous group > may do whatever it wishes in principle both to every individual in that > community and to the community itself. > Indeed, the proposition that "any numerically more numerous group may do whatever it wishes in principle both to every individual in that community and to the community itself" will probably seem intuitively despicable to most people. There's a simple reason behind this; nearly everyone belongs to a minority group of some sort. Thus, people want a check on the unlimited principle of majority rules (or authority rules) and so assign rights. This applies especially in cases where the groups are split only in a slightly lopsided way; people are more likely to approve of helping 99% to the detriment of 1% than they are to approve of helping 60% to the detriment of 40%. So, over time people will tend to adopt moral codes in which groups are favoured over individuals, but with checks against damages to personal interests (the sorts of things typically exalted as individual rights), usually in forms clearly guided by perceived injuries of the past. This will occur especially when the majority has access to basic needs, doubly so when power is distributed more evenly. Note that I'm not making a normative statement at all, just a descriptive one. I think that normative moral codes are in the same class as religions, neither of which I subscribe to (and which I take it you believe to be mostly damaging). You say that "It is also wrong in that it implies that any numerically more numerous group may do whatever it wishes in principle both to every individual in that community and to the community itself", but I don't think it makes sense to evaluate wrongness universally like you do. I can evaluate it relative to my personal desires/moral intuition/philosophy--in all three cases, I would prefer that groups were not able to do whatever they wanted based on number alone--but I recognize that just because I believe this doesn't mean that everyone does/"should" (which again doesn't make sense as I reject universal normatives). Of course, that doesn't mean I can't/"shouldn't" advocate my position and act in my interest. When it comes down to it, morals are a social tool, and violations of a given code of morality only matter when somebody is in a position to do something about it. In that sense, a numerically large group (or at least a powerful group) really "may do whatever it wishes in principle both to every individual in that community and to the community itself". Of course, if it does things badly then the group in question may shrink, or a resistance to the group may form and remove it from power. By such reasoning if it seems to the majority of the world more beneficial > to destroy the US and parcel the assets thereof and of its citizens to > everyone else then you would have no moral objection. > I don't have a moral objection on the basis of universal morals to anything at all. I might object as a US citizen (and thus act in my own interests), as someone who values the lives of others who would be hurt by this, and as someone who thinks that redistributing wealth by force generally hurts almost everyone involved in the long term, and I might object on the grounds of my moral intuition. I actively choose not to use the language of universal morality in order to prove a point, although that language could *approximate* what I want to express at times in a manner more efficient than the language I used above. In doing so, I explicate the fact that I do not believe in natural law, I make my "true" motivations more clear, and I raise awareness for something I believe in. Similarly, I choose not to say things like "X deserves Y", "X is unjust", or "X ought to Y", or "X should be punished". Second, and more importantly, a community ought to be thought of as an > entity in its own right, not just as a collection of individuals. Saying > that a community is only a collection of individuals is like saying that a > human is only a collection of cells. It's true, in the sense that a > community is composed entirely of individuals (well, plus perhaps some > cultural artifacts, memes, etc.), but it's a bad way of looking at things > because it makes you miss the forest for the trees. > > It is your assertion it ought to be thought of as not only an entity but as > an entity with more rights than possessed by the individuals that comprise > it. And no, it is not the same thing as the cell-body analogy does not > accurately map to the relationship of an individual human being to a > community. > I don't think a community should have the same sorts of rights as humans. When I say "ought", I mean it in the sense that it is more illuminating, not in the sense that it is the morally correct thing to do. (This is a good example of me not being careful enough with my language.) Of course the mapping in the cell-body analogy isn't perfect. But in this case, it doesn't matter; my point is that thinking in terms of "only" makes a value judgement that clouds understanding. Even if you were to believe in some sort of universal morality, though, how could you know that the community really doesn't have more rights than the individuals? Perhaps communities as entities do something on a level that is entirely incomprehensible to us, just as we as individuals are entirely incomprehensible to our cells (since cells don't seem to "comprehend", although they do compute). (Honestly, you can't "know" what a universal morality is or if it exists any more than you can "know" what God is like or if it exists. But even if you assume our intuition is somewhat close, there's obviously enough variation between people that any given individual's can't be perfect, and that it is quite conceivable that societies or ecosystems or planets are the true unit of morality or at least an equally important one.) > You have already heard the core argument. It is not a mere topic for > debate. > What do you mean by "mere"? Perhaps I missed the core argument you refer to (which shows that when people value the community, the happiness of individuals is decreased). Could you point me to it? -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Aug 7 16:53:08 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 12:53:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> Message-ID: <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:08 AM, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > it would do us well to recognize communities as things to be studied, built, improved, and protected. I doubt if you really mean that in general, I hope not anyway. Studied perhaps, but I doubt if you really want the Nazi community built and protected from criticism; and the best way it could be improved would be for it to self destruct. I feel the same way about Islam, Christianity too although perhaps not with the same intensity. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Aug 7 17:43:43 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 13:43:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: <823C2209-A59C-468A-86BD-E11AC2FFDDE8@bellsouth.net> References: <823C2209-A59C-468A-86BD-E11AC2FFDDE8@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/8/7 John Clark : > Me: > > The trend seems to be going in the opposite direction, yet more people in > the west making lame excuses for Islam, or assuming that if you can explain > why Islam became destructive and stupid that means it's not destructive and > stupid anymore. > > You, Mike Dougherty: > If you can explain how the presents get under the tree on the morning > of 12/26 you don't have to worry about Santa Claus coming down the > chimney anymore; doesn't the same principle apply? > > I recognize all the words and although I'm no expert you seem to have > followed the rules of English grammar correctly, but I can't find any > meaning in the above. Awesome. From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Aug 7 17:34:06 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 13:34:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C574252.5070705@mac.com> Message-ID: <7F5488A1-3273-4C3B-ADF9-8C0003D00AD1@bellsouth.net> On Aug 7, 2010, at 3:58 AM, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > After all, they [natural ethics] are clearly an intellectual product of religion That is not true, not if natural ethics means things most people feel are right. The Bible is full of horror, if you obeyed all its repulsive dictates you would very soon find yourself on death row or at a warcrimes tribunal at the Hague. Instead when a believer reads his bible he picks and chooses, when it says don't kill they embrace it, but when it orders you to murder your disobedient children as it does in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 they just pretend its not there. So something other than religion is telling them that one thing is a pretty good idea and the other one not so much. > People will tend to favour moral systems which benefit the majority I don't. The majority doesn't need moral inhibitions to protect them but the minority does. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Aug 7 18:06:48 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 11:06:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:25 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Aug 5, 2010, at 7:44 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > >> I happen to be concerned about the environmental conditions that will >> drive fundamentalist Christianity to excesses in stupidity beyond those of Islam. > > Wow, that would be very stupid indeed! Look, even in the Bible Belt (aka the Hookworm You are 60 years out of date. Hookworm was fairly well eradicated from the US by 1950. Google Rockefeller Sanitary Commission and follow some of the links. > and Incest Belt) they don't stone to death women who's husbands accuse them of adultery even though the Bible says you should, instead they will engage in doublethink and say every single word of the Bible should be taken literally and the part about stoning in the Bible should be taken figuratively. In contrast Muslims are more logically consistent, they note similar hateful passages in their silly holy book and just say fine lets go for it. Has this been consistent over the last 100 years? Or do you see the more extreme versions rising in step with the economic stress on the population? >> It's happened. Read the Wikipedia page on pope Urban II to see why. > > I don't care about pope Urban II, he died over 900 years ago. The good things Islam did 900 years ago don't impress me and the bad things Christianity did 900 years ago don't worry me. The point is that religions such as Islam and Christianity are not stable meme sets. They drift to the more extreme xenophobic versions in response to how bleak people's perception of the future is. Flaming about the particular aspects of any religion at a given time is the wrong target. You are not going to properly treat diseases if you concentrate only on fever. snip >> But to answer your question, I don't have a sensible or acceptable course of action. >> Except to work on the engineering aspects. > > That's the best I could come up with as well, and I think you would agree that at best that is a long term solution, so what do we do in the meantime? I don't think pretending that we don't see the elephant in the living room and all is right with Islam is the way to go. No, but a look at the EP fundamentals of the situation might help some. For example, Iran may take the path of the IRA. The women there *have* reduced the birthrate to replacement, though it will take decades for the effect to turn up the income per capita. If we do nothing, that country may mellow out. Other situations are much less tractable. Keith From spike66 at att.net Sat Aug 7 18:39:56 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 11:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] one tenderloin, hold the face, please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <581450.21175.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 8/6/10, Jeff Davis wrote: ? >...Sounds like part of the pathway to meat -from-a-vat...Best, Jeff Davis... ? Oh hell yes, and it even sounds more appatizing than eating bugs.? This is coming from me, and I like bugs.? Well, not necessarily to eat the little beasts, but to look at them and study them. ? This is the best indication in a long time that we are really nearing a food production breakthrough, where the energy input to meat production could be electrical power instead of our absurdly inefficient current means of capturing a small?fraction of sunlight, adding a great deal of scarce fresh water, converting part of that to usable sugars, then having some beast devour that and convert some small fraction to protein, of which we convert some small fraction to our lives. ? While we are on that, I was on vacation a couple weeks ago in Washington and Oregon.??Observed proles building wind turbines as fast as they could get the things up.? It was a windy few days, and the locals noted the lines were strained, trying to carry all the generated power.? So I have been thinking of ways to convert the wind-generated power, knowing there is no really good way to store energy at that scale.? We need processes that are compatible with part time generation, where power levels can change more quickly than most power generation plants can be throttled down or back up.? Meat production might be one such application that uses a lot of power, yet is compatible with sudden drops or increases. ? spike ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Aug 7 22:51:47 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <904188.78185.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ? The bastards were carrying bibles; justifiable homicide: ? http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/07/medical-charity-americans-killed-militants-remote-area-n-afghanistan/ ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Aug 7 23:27:05 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 16:27:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: <904188.78185.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <693194.72701.qm@web81503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Sat, 8/7/10, Gregory Jones wrote: The bastards were carrying bibles; justifiable homicide: ? http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/07/medical-charity-americans-killed-militants-remote-area-n-afghanistan/ ? Wait, retract, apologies.??CNN says the slain?were innocent of bible carrying: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/08/07/afghanistan.americans.killed/index.html?hpt=T2 ? Hans Ronnlund, the assistant to the executive director of the mission group, denied statements by the Taliban that the medical staff was carrying Bibles. Ronnlund said the International Assistance Mission is a humanitarian development organization formed by various Christian groups, but said medical staffers do not carry Bibles... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Sun Aug 8 02:21:24 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 22:21:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] one tenderloin, hold the face, please In-Reply-To: <581450.21175.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <581450.21175.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I think an important thing, perhaps to consider, it the shift in perspective that would be required for "vat-meat" (VM throughout) to the general public. Unless we are considering NOT labeling it, which I would consider very un-transhumanist. And still, I believe that perhaps VM would not be the best use of these turbines. This would just be creating another power drain, contributing to the power issues, at least for the short term. I also agree that the food web puts non-vat meats at an ecological and energy disadvantage. A simpler solution would be to eat lower on the food chain. However, VM could have some useful aplications, especially in space colinization, where it would be impractical to bring large numbers of animals. There may also be some health hazards associated with VM that none of us have considered. Personally, the only thing I can think of is chemical contamination, but that is already present to a large degree in the US meat supply (I do not know about the statistics of other nations). From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Sun Aug 8 02:29:58 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 22:29:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Resources for a beginning transhumanist Message-ID: I think that I have been on this list for more than a year, and really started paying attention to it these last three months. In my various internet searches, I have come across the names of various list members, and realized that this list isn't composed of people idly kicking around ideas, as I was at first afraid. This is a list composed of people who really mean what they say. That said, I am rather young, live in a small town, and am new to Transhumanism. Over the last three months I've realized how little I really know about the topics discussed on the list, and while I do comment on certian things, I feel uncertian to stick my nose in because of my spotty background. So I was hoping that some list members might be able to point me to some resources for the beginning transhumanist. I am not detered my heavy or long reading, though I am only proficient in English (working on Spanish, but far from fluent). Thank you for any and all suggestions. From jebdm at jebdm.net Sun Aug 8 02:53:48 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 22:53:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/8/7 John Clark > On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:08 AM, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > > it would do us well to recognize communities as things to be studied, > built, improved, and protected. > > > I doubt if you really mean that in general, I hope not anyway. Studied > perhaps, but I doubt if you really want the Nazi community built and > protected from criticism; and the best way it could be improved would be for > it to self destruct. I feel the same way about Islam, Christianity too > although perhaps not with the same intensity. > I don't mean protected from criticism. (Almost) nothing ought to be protected from criticism, in my opinion. (I say almost because I can think of some times when it's better not to criticize people, at least until later.) I don't mean that *all* possible communities should be built and protected, just as I don't think that all possible humans or all possible machines or all possible anythings, really, should be built or protected. Obviously. 2010/8/7 John Clark > That is not true, not if natural ethics means things most people feel are > right. > That's not what "natural ethics" means. The term for the things people feel are right is "moral intuition". I thought I was pretty clear about that from my usage. It is easy to think you're just following moral intuition, but then to apply the ideas of natural law to them, since in our culture the belief in natural morality is the default; it is common and unexamined. I am frequently surprised by self-avowed atheists, rationalists, and general non-believers who express opinions which are only consistent with natural law. Sometimes when I point it out, they realize what they were thinking and start to work against their programming; sometimes they feel too strongly about it. > The Bible is full of horror, if you obeyed all its repulsive dictates you > would very soon find yourself on death row or at a warcrimes tribunal at the > Hague. Instead when a believer reads his bible he picks and chooses, when it > says don't kill they embrace it, but when it orders you to murder your > disobedient children as it does in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 they just pretend > its not there. So something other than religion is telling them that one > thing is a pretty good idea and the other one not so much. > Uh, I think you may have missed the point. Slow down with the anti-religious zealotry for a minute (you're preaching to the choir). I'm not saying that the particular beliefs that most people have, and that modern systems of law recognize, come directly from the Bible or from any other religious text. (Although they are of course descended in a sort of common law way, where you can think of the Bible and old Roman codes as the original "law" which is then modified by tradition over a long period of time.) Instead, what I meant is that the underlying framework of rights inherent to all man, of things which are universally right and wrong, etc. is descendant from what you might call Unitarian or deist culture. People are right when they say that the United States is an inherently Christian nation, since the idea of unalienable rights ("endowed by their Creator") is built directly into the source. Although American and European intellectuals have mostly moved away from religion, and even despite the widespread expression of things like cultural relativism, they have generally continued to cling to the concept of natural law. This is, I think, why most modern academics are liberals; they have moved far enough away from religion to throw off most of the -isms and repulsive acts dictated within them (without having to maintain any dissonance), and they have then "purified" their moral philosophy a bit, but they have left in tact the framework which religions act under despite these being derived from assumptions that they probably would disagree with if they thought about them more. So, what they have is a system wherein people have natural rights and there is an absolute good and evil and there are moral imperatives which aren't just socially induced, with specific rules oriented towards making people happy and turning the other cheek/giving freely/that sort of thing, which leads pretty simply to ideas of redistribution of wealth, mandated charity, welfare, and state nanny protectionism. > People will tend to favour moral systems which benefit the majority > > I don't. > "tend to" The majority doesn't need moral inhibitions to protect them but the minority > does. > Without moral inhibitions, unless we across the board became much more intelligent and much less petty, there would almost definitely be much more widespread revenge killings, opportunist looting, organized crime, etc. Of course, minorities do need *more* protection from moral inhibitions, but I'd be willing to be that the majority of people are part of some important minority, or at least care about somebody that is. -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Aug 8 05:25:48 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 22:25:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Resources for a beginning transhumanist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <609313.10131.qm@web81506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Sat, 8/7/10, Sabrina Ballard wrote: ? >I think that I have been on this list for more than a year... ? Welcome Sabrina!? Tell us a little about Sabrina, if you wish. >I am rather young... ? As were we all at one time.? You will get over it tragically soon. ? >live in a small town... ? Most of us here did at one time.? You will likely get over that too, but not tragic is this.? Big cities have their advantages. ? >...new to transhumanism... ? Pal, I have been hanging out here for fifteen years, and I am STILL new to transhumanism.? It is important to our development to be new to transhumanism. ? >...So I was hoping that some list members might be able to point me to some resources for the beginning transhumanist... ? Working that.? Start with Damien Broderick's The Spike. ? spike ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 06:18:37 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:18:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Resources for a beginning transhumanist Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Sabrina Ballard wrote: snip > So I was hoping that some list members might be able to point me to > some resources for the beginning transhumanist. I am not detered my > heavy or long reading, though I am only proficient in English (working > on Spanish, but far from fluent). A within the last five years there was at least one thread on this list about the background materials that it would be really useful to understand to take part in the discussions here. I can't find it, perhaps someone has a better set of search terms. Major topics related to transhumanist thinking and the singularity include nanotechnology and AI. Extropy.org has a lot of material on the origins of the philosophy. It's useful for you to at least know what cryonics is about as a number of the most serious transhumanists are also cryonicists. Eric Drexler's Engines of Creation for all the years is still one of the best places to start. It's online if you local library has never heard of it. I don't know what it the current best introduction to AI, probably something by Elizer Yudkowski or Ray Kurzweil. http://www.singularitysummit.com/abstracts/kurzweil http://www.singularitysummit.com/abstracts/yudkowsky In fact, all the people on that program have interesting things to say. I think it is really useful to understand modern evolutionary theory and its application to human behavior and psychological mechanisms. _Selfish Gene_ is very useful for background, though you can get it all off the net if you go deep enough such as Hamilton's rule and inclusive fitness. I am partial to Robert Wright's _Moral Animal_. Works by David Buss are good as are any of the books by Matt Ridley, though my favorite is _The Origin of Virtue_. Or you could read the EP primmer http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html. Oh my. There is so much more. Charles Stross was a list member back in the very early days, over 20 years ago now. His book Accelerando is just full of the ideas that originated here. Depending on where you are, you could meet some of the list members. Best wishes, Keith Henson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 14:07:38 2010 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 23:37:38 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Extropian-friendly t-shirts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6 August 2010 00:26, Kat Walsh wrote: > Spotted at the Imaginary Foundation t-shirt store: > > "Toward the Singularity": > http://www.imaginaryfoundation.com/index.php?pagemode=detail&type=Mens%20T&uid=C190B0 > > Actually, there are many other technologically-optimistic flavored > designs there too, if you're into wearing your heart on your sl... er, > your thoughts on your chest. > > Cheers, > Kat Where's the "like" button in this prehistoric protocol? -- Emlyn http://www.blahblahbleh.com - A simple youtube radio that I built http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog Find me on Facebook and Buzz From giulio at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 14:32:21 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 16:32:21 +0200 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?TransVision_2010_=96_New_confirmed_speaker?= =?windows-1252?q?s?= Message-ID: TransVision 2010 ? New confirmed speakers http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/transvision-2010-new-confirmed-speakers-2/ The following speakers will give talks at TransVision 2010, which brings the number of confirmed speakers to 30. Other speakers will be announced in a few days. Francesco Monico has worked for ten years as a director, screenwriter and program chief in Italian broadcast, sperimental and interactive TV, is both a Technoetic Technoetic researcher and artist, today mainly engaged in directing the Media Design and New Media Art Department he founded at the Nuova Accademia di Belle Arti Milano ? NABA in Milan. He is a professor of Theory and Method of Mass Media at the same institution, as well as director of the PhD program M-Node[1], Planetary Collegium and a Senior Fellow of the McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology in Toronto. He is an alumnus of Derrick de Kerckhove, and is currently researching under Roy Ascott as part of the PhD CAiiA in the Planetary Collegium. A former member of the Scientific Committee of the Leonardo da Vinci Science and Technology Museum in Milan, with Giulio Giorello, Emanuele Severino, Enrico Bellone, he is currently a member of the Scientific Committee of Milano in Digitale [2], with Antonio Caronia, Paolo Rosa, Pier Luigi Capucci, Franco Torrani. Internationally renowned astrophysicist, author and recording artist, Dr. Fiorella Terenzi has a doctorate in physics from the University of Milan. In research at the Computer Audio Research Laboratory, University of California, San Diego, she pionereed techniques to convert radio waves from galaxies into sound ? released by Island Records on her acclaimed CD ?Music from the Galaxies?. Her award-winning CD-ROM ?Invisible Universe? and best-selling books ?Heavenly Knowledge?, ?Musica Dalle Stelle?, ?Der Kosmos ist weiblich? weaves astronomy and music, science and art into a tapestry for the senses. She has appeared on CNN, The Wall Street Journal, People, Time, Glamour and lectured at UCSD, Stanford, MIT. Mike Treder, managing director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, is a prolific writer, speaker, and activist with a background in media and communications. He has published dozens of articles and papers and been interviewed numerous times by the media. As an accomplished presenter on the societal implications of emerging technologies, Mr. Treder has addressed conferences and groups around the world, including in the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, Spain, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, and Brazil. In addition to his work with the IEET, Mr. Treder is a consultant to the Millennium Project of the American Council for the United Nations University, serves on the Scientific Advisory Board for the Lifeboat Foundation, is a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, a consultant to the Future Technologies Advisory Group, and a member of the World Future Society. TransVision 2010 is a global transhumanist conference and community convention, organized by several transhumanist activists, groups and organizations, under the executive leadership of the Italian Transhumanist Association (AIT) and with the collaboration of an Advisory Board. The event will take place on October 22, 23 and 24, 2010 in Milan, Italy with many options for remote online access. Register now http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/registration/ post links to Twitter, your blogs and websites, and add your name to the TransVision 2010 Facebook page. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 14:38:32 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 07:38:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Extropian-friendly t-shirts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Kat, it's ironic that you bring up this company's link now,because several years ago I bought one of their t-shirts from a thrift store, but the tag was missing and so I wondered where I needed to go to buy more. But on Facebook last week, someone shared their link and so I rejoiced! lol John On 8/8/10, Emlyn wrote: > On 6 August 2010 00:26, Kat Walsh wrote: >> Spotted at the Imaginary Foundation t-shirt store: >> >> "Toward the Singularity": >> http://www.imaginaryfoundation.com/index.php?pagemode=detail&type=Mens%20T&uid=C190B0 >> >> Actually, there are many other technologically-optimistic flavored >> designs there too, if you're into wearing your heart on your sl... er, >> your thoughts on your chest. >> >> Cheers, >> Kat > > Where's the "like" button in this prehistoric protocol? > > -- > Emlyn > > http://www.blahblahbleh.com - A simple youtube radio that I built > http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog > Find me on Facebook and Buzz > _______________________________________________ > 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 Aug 8 15:25:35 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 11:25:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> On Aug 7, 2010, at 10:53 PM, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > I don't mean protected from criticism. (Almost) nothing ought to be protected from criticism, in my opinion. (I say almost because I can think of some times when it's better not to criticize people, at least until later.) I too think there are times when it may not be a very good idea to criticize something (such as denouncing Naziism in the middle of a Nazi rally), but I also think that, although I may not like it, people should be free to criticize what I just said. > I don't mean that *all* possible communities should be built and protected, just as I don't think that all possible humans or all possible machines or all possible anythings, really, should be built or protected. Obviously. I can only respond to what you say not what you meant. >> That is not true, not if natural ethics means things most people feel are right. > That's not what "natural ethics" means. The term for the things people feel are right is "moral intuition". You're beating a dead horse. Perhaps at one time the distinction between natural ethics and moral intuition was a big deal but not anymore, certainly not with "self-avowed atheists, rationalists, and general non-believers" you talk about. Nobody on this list expects the scientists at CERN to discover with their accelerator the fundamental quantum particle of morality, the Moron. > Slow down with the anti-religious zealotry for a minute Why? It's not like the other side hasn't had their say! Nobody seems to be able to make the case that what I'm saying is untrue, they only can say it's bad public relations. > People are right when they say that the United States is an inherently Christian nation, since the idea of unalienable rights ("endowed by their Creator") is built directly into the source. The source is the Constitution, you're quoting from the Declaration of Independence. I found some interesting quotations from some of the founding fathers of the USA on the subject, THOMAS JEFFERSON (author of the Declaration of Independence): *Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law. *History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. *In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. *The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: *Lighthouses are more helpful than churches. *I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. *Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies. *The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason JOHN ADAMS: *The Cross, consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! *Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years. *What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era. JAMES MADISON: *Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind. *What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies. *The civil government ? functions with complete success ? by the total separation of the Church from the State. Not a founding father but still interesting, ABRAHAM LINCOLN: *The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. *My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Aug 8 16:23:23 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 12:23:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <544CED66-B3F4-40E0-9F74-065932453DAF@bellsouth.net> On Aug 7, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > > Flaming about the particular aspects of any religion at a given time > is the wrong target. And flaming those who point out the illogic inherent in a religion is the right target? Are you trying to tell me with a straight face that the main problem is that the west is too critical of Islam and we haven't dreamed up enough excuses for it? > do you see the more extreme versions [of Islam] rising in step with the economic stress on the > population? Well it's a real nice theory, and who knows it might even be true, but there is virtually no hard evidence in its support so I sure wouldn't want to bet my life on it as you advise. And even if it were proven to be true I don't see how that knowledge would help us much. If you were able to correctly explain to Churchill in 1939 all the social and economic factors that led to the rise of Nazism, (and we can't do that worth a damn even today with 70 years of hindsight) how would it have helped the Prime Minister solve the colossal problem that was before him? John K Clark > You are not going to properly treat diseases if > you concentrate only on fever. > > snip > >>> But to answer your question, I don't have a sensible or acceptable course of action. >>> Except to work on the engineering aspects. >> >> That's the best I could come up with as well, and I think you would agree that at best that is a long term solution, so what do we do in the meantime? I don't think pretending that we don't see the elephant in the living room and all is right with Islam is the way to go. > > No, but a look at the EP fundamentals of the situation might help > some. For example, Iran may take the path of the IRA. The women > there *have* reduced the birthrate to replacement, though it will take > decades for the effect to turn up the income per capita. If we do > nothing, that country may mellow out. Other situations are much less > tractable. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 18:23:17 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 14:23:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: <544CED66-B3F4-40E0-9F74-065932453DAF@bellsouth.net> References: <544CED66-B3F4-40E0-9F74-065932453DAF@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/8/8 John Clark : > Well it's a real nice theory, and who knows it might even be true, but there > is virtually no hard evidence in its support so I sure wouldn't want to bet > my life on it as you advise. And even if it were proven to be true I don't > see how that knowledge would help us much. If you were able to correctly > explain to Churchill in 1939 all the social and economic factors that led to > the rise of Nazism, (and we can't do that worth a damn even today with 70 > years of hindsight) how would it have helped the Prime Minister solve the > colossal problem that was before him? You're talking about a more of a "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" except without the god-based sorting ? When termites threaten the structural integrity of your home, you don't spend a lot of time considering the needs and motivations of the termites: you spray poisons and 'fix' the problem. It might be nice to build houses from termite-proof plastics but that's not feasible right now. In the meantime, it's probably not useful to complain "why do they threaten my house?" when you could be working to mitigate the threat. So yeah John, I agree with you. I like to play the role of whatever the atheist equivalent of devil's advocate may be but at the end of the discussion, a threat is still a threat no matter how much you appreciate the motivation of the invader. And yes, that's xenophobic Us v. Them language. That also doesn't change simply because we have taken time to reflect on it. From pharos at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 18:53:44 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 19:53:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: <544CED66-B3F4-40E0-9F74-065932453DAF@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > So yeah John, I agree with you. ?I like to play the role of whatever > the atheist equivalent of devil's advocate may be but at the end of > the discussion, a threat is still a threat no matter how much you > appreciate the motivation of the invader. ?And yes, that's xenophobic > Us v. Them language. ?That also doesn't change simply because we have > taken time to reflect on it. > > The trouble with that US-distorted world view is that these third world countries are not really threatening the US much at all at present. Think for a minute. Realistically, how can a bunch of bandits living in caves in the Middle East really 'threaten' a huge nuclear powered nation like the US on the other side of the world? Yea. I know, once they crashed planes into buildings. The US (as a nation state) never even blinked. More people die in car accidents. Since then the fear publicity machine has caused the US nation to damage itself far more than a few terrorists ever could. Foreign wars, the TSA, etc. is causing the US to panic spend and waste resources into economic destruction. That's how those few bandits will destroy the US. The name-calling 'threats' from the Third World are really just a demand for the US to get the hell out of their countries and leave them alone. Unfortunately the US needs their oil and other resources, so the US has to use propaganda to justify their foreign wars. (And the US military industrial complex is now virtually unstoppable. If the US wasn't fighting wars they wouldn't need all these armies and all that expensive equipment, would they? And we can't have that can we?). BillK From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 22:14:54 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 18:14:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: <544CED66-B3F4-40E0-9F74-065932453DAF@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:53 PM, BillK wrote: > Think for a minute. Realistically, how can a bunch of bandits living > in caves in the Middle East really 'threaten' a huge nuclear powered > nation like the US on the other side of the world? well... if they get enough followers on Twitter.... > Yea. I know, once they crashed planes into buildings. The US (as a > nation state) never even blinked. More people die in car accidents. > Since then the fear publicity machine has caused the US nation to > damage itself far more than a few terrorists ever could. Foreign wars, > the TSA, etc. is causing the US to panic spend and waste resources > into economic destruction. That's how those few bandits will destroy > the US. They might take credit, but the US is disintegrating without help from abroad. I don't expect to be able to make such comments without being a suspect soon. Freedoms erode pretty quickly when there is no protection against wear. > The name-calling 'threats' from the Third World are really just a > demand for the US to get the hell out of their countries and leave > them alone. Unfortunately the US needs their oil and other resources, > so the US has to use propaganda to justify their foreign wars. You know, I'd demand we get out of foreign countries and spend that money rebuilding our own. > (And the US military industrial complex is now virtually unstoppable. > If the US wasn't fighting wars they wouldn't need all these armies and > all that expensive equipment, would they? And we can't have that can > we?). What else would we spend money on if not armies and equipment? Education? Do you really think government wants to deal with an educated public? Please. The threat I was imagining was not cave-dwelling terrorists. It's the ideals of groups of people with beliefs that are fundamentally different than those truths that "we" hold to be self-evident. The only war that we stand to lose these days is a war of memes and ideology. The front lines are not drawn geographically. Just as the quickening pace of technology has made the stock market too volatile for mere mortals, the competition between opposing memes (religious, political, etc.) takes no prisoners; the noncommittal are either enlisted by one side or a resource for the other. I believe John's point about excuses and apologetics for antithetical (un-American, un-Western, un-Educated, un-WhatHaveYou) ideas is an observation that tolerance, acceptance and defeat are closely proximal on the losing end of the spectrum. * we: the "us" in us-v.-them. Whether it's atheists v. theists, transhumanists v. unihumanists (?), western vs eastern, left v. right, good v. bad, whatever. The enemy of my enemy is my friend... at least until our enemy is eliminated; then we'll decide who becomes the new foe. From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Aug 9 08:14:14 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 01:14:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New origin of life hypothesis Message-ID: The pieces fit nicely. I like it. Now for a Miller/Urey "simulation". "Several lines of evidence support the idea that life originated with molecules that lay between mica sheets" http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=117405&org=NSF&from=news Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard til you know how to do it." Ray Charles From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Aug 9 12:50:48 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 05:50:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:00 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> Flaming about the particular aspects of any religion at a given time >> is the wrong target. > > And flaming those who point out the illogic inherent in a religion is the right target? It's not *useful* to point out that religions are illogical. Their very existence is due to psychological mechanisms that (in appropriate circumstances) induce irrational behavior because (in the stone age) such behavior, irrational and harmful to the host as it is, helps genes to propagate. I have derived numbers of how much genes for irrational behavior in some circumstances have an advantage over alternate genes. > Are you trying to tell me with a straight face that the main problem is that the west is too critical of Islam and we haven't dreamed up enough excuses for it? Hardly. But the history of war is replete with people doing things that were irrational. As others have pointed out today, most of the damage in the US from 9/11 was self induced. The *passengers* solved the problem that day, and there is no strong evidence that any of the official programs have accomplished anything useful. Look, it isn't the stone age any more. Working ourselves up into a frenzy and taking irrational actions (that hurt us more than them) isn't nearly as effective as working out rational approaches to dealing with the problems. Mike Dougherty wrote: >So yeah John, I agree with you. I like to play the role of whatever the atheist equivalent of devil's advocate may be but at the end of the discussion, a threat is still a threat no matter how much you appreciate the motivation of the invader. And yes, that's xenophobic Us v. Them language. That also doesn't change simply because we have taken time to reflect on it. The more important part may be to understand how our own rationality is screwed up by being attacked. Keith From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Aug 9 13:58:54 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:58:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 9, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > It's not *useful* to point out that religions are illogical. Why not?! Most people think religion is logical and moral and that error has caused centuries of grief. Most people, apparently even most people on this list, think that religion is the one human activity that should be completely immune from criticism and any violation from this social norm proves the violator to be a profoundly immoral person. Just today in an editorial Jaron Lanier in the New York Times makes the tired old claim that Transhumanism is really a religion and then proceeds to savagely attack it; proving he doesn't believe his own argument. Lanier wouldn't robustly attack Islam in a popular newspaper in a million years. Why, because he thought Islam was more logical than Transhumanism? Of course not. It is very clear that despite what he said Lanier thought one thing was a religion and one thing was not and one thing was immune from criticism and one thing was not. > Their very existence is due to psychological mechanisms that (in appropriate > circumstances) induce irrational behavior because (in the stone age) > such behavior, irrational and harmful to the host as it is, helps genes to propagate. I don't care, ITS 100% IRRELEVANT!! > > But the history of war is replete with people doing things that were irrational. Very true, and the most irrational was pretending the very obvious threat staring them in the face wasn't there. > Working ourselves up into a frenzy and taking irrational actions Pointing out the truth is not irrational and you haven't even tried to make the case that I am in error in what I say, just that some truths should never be uttered because its bad public relations. > > isn't nearly as effective as working out rational approaches to dealing with the problems. But you admit you have no solution to the problem of Islam, rational or otherwise. Yes, you have a nice theory as to what caused the problem, but even if it's true it's of academic interest only because it helps you not at all in finding a solution. I don't know how to solve the problem either but I do know how to make it worse, pretending there is no problem. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 9 13:52:34 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 06:52:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China... Message-ID: <497607.38451.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Yeah, I know this isn't about Muslims, religion, or even violence. But it is about economic competition. So while?we waste our?money?blowing up rocks in Afghanistan with million dollar missiles to?benefit the guys who make missiles, look at what the rational superpower is doing: biding its time while the competition depletes itself running in circles.?Chairman Mao would be so proud. Maybe our children will sing praises to him in Mandarin. http://www.gizmag.com/up-close-and-personal-with-saics-yez-concept-car/15808/ If anyone wants to defend?their libertarian ideals?against the empirical fact that is?China, please speak up. ?Stuart LaForge "Old men read the lesson in the setting sun. Beat the cymbal and sing in this life, or wail away the hours fearing death. Their choice is their fortune." - I Ching From giulio at gmail.com Mon Aug 9 14:15:13 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:15:13 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China... In-Reply-To: <497607.38451.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <497607.38451.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: One more sign of the times. I especially liked "[China has] the largest quantity of realistic optimism the world has ever seen". These more and more frequent news should be wake-up calls for our Western geriatric societies. On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:52 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > Yeah, I know this isn't about Muslims, religion, or even violence. But it is > about economic competition. So while?we waste our?money?blowing up rocks in > Afghanistan with million dollar missiles to?benefit the guys who make missiles, > look at what the rational superpower is doing: biding its time while the > competition depletes itself running in circles.?Chairman Mao would be so proud. > Maybe our children will sing praises to him in Mandarin. > > http://www.gizmag.com/up-close-and-personal-with-saics-yez-concept-car/15808/ > > If anyone wants to defend?their libertarian ideals?against the empirical fact > that is?China, please speak up. > ?Stuart LaForge > "Old men read the lesson in the setting sun. > Beat the cymbal and sing in this life, or wail away the hours fearing death. > Their choice is their fortune." - I Ching > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Aug 9 14:04:36 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:04:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A Proof That P Is Not Equal To NP? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5B1338DB-AAA3-4AB7-92A1-174F2A8EFB24@bellsouth.net> http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/a-proof-that-p-is-not-equal-to-np/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Mon Aug 9 01:23:03 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 21:23:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Resources for a beginning transhumanist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > Oh my. There is so much more. Charles Stross was a list member back > in the very early days, over 20 years ago now. His book Accelerando > is just full of the ideas that originated here. > Full book available here: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelerando/accelerando-intro.html -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Mon Aug 9 02:03:50 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 22:03:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/8/8 John Clark > I too think there are times when it may not be a very good idea to > criticize something (such as denouncing Naziism in the middle of a Nazi > rally), but I also think that, although I may not like it, people should be > free to criticize what I just said. > Yep. > I don't mean that *all* possible communities should be built and protected, > just as I don't think that all possible humans or all possible machines or > all possible anythings, really, should be built or protected. Obviously. > > > I can only respond to what you say not what you meant. > I thought it was obvious. If I said people ought to be protected, you wouldn't say "but what about Hitler", unless perhaps I was saying that all peoples' lives should be protected no matter what by law. Which I wasn't. That is not true, not if natural ethics means things most people feel are >> right. >> >> > That's not what "natural ethics" means. The term for the things people > feel are right is "moral intuition". > > > You're beating a dead horse. Perhaps at one time the distinction between > natural ethics and moral intuition was a big deal but not anymore, certainly > not with "self-avowed atheists, rationalists, and general non-believers" you > talk about. Nobody on this list expects the scientists at CERN to discover > with their accelerator the fundamental quantum particle of morality, the > Moron. > That's exactly my point. These people don't believe in natural law philosophically, but they act like they do, and thus reap the negative effects. It's like people who don't believe in God, but still go to church because their families have for forever. Except worse, because this stuff seeps pretty thickly into the law. Slow down with the anti-religious zealotry for a minute > > > Why? It's not like the other side hasn't had their say! Nobody seems to be > able to make the case that what I'm saying is untrue, they only can say it's > bad public relations. > Because you're preaching to the choir here and because half of your preaching is changing the conversation. If you have a new point, that's fine, but you're just spewing the typical atheist lines. People are right when they say that the United States is an inherently > Christian nation, since the idea of unalienable rights ("endowed by their > Creator") is built directly into the source. > > > The source is the Constitution, you're quoting from the Declaration of > Independence. > The quote is from the Declaration, but the ideas are clearly used in the Constitution the interpretation thereof. > I found some interesting quotations from some of the founding fathers of > the USA on the subject, > *THOMAS JEFFERSON *(author of the Declaration of Independence)*:* > * > * > *Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law. > I think he meant that the proscriptions of the Bible were never enforced as law in the United States because they were in the Bible, which is roughly true (although there are some obvious inspirations). But if you think that legislators and judges haven't made laws and rulings tinted by their religions, you're insane. *History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people > maintaining a free civil government. > Perhaps, but history doesn't really provide many examples of free civil governments at all. And the terms are debatable. But arguably the US is "priest-ridden" and has a free civil government. But I think his point is that religion and "free civil governments" are in conflict, which I agree with. *In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. > He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for > protection to his own. > Sure, if you're willing to overgeneralize a bit. The same could be said of politicians and lawyers and the rich. Most people with power want to keep and expand it; doing so is by definition hostile to liberty. **The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme > Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable > of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.* > Sure, but not relevant. > *BENJAMIN FRANKLIN:* > > *Lighthouses are more helpful than churches. > Depends on the lighthouse and the church. I think that *religion* in general is a bad idea, but there are times when religious *groups* (such as churches) have done some pretty significant good. I'd like to see an organization that fulfilled the same sort of role (social gathering place, strong community, with charity and goodwill) without a religious bent. Again, not really relevant. > *I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. > Sure, but not relevant. > *Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies. > Me too. Not relevant. > *The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason > Yes, and not relevant. > *JOHN ADAMS:* > * > * > *The Cross, consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! > Sure, but not more so than any body with power, and again not relevant. > **Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has > raged and triumphed for 1,500 years.* > Not relevant. > ** > *What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian > era. > Not relevant, and an exaggeration. > *JAMES MADISON:* > * > * > *Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind. > Not relevant *What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? > In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the > ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen > upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been > the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the > public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies. > "No instance" is a great exaggeration. The very early Christian church did a fair amount of good. Some missionaries do a great deal of good, and sometimes don't even push their wares. Religious groups play a major role in disaster relief. Religious groups under persecution have fought for expanded liberties. Indeed, they played a large role in the creation of the US. The underground railroad and the abolition movement were mostly run by religious groups. I'm still not pro-religion; I'm just pointing out the great exaggerations of anti-religious zealots. *The civil government ? functions with complete success ? by the total > separation of the Church from the State. > Perhaps a necessary but certainly not a sufficient condition. Not a founding father but still interesting, > > *ABRAHAM LINCOLN:* > * > * > *The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. > Not relevant > *My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation > and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger > with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change > them. > Not relevant. I wonder how widespread the knowledge of this was, though? Certainly wouldn't fly now, at least according to polls where most Americans have said they wouldn't vote for an atheist and usually not a non-Christian. -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Aug 9 15:47:34 2010 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:47:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China... In-Reply-To: <497607.38451.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <497607.38451.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:52 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > Yeah, I know this isn't about Muslims, religion, or even violence. But it is > about economic competition. So while?we waste our?money?blowing up rocks in > Afghanistan with million dollar missiles to?benefit the guys who make missiles, > look at what the rational superpower is doing: biding its time while the > competition depletes itself running in circles.?Chairman Mao would be so proud. > Maybe our children will sing praises to him in Mandarin. > > http://www.gizmag.com/up-close-and-personal-with-saics-yez-concept-car/15808/ > > If anyone wants to defend?their libertarian ideals?against the empirical fact > that is?China, please speak up. ### It's amazing that seemingly any set of data can be seen as a reason to turn towards darkness. Rafal From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Aug 9 16:11:05 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:11:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: After criticizing the founding fathers for their anti religious statements and showing how foolish they were to hold such views, Jebadiah Moore uses the phrase "not relevant" no less than 10 times, count them if you don't believe me. So among many other nuggets of wisdom we learn than James Madison's observation that "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind" is irrelevant. And Thomas Jefferson's prediction that "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" is also irrelevant even though it is true. So according to Mr. Moore BOTH the morality AND the truth of a religious teaching is irrelevant in assessing its value. Mr. Moore, with all due respect, what the fuck IS relevant in determining the virtue or lack thereof of a religion such as Islam if neither morality nor truth is in anyway involved? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Mon Aug 9 17:24:45 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:24:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/8/9 John Clark > After criticizing the founding fathers for their anti religious statements > and showing how foolish they were to hold such views > I criticized them for the particular content of their statements, not for being anti-religious. Some of their anti-religious statements I fully agree with. > Jebadiah Moore uses the phrase "not relevant" no less than 10 times, count > them if you don't believe me. So among many other nuggets of wisdom we learn > than James Madison's observation that "Religious bondage shackles and > debilitates the mind" is irrelevant. And Thomas Jefferson's prediction that > "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme > Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable > of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" is also irrelevant > even though it is true. > Not relevant to what I thought we were discussing: the impact of religion on freedom. Some of the quotes you posted were simply not relevant to that discussion at all, others (such as "Religous bondage shackles and debilitates the mind") were empty of content, just making assertions, and therefore not relevant to *any* rational discussion without further backing up. > So according to Mr. Moore BOTH the morality AND the truth of a religious > teaching is irrelevant in assessing its value. Mr. Moore, with all due > respect, what the fuck IS relevant in determining the virtue or lack thereof > of a religion such as Islam if neither morality nor truth is in anyway > involved? > Obviously the morality and truth of a teaching are both relevant to assessing its value. However, out of context quotes given only on authority (by virtue of them being from the "founding fathers") are not, especially when they contain exaggerations. My opinion on religions in general is that a) they are mostly false b) the falsehoods are generally dangerous because they lead people to make bad decisions and hold strange values (although values are, I suppose, arbitrary, these values are usually in conflict with the pro-human life, pro-family, etc. values that we all likely hold at some level due to our genetic heritage) c) religions do "shackle... the mind", because they, through various methods, "force" their followers to hold views that may or may not be true, usually without allowing them freedom to differ d) however, for all their cons, in many places religions are practised with most of the doctrine at an arm's length, thereby reducing the negative impact, while bringing together strong, loving communities who do, in fact, do a great deal of good e) I would prefer for such communities to come into being without such a glue of falsehood, but f) I recognize that, for some reason, very few do. (And I'd like to know why.) So, I would say that, like you, I am anti-religious (while at the same time recognizing that they aren't 100% bad); however, I prefer to stick to rational arguments rather than the sorts of rhetorical techniques you employ. -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Mon Aug 9 14:16:24 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:16:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Religion is not inherently illogical, it is just inherently unscientific. If it could be disproved, it would be science, not religion. With that said, many religions are unscientific rather than illogical. Logic is entirely situation dependent, there is no objective standard to a line of thought, however there is an objective standard on how to follow and persue the line of thought. From max at maxmore.com Mon Aug 9 17:41:25 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:41:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism Message-ID: <201008091808.o79I8DnN000622@andromeda.ziaspace.com> John Clark said: >Just today in an editorial Jaron Lanier in the New York Times makes >the tired old claim that Transhumanism is really a religion and then >proceeds to savagely attack it; proving he doesn't believe his own argument. I only skimmed the piece, but I saw no mention of transhumanism. Instead, he was talking about some views of AI and that of Singularitarians. Those are not transhumanism. Important difference. He might call transhumanism religious elsewhere, but he did not do that in the NYT piece. Please, let's keep transhumanism distinct from Singularitarianism. Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader The Proactionary Project Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Aug 9 17:45:10 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China... In-Reply-To: References: <497607.38451.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <577779.11661.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes, the whole China thing has been going on since before we were born. I recall reading an essay about the dire predictions for when the PRC got the bomb -- that this would, naturally, start WW3. And here we are almost fifty years after that and China is hardly more of a military menace today than it was then. Ho-hum. But, as you know, one argument deployed time and again against liberty has been fear of some external enemy. This has been done since ancient times. (I don't mean, of course, some here are willingly try to deceive, but I fear they're unwittingly embracing a fear they should set aside. This doesn't mean, either, that the Chinese government is nice and nonthreatening. Just have a bit of perspective. This too shall pass.) Regards, Dan From: Rafal Smigrodzki To: ExI chat list Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 11:47:34 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Meanwhile in China... On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:52 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > Yeah, I know this isn't about Muslims, religion, or even violence. But it is > about economic competition. So while?we waste our?money?blowing up rocks in > Afghanistan with million dollar missiles to?benefit the guys who make missiles, > look at what the rational superpower is doing: biding its time while the > competition depletes itself running in circles.?Chairman Mao would be so proud. > Maybe our children will sing praises to him in Mandarin. > > http://www.gizmag.com/up-close-and-personal-with-saics-yez-concept-car/15808/ > > If anyone wants to defend?their libertarian ideals?against the empirical fact > that is?China, please speak up. ### It's amazing that seemingly any set of data can be seen as a reason to turn towards darkness. Rafal _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Aug 9 17:58:10 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:58:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <522260.79169.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I think to be sure one would have to clearly define religion here (and probably just what's meant by "illogical"). My exposure to real world religious believers leads me to believe many of them don't have clear ideas on their beliefs and many hold clearly illogical -- in the classical sense -- ideas -- that is, they hold ideas that are inconsistent with each other and usually clash with even the facts they accept. But what does this mean ultimately? Non-religious people I know often?evince similar problems in their beliefs. What follows from this? Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: Sabrina Ballard To: ExI chat list Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 10:16:24 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero Religion is not inherently illogical, it is just inherently unscientific. If it could be disproved, it would be science, not religion. With that said, many religions are unscientific rather than illogical. Logic is entirely situation dependent, there is no objective standard to a line of thought, however there is an objective standard on how to follow and persue the line of thought. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at att.net Mon Aug 9 18:44:20 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:44:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] they aren't words, but should be Message-ID: <8B410062747541C7BCAA486367618680@spike> >...Currently, many people take the... koron literally... Thanks, I actually prefer that spelling. It is easier to write poetry about it. >...so I cannot spean on that point. Yes I know it was a typo and I know what you meant, but this minor error is actually a good thing. The term spean is a perfect example of a non-scrabbleable word, a word that is not in common usage, but should be. To make our language more manageable, we should be defining and using pretty much every single syllable word. Why are we wasting perfectly good spean? What is a spean? Or how does one spean? Please pass me the speanish hortch? Or create a speanly groil? Sure we can google and find that bit about the Scottish using it for wean, but we already have wean and do we really need two rhyming words for that rather obscure notion? So let us spean or have a spean, or please suggest a definition, perhaps to be used for some new concept in the field of transhumanism, which shall need many new terms, such as reeth and spean. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Aug 9 19:22:18 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:22:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: <201008091808.o79I8DnN000622@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201008091808.o79I8DnN000622@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Aug 9, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Max More wrote: > Please, let's keep transhumanism distinct from Singularitarianism. Why? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Mon Aug 9 19:40:46 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:40:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] they aren't words, but should be In-Reply-To: <8B410062747541C7BCAA486367618680@spike> References: <8B410062747541C7BCAA486367618680@spike> Message-ID: to spean- to think/speak/write in a transhumanist fashion. Ex. I was speaning about religion. Just joking. But what do you guys think? And sorry about the typo. I'll try to be more careful next time. And what is the currently accepted spelling of the Koron, Ko'ron, Koran, Ko'ran, Qu'ran, Quran, Quron. Qu'ron? On 8/9/10, spike wrote: > > > >...Currently, many people take the... koron literally... > > Thanks, I actually prefer that spelling. It is easier to write poetry about > it. > > >...so I cannot spean on that point. > > Yes I know it was a typo and I know what you meant, but this minor error is > actually a good thing. The term spean is a perfect example of a > non-scrabbleable word, a word that is not in common usage, but should be. > To make our language more manageable, we should be defining and using pretty > much every single syllable word. Why are we wasting perfectly good spean? > What is a spean? Or how does one spean? Please pass me the speanish > hortch? Or create a speanly groil? > > Sure we can google and find that bit about the Scottish using it for wean, > but we already have wean and do we really need two rhyming words for that > rather obscure notion? So let us spean or have a spean, or please suggest a > definition, perhaps to be used for some new concept in the field of > transhumanism, which shall need many new terms, such as reeth and spean. > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Aug 9 20:14:52 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:14:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <35201929-54FA-49E5-9595-F89F46B299EB@bellsouth.net> On Aug 9, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Sabrina Ballard wrote: > Religion is not inherently illogical Self contradiction is inherently illogical, like a being who can do anything including make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or a being that really really loves you and will torture you most horribly not for a million years not for a billion years but for all of eternity if you do even one thing He doesn't want you to do or even think one thing He doesn't want you to think. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Aug 9 19:59:10 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:59:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <222BC0DC-B005-4C14-816F-B229158A6B03@bellsouth.net> On Aug 9, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Jebadiah Moore wrote: Me: >> Jebadiah Moore uses the phrase "not relevant" no less than 10 times, count them if you don't believe me. So among many other nuggets of wisdom we learn than James Madison's observation that "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind" is irrelevant. And Thomas Jefferson's prediction that "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" is also irrelevant even though it is true. > > > Not relevant to what I thought we were discussing: the impact of religion on freedom. I was talking about the value of religion period, and your claim that the truth or falsehood of a major teaching of a major religion is irrelevant is quite simply imbecilic. > Some of the quotes you posted were simply not relevant to that discussion at all, others (such as "Religous bondage shackles and debilitates the mind") were empty of content, just making assertions, and therefore not relevant to any rational discussion without further backing up. I see. So to you the idea is so outrageous and you have such difficulty finding any examples of religion shackling the mind that you can dismiss the comments of James Madison as irrational and not worthy of further discussion. I disagree. > out of context quotes given only on authority (by virtue of them being from the "founding fathers") are not, especially when they contain exaggerations. You said the USA was founded on religion, I gave solid evidence that most of the people who started the country were not only irreligious but anti-religious; that is not an argument from authority, that's just proving you wrong. And may almighty God damn me to hell for all eternity if you can show me how those brilliant men exaggerated religion's evil or stupidity. > however, for all their cons, in many places religions are practised with most of the doctrine at an arm's length, thereby reducing the negative impact So the more weakly someone believes in this retarded toxic waste the better off they are. I agree with that. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Mon Aug 9 20:52:31 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:52:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <222BC0DC-B005-4C14-816F-B229158A6B03@bellsouth.net> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> <222BC0DC-B005-4C14-816F-B229158A6B03@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: This has devolved into a pissing match, methinks, but I'll give it another go (this is the internet after all): 2010/8/9 John Clark > On Aug 9, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > > Me: > > Jebadiah Moore uses the phrase "not relevant" no less than 10 times, count >> them if you don't believe me. So among many other nuggets of wisdom we learn >> than James Madison's observation that "Religious bondage shackles and >> debilitates the mind" is irrelevant. And Thomas Jefferson's prediction that >> "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme >> Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable >> of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" is also irrelevant >> even though it is true. >> >> > Not relevant to what I thought we were discussing: the impact of religion > on freedom. > > > I was talking about the value of religion period, and your claim that the > truth or falsehood of a major teaching of a major religion is irrelevant is > quite simply imbecilic. > I never said that the truth or falsehood is irrelevant. Just that the quotes were irrelevant to the context. Obviously you were discussing a broader point than me, and a few more of the quotes are relevant in that context, but many of them still only make assertions. So, they show what the quoted people believed, but that's it. Some of the quotes you posted were simply not relevant to that discussion > at all, others (such as "Religous bondage shackles and debilitates the > mind") were empty of content, just making assertions, and therefore not > relevant to *any* rational discussion without further backing up. > > > I see. So to you the idea is so outrageous and you have such difficulty > finding any examples of religion shackling the mind that you can dismiss the > comments of James Madison as irrational and not worthy of further > discussion. I disagree. > Again, no. I can think of *many* examples of religion shackling the mind. But Madison doesn't point out any examples in the quote you give, nor does he make anything but an assertion. Nor did you follow up. So there's not much point to copying out the quote, except to show that Madison believed it (which I'll get to in a second). You said the USA was founded on religion, I gave solid evidence that most of > the people who started the country were not only irreligious but > anti-religious; that is not an argument from authority, that's just proving > you wrong. > I didn't recognize that you were providing the quotes for that reason; they are relevant in this context. But you didn't point that out. Anyway, four founders are hardly "most", and even Jefferson at least was a deist--I'm not sure about the rest of them. So, anti-organized religion, but not anti-God. And certainly pro-natural law, a belief descendant from religious belief. And, as I said, most of the people founding the US were Christians or at least deists. And certainly the vast majority of the legislators, judges, and voters were. > And may almighty God damn me to hell for all eternity if you can show me > how those brilliant men exaggerated religion's evil or stupidity. > I commented and explained my claim already. Here's one quote: Madison: > *What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on > society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny > on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen > upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been > the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the > public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies. > The exaggeration explained: > "No instance" is a great exaggeration. The very early Christian church did > a fair amount of good. Some missionaries do a great deal of good, and > sometimes don't even push their wares. Religious groups play a major role > in disaster relief. Religious groups under persecution have fought for > expanded liberties. Indeed, they played a large role in the creation of the > US. The underground railroad and the abolition movement were mostly run by > religious groups. -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Aug 9 20:51:40 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:51:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: <35201929-54FA-49E5-9595-F89F46B299EB@bellsouth.net> References: <35201929-54FA-49E5-9595-F89F46B299EB@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On 8/9/10, John Clark wrote: > Self contradiction is inherently illogical, like a being who can do anything > including make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, or a being that really > really loves you and will torture you most horribly not for a million years > not for a billion years but for all of eternity if you do even one thing He > doesn't want you to do or even think one thing He doesn't want you to think. > > *Humans* are inherently irrational. That's the way evolution made them. So obviously their Gods are irrational as well. Humans normally operate as emotional, prejudiced, power-seeking beings. Rationality is not much use in the day-to-day struggle. Cunning, yes. Superstition, yes. Lying, yes. Flattery and bribery, yes. Rationality is usually a disadvantage in human interactions. See: Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer and many other references in human psychology. BillK From spike66 at att.net Mon Aug 9 21:11:40 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] they aren't words, but should be In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <437202.73586.qm@web81506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 8/9/10, Sabrina Ballard wrote: ? >...to spean- to think/speak/write in a transhumanist fashion. Ex. I was speaning about religion... ? I like it.? {8-]? There is a great deal of speanly dialog that occurs on this forum.? I thought the term had a vaguely erotic sound without the vulgarity, so that one could imagine a pair of very technologically sophisticated scientists meeting after hours in the lab, making comments such as, "...Oh doctor, I am so very aroused!? Do spean me now, spean me with sufficient thoroughness that my mad hormonal desires are fully sated..."? etc. ? Damien wrote a book (Transcension?) that included just such a pair of aroused scientists.? It is the funniest thing I have ever read. ? >And what is the currently accepted spelling of the Koron... ? Well, I have never actually seen your suggested spelling, but I can deal: ? A chemist who often worked with boron Took literally the verses of the Koron, He mixed it in?a certain?way, But himself only did he slay, So NO VIRGINS FOR YOU, silly moron! Sabrina, be duly forwarned, our group?often displays a certain?speanish playfulness.? We have two grandmasters of the art among us, Damien Broderick and Jeff Davis.? Do feel free to join in?the use of words as playthings, the raucus misuse of language. ? spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aleksei at iki.fi Mon Aug 9 20:55:40 2010 From: aleksei at iki.fi (Aleksei Riikonen) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 23:55:40 +0300 Subject: [ExI] Resources for a beginning transhumanist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Sabrina Ballard wrote: > > So I was hoping that some list members might be able to point me to > some resources for the beginning transhumanist. I am not detered my > heavy or long reading http://www.nickbostrom.com/ And then my own homepage, linked below, contains the rest of the links that I'd most recommend. (Though Bostrom's page alone should keep a beginner happily occupied for quite a long time, if indeed reading of the more heavy sort is also enjoyed.) -- Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 9 21:26:25 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:26:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China... In-Reply-To: <577779.11661.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <497607.38451.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <577779.11661.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <34211.26475.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Dan writes: > Yes, the whole China thing has been going on since before we were born. I >recall > > reading an essay about the dire predictions for when the PRC got the bomb -- > that this would, naturally, start WW3. And here we are almost fifty years after > > that and China is hardly more of a military menace today than it was then. > Ho-hum. That sounds comforting until you realize that the Chinese ideal of warfare is to make sure the battle is won before the first shot is fired. From Sun Tzu's Art of War: "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the?pinnacle of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the?pinnacle of skill." ? > But, as you know, one argument deployed time and again against liberty has been > > fear of some external enemy. This has been done since ancient times. (I don't > mean, of course, some here are willingly try to deceive, but I fear they're > unwittingly embracing a fear they should set aside. This doesn't mean, either, > that the Chinese government is nice and nonthreatening. Just have a bit of > perspective. This too shall pass.) I don't think I am embracing fear nor to quote Rafal "turning toward darkness". I do think I am developing a healthy respect for the subtlety of Chinese statesmanship, the efficiency of their bureacracy,?and the?power of their collectivism.?While?the U.S. is?fighting?trillion dollar?wars obstensibly for oil, the Chinese?are developing cars with a negative carbon footprint that run?by artificial photosynthesis. Knowing the frugality of the Chinese, they?probably did for less a than a billion. And I am sorry if this sounds scary to some, I am simply trying to wake people up to something far more threatening to the American way of life than terrorism could ever be. And that danger is our own greed, devisiveness, and complacency. Stuart LaForge "Old men read the lesson in the setting sun. Beat the cymbal and sing in this life, or wail away the hours fearing death. Their choice is their fortune." - I Ching From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Aug 9 23:25:12 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan Ust) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 19:25:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China... In-Reply-To: <34211.26475.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <497607.38451.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <577779.11661.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <34211.26475.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <982DB5A3-0A61-44E2-B348-0287254D3AA1@yahoo.com> This is why they have never ever ever lost a war -- ignoring the ones they have lost, of course. Regards, Dan On Aug 9, 2010, at 5:26 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > Dan writes: > >> Yes, the whole China thing has been going on since before we were born. I >> recall >> >> reading an essay about the dire predictions for when the PRC got the bomb -- >> that this would, naturally, start WW3. And here we are almost fifty years after >> >> that and China is hardly more of a military menace today than it was then. >> Ho-hum. > > That sounds comforting until you realize that the Chinese ideal of warfare is to > make sure the battle is won before the first shot is fired. From Sun Tzu's Art > of War: "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle > of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the pinnacle of skill." > >> But, as you know, one argument deployed time and again against liberty has been >> >> fear of some external enemy. This has been done since ancient times. (I don't >> mean, of course, some here are willingly try to deceive, but I fear they're >> unwittingly embracing a fear they should set aside. This doesn't mean, either, > >> that the Chinese government is nice and nonthreatening. Just have a bit of >> perspective. This too shall pass.) > > I don't think I am embracing fear nor to quote Rafal "turning toward darkness". > I do think I am developing a healthy respect for the subtlety of Chinese > statesmanship, the efficiency of their bureacracy, and the power of their > collectivism. While the U.S. is fighting trillion dollar wars obstensibly for > oil, the Chinese are developing cars with a negative carbon footprint that > run by artificial photosynthesis. Knowing the frugality of the Chinese, > they probably did for less a than a billion. And I am sorry if this sounds scary > to some, I am simply trying to wake people up to something far more threatening > to the American way of life than terrorism could ever be. And that danger is our > own greed, devisiveness, and complacency. > > Stuart LaForge > > "Old men read the lesson in the setting sun. > Beat the cymbal and sing in this life, or wail away the hours fearing death. > Their choice is their fortune." - I Ching > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Aug 9 23:41:52 2010 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:41:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China... In-Reply-To: <34211.26475.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <497607.38451.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <577779.11661.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <34211.26475.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:26 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > I don't think I am embracing fear nor to quote Rafal "turning toward darkness". > I do think I am developing a healthy respect for the subtlety of Chinese > statesmanship, the efficiency of their bureacracy,?and the?power of their > collectivism. ### As I said, I am amazed how any set of data can be interpreted to support any ideological position whatsoever. The positive association between the decline of Chinese collectivism and their economic success is taken as evidence that, guess what, the power of collectivism benefits economic growth (and puts a nail in the coffin of simplistic, libertarian ideologies). A = ~A, no? ---------------------- ?While?the U.S. is?fighting?trillion dollar?wars obstensibly for > oil, ### I am slowly coming to the realization that Americans troops fight wars because American voters love killing foreigners. Otherwise they would vote for peaceful politicians, not militarists like Obama or McCain. Rafal From algaenymph at gmail.com Mon Aug 9 23:59:45 2010 From: algaenymph at gmail.com (AlgaeNymph) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:59:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: References: <201008091808.o79I8DnN000622@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <4C609671.9050906@gmail.com> John Clark wrote: > On Aug 9, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Max More wrote: > >> Please, let's keep transhumanism distinct from Singularitarianism. > > Why? > > John K Clark Because we desperately need political legitimacy, and we can't be thought of as goofballs if we're to successfully advocate technological progress. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 00:32:27 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:32:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > Mike Dougherty wrote: > the discussion, a threat is still a threat no matter how much you > appreciate the motivation of the invader. ?And yes, that's xenophobic > Us v. Them language. ?That also doesn't change simply because we have > taken time to reflect on it. > > The more important part may be to understand how our own rationality > is screwed up by being attacked. I'm not very certain of rationality in general. I'm not sure how rationality can be measured. The most deluded are 100% convinced the world around them is wrong or incapable of understanding the delusion as ultimate truth. I'm willing to admit that my perception is distorted by everything I've ever experienced. Had I been raised in an inherently religious environment, I might not be a participant in this group populated by non-believers. I'm pretty sure those we label "religious nuts" believe themselves to be completely rational in defense of their god's supreme authority. So if rationality is a subjective quality measured only by self reflection and diligent observation of the progression of states, perhaps "screwed up" is too strong a term. Sure our survival instincts modify our goals, it would be dangerously stupid to engineer that instinct out of being. While we discuss the feasibility of friendly AI, I ask if we are capable of rigorously provable friendliness in actual intelligence. Even when primary goals are friendly, self-awareness and secondary goals are able to subvert first-order goals. In terms of simplicity and elegance, the EP explanation of xenophobic stress response has far-reaching applicability. Thanks, Keith, for introducing me to such a useful tool. From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 02:01:06 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 19:01:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:00 PM, John Clark wrote: (Keith wrote) >> It's not *useful* to point out that religions are illogical. > > Why not?! Most people think religion is logical and moral and that error has caused centuries of grief. Most people, apparently even most people on this list, think that religion is the one human activity that should be completely immune from criticism and any violation from this social norm proves the violator to be a profoundly immoral person. I really doubt a significant number on this list think religions are logical and moral. There are no doubt places on the earth and on the net where that is the prevailing feeling. It would not be useful there either because you would be trying to convince people of fixed opinions. snip >> Their very existence is due to psychological mechanisms that (in appropriate >> circumstances) induce irrational behavior because (in the stone age) >> such behavior, irrational and harmful to the host as it is, helps genes to propagate. > > I don't care, ITS 100% IRRELEVANT!! >> >> But the history of war is replete with people doing things that were irrational. > > Very true, and the most irrational was pretending the very obvious threat staring them in the face wasn't there. > >> Working ourselves up into a frenzy and taking irrational actions > > Pointing out the truth is not irrational and you haven't even tried to make the case that I am in error in what I say, just that some truths should never be uttered because its bad public relations. >> >> isn't nearly as effective as working out rational approaches to dealing with the problems. > > But you admit you have no solution to the problem of Islam, rational or otherwise. Actually, there are obvious solutions. They are so politically unacceptable I only dare treat them in fiction. > Yes, you have a nice theory as to what caused the problem, but even if it's true it's of academic interest only because it helps you not at all in finding a solution. I don't know how to solve the problem either but I do know how to make it worse, pretending there is no problem. Mendeleev did not jump from the periodic table to quantum chemistry. But the understanding that emerged from these developments influenced chemistry till Linus Pauling figured out the quantum chemistry 70 years later that is behind the periodic table. You seem to be only concerned with the surface froth where my interest is in the deep underlying currents. It's a difference we probably cannot bridge. Keith From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Mon Aug 9 18:09:38 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:09:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On 8/9/10, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > My opinion on religions in general is that > a) they are mostly false I'd rather try to despute an actual falsehood. Many times, the problem is in the interpretation. Currently, many people take the bible, torah and koron literally, while they were written mainly as metaphorical documents. I am not familiar with any other religious texts, so I cannot spean on that point. > b) the falsehoods are generally dangerous because they lead people to make > bad decisions and hold strange values (although values are, I suppose, > arbitrary, these values are usually in conflict with the pro-human life, > pro-family, etc. values that we all likely hold at some level due to our > genetic heritage) Again, specific refutations would be more useful than a blanket argument. These falsehoods, however strange and unuseful they are now, once served a very important purpose. > c) religions do "shackle... the mind", because they, through various > methods, "force" their followers to hold views that may or may not be true, > usually without allowing them freedom to differ This is only with orthodox interpretations. More liberal interpretations of religions allow more freedom. And, supposing we all had the freedom to choose, we could choose a religion that fit us better. I think the issue here is being forced to follow a certain religion. > d) however, for all their cons, in many places religions are practised > with most of the doctrine at an arm's length, thereby reducing the negative > impact, while bringing together strong, loving communities who do, in fact, > do a great deal of good This is one of the major purposes of religion, to build communities. This again is part of the orthodoxy argument. Strict interpretation is often detrimental. > e) I would prefer for such communities to come into being without such a > glue of falsehood, but I think we all would. > f) I recognize that, for some reason, very few do. (And I'd like to know > why.) It's the belief in something bigger. For many athiests, the power bigger than them is Science, and I do not mean this in an insulting way. Have you ever met an athiest who doesn't believe in science? Science is part of the "greater good", it can be reliev on, and it is dependable if you treat it the way that is is supposed to be treated. The faith mechanism (which I do not propoose as a literal thing, but a metaphorical one) works in the same fashion, though this (science) is inherently more logical. For the record, I would like to say that I am pro-religious choice. However, I am neither for or against religion. From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Mon Aug 9 18:19:21 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:19:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: <201008091808.o79I8DnN000622@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201008091808.o79I8DnN000622@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Could someone please clarify the difference between singularitarianism and transhumanism? I am getting quite confused on the terminology >.< So singulatarians believe in the impending singularity, a technological point of no return, past which we cannot yet comprehend technology And transhumanism believe in becoming a human that modern day humans would not understand So is the difference on the emphasis, ideas, goals, or all of it? And I'm hoping that there is some degree of overlap, or I'll have to scrap what I think I've figured out and try again. Thank you all From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Mon Aug 9 20:23:35 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:23:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: <35201929-54FA-49E5-9595-F89F46B299EB@bellsouth.net> References: <35201929-54FA-49E5-9595-F89F46B299EB@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: >a being really loves you but will torture you forever if you do even one thing that he >doesn't like. I believe in Judiasm, Christianity and Islam you can repent and stay out of hell. And I mean the idea of religion is not inherently illogical. I am not saying that there is any religion that is logical, simply that being logical does not stop it from being a religion. And I was under the impression that the Judeo-Christian God could do anything he *wanted* to do, not anything. Semantical difference, but still. From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Mon Aug 9 20:34:18 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:34:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <222BC0DC-B005-4C14-816F-B229158A6B03@bellsouth.net> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> <222BC0DC-B005-4C14-816F-B229158A6B03@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On 8/9/10, John Clark wrote: > So the more weakly someone believes in this retarded toxic waste the better > off they are. I agree with that. What is it that makes religion "retarded toxic waste"? What about Shinto or Buddhism? From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Mon Aug 9 23:20:46 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 19:20:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] they aren't words, but should be In-Reply-To: <437202.73586.qm@web81506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <437202.73586.qm@web81506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I love to hear words as toys, so I'll enjoy it, and have speaned it myself. PS who says thinking about transhumanism isn't erotic, in it's own nerdy way ^_^ On 8/9/10, Spike wrote: be duly forwarned, our group often displays a certain speanish > playfulness. We have two grandmasters of the art among us, Damien Broderick > and Jeff Davis. Do feel free to join in the use of words as playthings, the > raucus misuse of language. From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 10 03:46:03 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 23:46:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> On Aug 9, 2010, at 10:01 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > > I really doubt a significant number on this list think religions are > logical and moral. You'd think so wouldn't you, and yet when I criticized a major world religion I received a huge amount of flack for doing so, and was even accused of being a bigot; I don't think some are quite as enlightened as they think they are. >> But you admit you have no solution to the problem of Islam, rational or otherwise. > > Actually, there are obvious solutions. They are so politically > unacceptable I only dare treat them in fiction. I have no idea what that means. > You seem to be only concerned with the surface froth where my interest > is in the deep underlying currents. You are concerned with how this problem came to be, I am concerned with finding a solution; I have not found that solution but unlike most on this list I at least know there is a problem that needs a fixing. John K Clark > > It's a difference we probably cannot bridge. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 10 04:00:53 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:00:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: References: <201008091808.o79I8DnN000622@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <44E4F986-7592-4BB3-9CDF-81E0AFB099D2@bellsouth.net> On Aug 9, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Sabrina Ballard wrote: > Could someone please clarify the difference between singularitarianism > and transhumanism? All Singularitarians are Trans-humanists but not all Trans-humanists are Singularitarians, I disagree with Max in that I don't think the distinction is important in the point that Lanier was trying (unsuccessfully) to make, that such ideas are religious. It's well know that people with Trans-humanists ideas don't tend to be great fans of religion, so when they want to get our goat they call us religious. It get's old. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aleksei at iki.fi Tue Aug 10 04:03:29 2010 From: aleksei at iki.fi (Aleksei Riikonen) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:03:29 +0300 Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: References: <201008091808.o79I8DnN000622@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Sabrina Ballard wrote: > > Could someone please clarify the difference between singularitarianism > and transhumanism? > > I am getting quite confused on the terminology >.< > > So singulatarians believe in the impending singularity, a > technological point of no return, past which we cannot yet comprehend > technology Not universally, no. The word "singularitarian", just like the word "singularity", has become very difficult to use in a sensible manner since these days people mean such a large variety of different things by it. Given this confusion, every time one uses the word, one essentially would need to proceed to explicitly cite what definition one is using. Here's a breakdown of the most common meanings of the word "singularity": http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/ Then as to what was meant with "singularitarian" in this email thread we are currently in... I don't really know, since the person using the term didn't make it very explicit. (And Jaron Lanier in the original op-ed that's being commented on seems to be mostly attacking the views of a strawman, instead of views that actually would be widely held at Singularity University, or elsewhere where people could be called "singularitarians" according to some definition of the word.) > And transhumanism believe in becoming a human that modern > day humans would not understand I'd define a transhumanist as someone who believes that (1) if technological progress continues, we will be able to profoundly change many things about ourselves, and that (2) this is not necessarily a bad thing. As a third criteria, one might add (or not) that one also actually calls oneself a transhumanist, instead of hiding in the closet in fear of looking weird and unusual, even though one in reality agrees with what transhumanists are saying (closet transhumanism is *very* common). -- Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 04:28:28 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:28:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:01 PM, BillK wrote: snip > *Humans* are inherently irrational. ?That's the way evolution made them. I don't believe that to be the case. Genes are rational if you take that to mean doing the right thing to persist generation after generation. Most of the time, human interest and genetic interest is aligned. But genes have the upper hand and if it is in the interest of genes, the psychological mechanisms they build can result in irrational humans when it meets the interest of the genes. > So obviously their Gods are irrational as well. > > Humans normally operate as emotional, prejudiced, power-seeking beings. > Rationality is not much use in the day-to-day struggle. > Cunning, yes. Superstition, yes. Lying, yes. Flattery and bribery, yes. > Rationality is usually a disadvantage in human interactions. It's rational not to walk off cliffs. We don't do that very often. > See: Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer > > > and many other references in human psychology. Is it rational from the viewpoint of genes to seek power? Status? To have a good reputation? Since genes are largely "concerned" with reproductive success, you need to frame the questions above in such terms. And the answer to all of these is yes. Keith From spike66 at att.net Tue Aug 10 04:12:06 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: <44E4F986-7592-4BB3-9CDF-81E0AFB099D2@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <817466.51731.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 8/9/10, John Clark wrote: ? All Singularitarians are Trans-humanists... ? ? Indeed?? One of the striking things about Asimov's Foundation trilogy is that in the far future humans remained pretty much unchanged.? Even as a child that bothered me.? I had the notion way back that lifespans should inherently increase over time, health science should allow centenarians to appear like our fifty year olds.? A non-transhumanist would take a similar view to Asimov's.? ? It is perfectly consistent logically to assume humans remain in?our present form with?our present bad habits, right up until the singularity occurs, then assume that the singularity doesn't need us, so by some mysterious means we are no more.? That would be an example of a?non-transhumanist singularitarian.? I wouldn't be too surprised to find many singularitarians are non-transhumanist. ? spike ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 10 05:08:09 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 01:08:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: <817466.51731.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <817466.51731.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Aug 10, 2010, at 12:12 AM, Gregory Jones wrote: > It is perfectly consistent logically to assume humans remain in our present form with our present bad habits, right up until the singularity occurs, then assume that the singularity doesn't need us, so by some mysterious means we are no more. That would be an example of a non-transhumanist singularitarian. No it wouldn't, after the singularity there would be entities that are beyond human, way beyond, trans-human. A better example of what you're talking about would be World War 3 or a large asteroid impact, but that's not the sort of singularity a singularitarian usually means. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Tue Aug 10 05:19:15 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:19:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Test: please ignore Message-ID: <201008100519.o7A5JPZj021897@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Does this reach the List? From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 10 04:54:08 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:54:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <5231D928-AF18-4F70-9D9D-30DF3DFA267C@bellsouth.net> On Aug 9, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Sabrina Ballard wrote: > Currently, many people take the bible, torahand koron literally, while they were written mainly as metaphorical documents. When that stuff was a new bestseller I'm certain that none of the bronze age tribal members who loved it thought of it as a metaphor but rather as the literal truth, just as most believers do today. It's true that some liberal theologians when interviewed on CNN will say the idea of Adam and Eve and the talking snake and all that crap shouldn't be taken literally, but that's not what they tell their congregation on Sunday nor is it what the followers believe. > What is it that makes religion "retarded toxic waste"? What about Shinto or Buddhism? Originally Buddhism did not concern itself with God or the supernatural, it was just a philosophy and a way of life that was supposed to make you happy, so it was not a religion at all. Unfortunately it got corrupted to the point of making Buddha himself a God, he would have been horrified. Japanese militarism in the 30's and 40's could never have succeeded without the aid of Buddhist holy men. As for Shinto, it's big on ancestor worship and bilge about spirits inhabiting mountains and trees and rivers and shit. Preaching stuff that just ain't so is toxic. But eastern philosophy does have value, I highly recommend "The Tao Is Silent" by Raymond M. Smullyan, a brilliant book. > I am neither for or against religion. What an incredible wishy-washy philosophy! Love it or hate it religion is a major part of our world, how can you be neutral? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Aug 10 04:06:11 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:06:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4C60D033.4010507@satx.rr.com> On 8/9/2010 10:46 PM, John Clark wrote: >>> But you admit you have no solution to the problem of Islam, rational >>> or otherwise. >> >> Actually, there are obvious solutions. They are so politically >> unacceptable I only dare treat them in fiction. > > I have no idea what that means. I would assume Keith has in mind solutions such as the one Catholic Christians used to obliterate the Cathars, or perhaps the kind that Russia, US, UK and other used to solve the problem of German Nazism. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Tue Aug 10 06:01:02 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 23:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Test: please ignore In-Reply-To: <201008100519.o7A5JPZj021897@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <476637.73257.qm@web81506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 8/9/10, Max More wrote: ? Does this reach the List? ? Not only does it reach the list, it gives us a Godel moment.? If someone posts the comment "Please ignore" then it isn't clear if the request to ignore applies to the verb ignore.? If so, then we would want to respond, but of course then there would be nothing to respond to.? ? Your title is "Test: please ignore" but then there is a question below.? Consequently, it isn't clear if we are to ignore the ignore request or the question below it. ? I am so confused. ? {8-] ? spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Aug 10 06:06:45 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 23:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <152007.65571.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 8/9/10, John Clark wrote: ? No it wouldn't, after the singularity there would be entities that are beyond human, way beyond, trans-human... ??John K Clark ? John I wish I could share your optimism.? We can imagine a singularity that produces?an entity?that?is beyond human in its ability to calculate, to devour resources to replicate itself, but is far sub-human in every way that counts, to us at least.? It might result in a super intellect, but it might go off devouring all available resources to create processors to look for Mersenne primes.? That activity?is really cool in its own way, but it would bother me if it never did any of the other things that humans do. ? spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Tue Aug 10 06:07:31 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 01:07:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Resources for a beginning transhumanist Message-ID: <201008100607.o7A67g6f027881@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Sabrina asked: > So I was hoping that some list members might be able to point me to > some resources for the beginning transhumanist. I see that Damien's book, The Spike, was mentioned. That's a good source, especially since it draws on ExI list discussions, making it contextually relevant. Aleksei Riikonen recommended primarily Nick Bostrom's writing. Those are indeed good and you should look at them. But you may get a distorted picture of transhumanism if that's your only focus. It's odd that Aleksei would suggest such a narrow set of sources on *this* email list, which predates by years Nick's initial contributions to transhumanism. To balance things, here are some suggestions of works, mostly by me (starting in the late 1980s) that are highly relevant, along with some others: Principles of Extropy http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm A Letter to Mother Nature: Amendments to the Human Constitution http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2009/05/its-about-ten-years-since-i-wrote.html http://www.maxmore.com/mother.htm History of Extropy Institute: http://www.extropy.org/history.htm Transhumanism: Towards a Futurist Philosophy http://www.maxmore.com/transhum.htm On Becoming Posthuman (a different version of the original "Transhumanism", this one published in the major humanism publication Free Inquiry) http://www.maxmore.com/becoming.htm True Transhumanism http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10685/Default.aspx Also see other contributions to that issue (edited by Natasha Vita-More... http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/PastIssues/tabid/126/Default.aspx?PageContentID=33 ... including Natasha's "Bringing Arts/Sciences and Design Into the Discussion of Transhumanism" and Russell Blackford's "Trite Truths About Technology: A Reply to Ted Peters", and pieces by Michael LaTorra, Mark Walker, and others. Dynamic Optimism: An Extropian Cognitive-Emotional Virtue http://www.maxmore.com/optimism.htm Self-Transformation: Expanding Personal Extropy http://www.maxmore.com/selftrns.htm Embrace, Don't Relinquish, the Future http://www.kurzweilai.net/embrace-dont-relinquish-the-future Self-Ownership: A Core Extropian Virtue http://www.maxmore.com/selfown.htm Pancritical Rationalism: An Extropic Metacontext for Memetic Progress http://www.maxmore.com/pcr.htm http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/people/Max-More/?interview=32 Finally, the ultimate collection of foundational texts on transhumanism will be The Transhumanist Reader. This is a collection of around 50 contributions, in the final stages of being put together by Natasha Vita-More and myself. Happy reading! Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader The Proactionary Project Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From moulton at moulton.com Tue Aug 10 06:36:22 2010 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:36:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <1281422182.3851.151.camel@desktop-linux> On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 23:46 -0400, John Clark wrote: > On Aug 9, 2010, at 10:01 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > > I really doubt a significant number on this list think religions are > > logical and moral. > You'd think so wouldn't you, and yet when I criticized a major world > religion I received a huge amount of flack for doing so, and was even > accused of being a bigot; I don't think some are quite as enlightened > as they think they are. > I have not read every message in the thread but the ones that I remember were critical of what you wrote not because it criticized Islam but because some of the criticism you made had errors of description, logic or application. There is a big difference between a valid criticism and an invalid criticism; and often the invalid criticism is more of a hindrance than a help. Thus it is often the case that one of best ways to work against something is to make sure that the list of criticisms arrayed against it are valid. Personally I am getting a little tired of the characterization of people who have attempted to correct the invalid criticisms as somehow being "apologists for religion in general or Islam in particular" and similar terms. The nameless usage of terms like "apologist for Islam" is the kind of corrosive which can harm the overall good ambiance of this list. So if you honestly think there is anyone on this is an "apologist for Islam" then reply to this message and please state their name to the list so that they can respond. Fred From rebelwithaclue at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 06:24:28 2010 From: rebelwithaclue at gmail.com (rebelwithaclue at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:24:28 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Test: please ignore In-Reply-To: <476637.73257.qm@web81506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <201008100519.o7A5JPZj021897@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <476637.73257.qm@web81506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Just checking to see if I can post. 2010/8/10 Gregory Jones > > > --- On *Mon, 8/9/10, Max More * wrote: > > Does this reach the List? > > Not only does it reach the list, it gives us a Godel moment. If someone > posts the comment "Please ignore" then it isn't clear if the request to > ignore applies to the verb ignore. If so, then we would want to respond, > but of course then there would be nothing to respond to. > > Your title is "Test: please ignore" but then there is a question below. > Consequently, it isn't clear if we are to ignore the ignore request or the > question below it. > > I am so confused. > > {8-] > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 07:55:29 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:55:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] What is Rational? Message-ID: On 8/10/10, Keith Henson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:01 PM, BillK wrote: > > *Humans* are inherently irrational. That's the way evolution made them. > > > I don't believe that to be the case. Genes are rational if you take > that to mean doing the right thing to persist generation after > generation. Most of the time, human interest and genetic interest is > aligned. > > But genes have the upper hand and if it is in the interest of genes, > the psychological mechanisms they build can result in irrational > humans when it meets the interest of the genes. > > > > So obviously their Gods are irrational as well. > > > > Humans normally operate as emotional, prejudiced, power-seeking beings. > > Rationality is not much use in the day-to-day struggle. > > Cunning, yes. Superstition, yes. Lying, yes. Flattery and bribery, yes. > > Rationality is usually a disadvantage in human interactions. > > > It's rational not to walk off cliffs. We don't do that very often. > > > > See: Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer > > > > > > and many other references in human psychology. > > > Is it rational from the viewpoint of genes to seek power? Status? To > have a good reputation? > > Since genes are largely "concerned" with reproductive success, you > need to frame the questions above in such terms. And the answer to > all of these is yes. > > I think you might be approaching just playing with words here. ;) You seem to be saying that you think that humans believe and do strange and irrational things (on the surface), but when considered from the viewpoint of reproductive success and genes they are really rational after all. So how is the First World falling birth rates and aging populations rational from the point of view of the genes? It seems to me that the First World falling birth rates is more because women have been empowered and would rather have careers, comfort and material wealth. (Even if it means that in the longer term younger societies will grow and replace the aging societies). But getting back to rationality----- The usual view of extreme rationality is Spock saying 'That does not compute' when faced with some strange 'human' behaviour. I think we have to deal with human behaviour as it is demonstrated when discussing rational behaviour. I would say that the basic human drives tend to corrupt rational thinking. And this is often a good thing! Humans usually have to operate in an environment where they don't have sufficient information to make the 'best' decision. To avoid a collapse into helpless indecision, humans have evolved emotions which force a decision to be made. (That's the old business cliche - Any decision is better than no decision). It is double-think to say that painting your face blue and working yourself up into a religious fervour before attacking the neighbouring tribe is perfectly rational. When the basic drives takeover, rational thinking goes out the window. You can't have it both ways. BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 10:33:14 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:33:14 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: <35201929-54FA-49E5-9595-F89F46B299EB@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On 10 August 2010 06:23, Sabrina Ballard wrote: > And I was under the impression that the Judeo-Christian God could do > anything he *wanted* to do, not anything. Semantical difference, but > still. A being who is unable to do something cannot maintain a claim to omnipotence by saying he didn't want to do it anyway. -- Stathis Papaioannou From bbenzai at yahoo.com Tue Aug 10 11:10:58 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 04:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <898396.7911.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Sabrina Ballard wrote: "And transhumanism believe in becoming a human that modern day humans would not understand" Transhumanism is the idea that we can transcend our current limitations. This may lead to the side-effect of becoming beings that current humans wouldn't understand, but that's not the aim. The 'core principle' of transhumanism, as it's understood by most people who would call themselves transhumanists, is that we can and should use technology to improve ourselves. This includes using science and technology to understand ourselves and the world, applying what we learn to make things better, give people more autonomy, more choice and more freedom, and spread intelligence and awareness as far as possible. There are visions of transhumanism that don't include a singularity (although, depending on how you define it, I think it will be difficult to avoid one). Ben Zaiboc From bbenzai at yahoo.com Tue Aug 10 12:17:40 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 05:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Test: plese ignore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <880645.25610.qm@web114409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > From: Max More : > > Does this reach the List? You'll never know, since we're all ignoring it, as requested. Ben Zaiboc (Sorry, couldn't resist) From bbenzai at yahoo.com Tue Aug 10 12:46:00 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 05:46:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <943472.21738.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Sabrina Ballard wrote: "Have you ever met an athiest who doesn't believe in science?" ... aand this is how various people can claim that "Atheism is just another religion. See? you believe in science!". Speaking personally, I'd very strongly deny that I 'believe in' science. It's belief that is the root of the whole problem of religions in the first place. Science is useful. It can be demonstrated to work, and is the best methodology we've discovered so far for understanding the world. But that's all it is. A tool, not a belief system. Ben Zaiboc From bbenzai at yahoo.com Tue Aug 10 12:55:59 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 05:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <312578.26394.qm@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> John K Clark wrote: "I don't know how to solve the problem either but I do know how to make it worse, pretending there is no problem." I can't argue that pretending there is no problem is useful, unless the problem was going to go away on its own in any case, but it might be useful to formulate exactly /what the problem is/. I don't mean the general phenomenon of religious belief, which we won't see going away in any significant way this side of the singularity, and I don't mean the very few incidents of 'actual terrorism', such as that one single case in America (or two cases, perhaps I should say), and the handful of similar, but less spectacular ones in other countries. Apart from in their own countries, Muslims have done surprisingly little physical damage, considering all the hysteria about it (I'm not trying to belittle the fact that thousands of people have been killed, mind). So, what *is* the problem? I think there's more than one problem, but if you separate out the problems of what goes on within Islamic countries from the problems that Islam causes in democratic ones, perhaps we can identify what might be done to at least defend against them. So, apart from human rights abuses in their own countries, mental abuse, censorship, etc., the occasional act of vandalism and murder committed against and in other countries, and the possible threat of triggering a nuclear war, what problems does Islam pose to the civilised world, and are they any different in nature to the problems posed by, say, fundamentalist Christianity? Ben Zaiboc From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Aug 10 13:23:21 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> <222BC0DC-B005-4C14-816F-B229158A6B03@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <1278.60330.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> An interesting book some might want to consider: http://www.amazon.com/Zen-at-War-Daizen-Victoria/dp/0834804050 Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: Sabrina Ballard To: ExI chat list Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 4:34:18 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Religions and violence. On 8/9/10, John Clark wrote: > So the more weakly someone believes in this retarded toxic waste the better > off they are. I agree with that. What is it that makes religion "retarded toxic waste"? What about Shinto or Buddhism? _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 14:15:10 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:15:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China... In-Reply-To: <34211.26475.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <497607.38451.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <577779.11661.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <34211.26475.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Stuart LaForge wrote: I don't think I am embracing fear nor to quote Rafal "turning toward darkness". I do think I am developing a healthy respect for the subtlety of Chinese statesmanship, the efficiency of their bureaucracy, and the power of their collectivism. While the U.S. is fighting trillion dollar wars ostensibly for oil, the Chinese are developing cars with a negative carbon footprint that run by artificial photosynthesis. Knowing the frugality of the Chinese, they probably did for less a than a billion. And I am sorry if this sounds scary to some, I am simply trying to wake people up to something far more threatening to the American way of life than terrorism could ever be. And that danger is our own greed, divisiveness, and complacency. >>> I have very mixed feelings about China. I don't quite have the "neocon knee-jerk reaction" I used to possess, but their nation still does greatly disturb me. I find it interesting that the Bush administration put a greater focus on preparing for a future war with China, than they did the current Middle Eastern war, which they had started. But as Secretary of Defense Gates later said after correcting course, "if we are going to have this war, we must put all available resources into it, to support our troops!" And I agree with him, though we do need to end the current war fairly soon, to better focus on the economic & political & military struggle we now have with China. "The Great Firewall of China" and a govt. dept of 30,000 online spies, shows their contempt for free speech. And it is very common for a Chinese commoner to get beaten up by police for daring to petition govt. authorities to redress a basic wrong. Hellish tales of political prisoners being killed to harvest their organs supposedly are a thing of the past, but I am not so sure... The Chinese government tramples on civil liberties on sickening scale. And so due to social unrest from such practices, some experts go so far as to predict massive unrest and perhaps even a civil war. But I tend to think due to the overwhelming size and ruthlessness of the various government policing organizations, the people will be held in check, despite much anger and distrust. Chinese "collectivism" is beginning to show in the form of labor union movements, which cannot be seen as good by either the govt. or Wal-Mart! lol It frightens me to think that a nation with little or no respect for civil liberties (even of their own people), is going to probably be the greatest economic and military power on the planet within several decades! I realize some experts say the upcoming generation of savvy young Chinese college professionals are going to change everything, but I suspect pursuing money and status will be their burning goal, and not Western-style basic human rights. As for the subtlety of Chinese statesmanship, a leaked document from their war college examined the 9-11 attack, and showed support for the use of foreign terrorists as a means to wage a peace-time covert war against the United States. Recently, a Chinese general gave a speech about how the U.S. better watch out and stay out of there way, or a nuclear strike would hit some of our major cities & military bases, to teach us a lesson (the Chinese Communist Party supported his statement). The Pentagon responded (I must say I like what they did...) by saying if such a thing happened, the U.S. would "surgically strike" with tactical nukes and conventional weapons that would be aimed at killing all senior Communist party officials, but not their cities! A Pentagon spokesman said, "as soon as they pick up a phone to give orders we will zero in and leave a smoking crater..." And so I guess carrier pigeons will be instituted by the Chinese to avoid such a fate! I realize it is easy to either overestimate or underestimate the Chinese. They seem to enjoy playing smoke and mirrors games regarding their military budget, which all agree is far far larger than what they publicly claim. It is well known they want a first class blue water navy to offset American power, regain Taiwan and intimidate when necessary, their Asian neighbors. Our European friends (especially the Germans and French) seem to have few qualms about selling them advanced weaponry. And even Israel, who we have been so generous with, nearly sold China state of the art aerial drones (originally gifts to Israel from the U.S.) until the U.S. Congress found out and screamed bloody murder! lol China seems to excel at espionage and the fine art of stealing American know-how. They see this as their only real means to catch up to the U.S., since in some areas they are many years behind us (or at least they were...). A magnum opus event in their espionage efforts was when they stole the Aegis missile cruiser command and control technology. In 2005 they introduced a new line of warships that were clones of our Aegis... The Chinese spymasters don't just use professional spies, but instead use anyone who could be subverted into an asset. A Chinese-American engineer may not want to cooperate, but if he does not, relatives and friends in China may be sent to prison or be used as live but soon to be very dead organ donors... This of course can have a very powerful effect on the will to resist. When it comes to the foreign policy goals of China, I think people hyper-focus on Taiwan, and don't think enough about the Korean peninsula. I had read that China is very nervous about the two Korean nations reuniting and becoming an economic and possibly military powerhouse. And so should North Korea entirely economically collapse or fall apart due to war, China would swoop down to "liberate" the nation, and keep it from reuniting with South Korea by becoming a Chinese satellite. The U.S. will burn itself out if we think we can single-handedly stand up to the growing might of China (some experts say by 2050 their military budget will be larger than ours). We must have allies to do it, as we did during the cold war years with the NATO Alliance. The U.S. could fence in China's ambitions, at least up to a point, by having a strong bond with Japan, Korea, Vietnam, India, Europe and even Russia (Russia controls extremely mineral rich areas north of China, that used to belong to China, and China wants them back even if war comes of it, but Taiwan will be dealt with first, Russia's best military forces face China and not Europe!, always keep that in mind...). This would discourage China from a Tibet-style invasion & occupation, but this time on a much bigger and more powerful neighbor (such as Korea, Vietnam or even Japan). But with China owning so much U.S. debt, and being so connected at the hip with us, in regards to trade, I wonder to what extent it is probable that the two nations will really get into a shooting war. It would greatly harm both our economies, and my impression is that China has a "victory without a single shot ever fired" economic world domination strategy in dealing with the United States. They have a vastly more sophisticated playbook than the old Soviet Union ever had... I am amazed by the power of China when they take their wealth and political will to do something big, whether it is a dam system or keeping their population numbers under control. I recently visited the Arcosanti arcology in Arizona, and thought to myself how sad that the full scope of the design was never built, and probably never will. But it turns out that in China they will be building an arcology to dwarf Arconsanti, even if it had been build to the scale of it's creator's original vision! China will have a major challenge when the rising generation of young men don't have enough young women to be their brides (due to Chinese parents wanting male offspring and the highly enforced one child only laws, that only recently has been softened somewhat). And this could be a major cause of social discontent, if not properly dealt with. I suppose foreign girls from the Philippines and elsewhere may be brought in. Black market smuggling of young women into China will also probably be a very big industry. I hope China will evolve for the better with the rising generation and become a representative democracy, or at the very least, a mellowed out and more civil rights respecting communist regime. And perhaps once they achieve a rough military parity with the United States, they will feel safe enough to "breathe easy" and not go into a downward spiral of cold war nightmarishness. But I have strong doubts that either of these things will happen, due to the paranoia, disregard for human rights, and lust for global status that enthralls their Communist Party leadership. Through the lens of transhumanism, I especially worry. I don't want to see AGI and advanced nanotech subverted by China and used to control the Earth and beyond. As much as I cringe at some of the things the United States has done, a China that masters such convergence technologies ahead of any other nation, would potentially be a terrifying force for tyranny at a level never before seen. Stuart LaForge wrote: "I am simply trying to wake people up to something far more threatening to the American way of life than terrorism could ever be. And that danger is our own greed, divisiveness, and complacency." I appreciate your sentiment. An America that can exist on a balanced budget and not go into massive debt seems totally beyond us, because we all want what we want and demand it, and so our representatives go to Washington to feed at the money trough. And so we bind ourselves financially to a foreign competitor such as China, and cross our fingers that they will keep on buying up our debt, so the house of cards does not come crashing down. Getting real change made is extremely hard due to bi-partisan politics and the powerful corporate interests that throw money around so their lobbyists make sure things get done their way. And our major corporations have learned they don't have to take responsibility for their foolishly risky actions, because the politicians will force the taxpayer to foot the bill when bankruptcy and closure looms. We talk of our love for our constitution and the rights of man, but we use economic enslavement tactics to keep our third world neighbors under our thumb. We lose the moral high ground when we do such things, and it allows our enemies to mock our claims of virtue and goodwill. The U.S. public educational system is seen as an outmoded institution that has fallen far behind much of the rest of the world, in terms of preparing students for 21st century careers where math and science count. The citizens of our republic are turning into sheeple who are willing to give up civil liberties as long as the government spends countless billions hunting shadowy middle eastern boogiemen, and the irony is that we are becoming like the very people we are trying to fight. We Americans think the good times can go on forever and the bills will never come due. The Chinese will be waiting... John Grigg From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 14:39:19 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:39:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: <898396.7911.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <898396.7911.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Max More wrote: >I only skimmed the piece, but I saw no mention of transhumanism. Instead, he >was talking about some views of AI and that of Singularitarians. Those are not >transhumanism. Important difference. He might call transhumanism religious >elsewhere, but he did not do that in the NYT piece. Please, let's keep >transhumanism distinct from Singularitarianism. AlgaeNymph wrote: >Because we desperately need political legitimacy, and we can't be thought of as >goofballs if we're to successfully advocate technological progress. Hey, are you calling Michael Anissimov a goofball?!! Why, the glass of wine he's holding makes him look so sophisticated! And who could resist the rockin' music played between his comments! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-1G0M1cogo Those Singularcontrarians really know how to party... John ; ) P.S. Friend, when the techno-rapture happens, will you be ready? On 8/10/10, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Sabrina Ballard wrote: > "And transhumanism believe in becoming a human that modern day humans > would not understand" > > > Transhumanism is the idea that we can transcend our current limitations. > This may lead to the side-effect of becoming beings that current humans > wouldn't understand, but that's not the aim. > > The 'core principle' of transhumanism, as it's understood by most people who > would call themselves transhumanists, is that we can and should use > technology to improve ourselves. This includes using science and technology > to understand ourselves and the world, applying what we learn to make things > better, give people more autonomy, more choice and more freedom, and spread > intelligence and awareness as far as possible. > > There are visions of transhumanism that don't include a singularity > (although, depending on how you define it, I think it will be difficult to > avoid one). > > Ben Zaiboc > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 10 15:00:51 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:00:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: <312578.26394.qm@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <312578.26394.qm@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EFE2225-48FD-4782-B9E7-2098FE5AD3B7@bellsouth.net> On Aug 10, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > So, apart from human rights abuses in their own countries, mental abuse, censorship, etc., the occasional act of vandalism and murder committed against and in other countries, and the possible threat of triggering a nuclear war, what problems does Islam pose to the civilised world? Reminds me of a scene from the movie "Monty Python's Life of Brian" that I quite liked: Reg (John Cleese): All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? Attendee: Brought peace? Reg: Oh, peace - shut up! John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Tue Aug 10 04:06:05 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:06:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: I think that perhaps a clear understanding of how it came to be, how its changed, and why it still exists would be important to "solving" Islam. I think a more fesible approach would be to "liberalize" it out of existance, to make it so that it's members are less and less orthodox until it fades away. I don't know Islam or any Muslims well enough to make a judgement call as to the entire religion though. > You are concerned with how this problem came to be, I am concerned with > finding a solution; I have not found that solution but unlike most on this > list I at least know there is a problem that needs a fixing. > > John K Clark From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Tue Aug 10 04:09:28 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:09:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: <44E4F986-7592-4BB3-9CDF-81E0AFB099D2@bellsouth.net> References: <201008091808.o79I8DnN000622@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <44E4F986-7592-4BB3-9CDF-81E0AFB099D2@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: Perhaps it is though? All left shoes are shoes, but not all shoes are left shoes. I'd hate to be a right shoe in that argument. And I understand that it is not religious. I also know the ruse. It is thrown at all scientific communities that are passionate, I think, although that is an EXTREMELY subjective view on my part. > > All Singularitarians are Trans-humanists but not all Trans-humanists are > Singularitarians, I disagree with Max in that I don't think the distinction > is important in the point that Lanier was trying (unsuccessfully) to make, > that such ideas are religious. It's well know that people with > Trans-humanists ideas don't tend to be great fans of religion, so when they > want to get our goat they call us religious. It get's old. > > John K Clark From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Tue Aug 10 14:07:32 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:07:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <5231D928-AF18-4F70-9D9D-30DF3DFA267C@bellsouth.net> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> <5231D928-AF18-4F70-9D9D-30DF3DFA267C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: I think that religion can be good in some situations and for certian people, and I believe that the opposite is also true. However, I am always open to new informaion, and am always willing to change my viewpoints when I feel the "other side" of the argument has more correct than I do, or more predicitive power. I wouldn't say I'm neutral. I'm actively both in a way. I fight against what religious ideas seem to be oppressive to me, and promote what seems to help. But in the end, I actually don't see religion as important as you seem to. >> I am neither for or against religion. > > What an incredible wishy-washy philosophy! Love it or hate it religion is a > major part of our world, how can you be neutral? > > John K Clark From sparge at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 14:34:08 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:34:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <943472.21738.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <943472.21738.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Speaking personally, I'd very strongly deny that I 'believe in' science. ?It's belief that is the root of the > whole problem of religions in the first place. Belief <> faith, and not all faith is religious. I believe that if I let go of a rock in my hand that it will drop. I believe that that happens due to gravity. I believe that I can calculate its speed when it hits the ground. In fact, have faith in those things, as well. Faith is nothing more than confident belief. -Dave From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Aug 10 15:38:32 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:38:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Resources for a beginning transhumanist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B3620D0C9AF467890CDB79940FEF149@DFC68LF1> Hi Sabrina, There are numerous resources from which to choose dating back to the 1980s on "transhuman" and 1989 on "transhumanism", specifically. The three authors worth reading on "transhuman" are FM Esfandiary (FM-2030), Damien Broderick, and myself. FM was a futurist/idealist, Damien (who is on this list) is a science fiction writer of high recognition, and I am an artist/designer, videographer, turned theorist. We each have different perspectives, which offer a worthwhile beginning on the transhuman. Transhumanism is another issue and as you know, it is a philosophical worldview. The original ideas and most informative writings are authored by Max More. The accumulation of his seminal ideas are located in Extropy Institute, the original transhumanist organization which is now closed, but still available on the web, as if frozen in time (like it was put in cryonic suspension). Many historical writings lend knowledge to the ideas of transhumanism - those writers are Nietzsche, Pier de Chardin, Julian Huxley, Norbert Weiner ... The list goes on. Other authors who took up the theme of transhumanism in their own work are Anders Sandberg, David Pearce, Nick Bostrom, James Hughes, Simon Smith, Ben Goertzel, and the list goes on. Today, the amount of material which includes transhumanist ideas and writings has grown and I run across new findings all the time. For example, I read a lot of academic papers which refer to transhumanism and also I am finding that over the past five years, more PhD dissertations are referring to transhumanism - either in areas of accelerating technology, human enhancement, bioethics, social issues of the future, etc. I hope this helps. Best, Natasha Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Sabrina Ballard Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 9:30 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] Resources for a beginning transhumanist I think that I have been on this list for more than a year, and really started paying attention to it these last three months. In my various internet searches, I have come across the names of various list members, and realized that this list isn't composed of people idly kicking around ideas, as I was at first afraid. This is a list composed of people who really mean what they say. That said, I am rather young, live in a small town, and am new to Transhumanism. Over the last three months I've realized how little I really know about the topics discussed on the list, and while I do comment on certian things, I feel uncertian to stick my nose in because of my spotty background. So I was hoping that some list members might be able to point me to some resources for the beginning transhumanist. I am not detered my heavy or long reading, though I am only proficient in English (working on Spanish, but far from fluent). Thank you for any and all suggestions. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jebdm at jebdm.net Tue Aug 10 16:07:51 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:07:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Sabrina Ballard wrote: > On 8/9/10, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > > My opinion on religions in general is that > > a) they are mostly false > > I'd rather try to despute an actual falsehood. You're absolutely right. I stated these generalizations because John Clark seemed to be thinking I believed something else based on my other statements. > Many times, the problem > is in the interpretation. Currently, many people take the bible, torah > and koron literally, while they were written mainly as metaphorical > documents. While I agree that you can interpret them metaphorically, I don't see any evidence that they were written that way. Indeed, it seems rather unlikely that all of the things modern people say are metaphorical were actually written that way. (Obviously some of the language was figurative, though.) > I am not familiar with any other religious texts, so I > cannot spean on that point. > I'm somewhat familiar with some Buddhist texts, which are in general quite figurative, but I think they're mostly interpreted that way. Although some of it is interpreted literally, especially by some of the poorer people in the East, against the common belief I think of more highly trained monks/scholars. > b) the falsehoods are generally dangerous because they lead people to > make > > bad decisions and hold strange values (although values are, I suppose, > > arbitrary, these values are usually in conflict with the pro-human life, > > pro-family, etc. values that we all likely hold at some level due to our > > genetic heritage) > > Again, specific refutations would be more useful than a blanket > argument. These falsehoods, however strange and unuseful they are now, > once served a very important purpose. I appreciate your call for specifics :) Some specific falsehoods that I feel are dangerous include: - the belief in a personal, benevolent, omniscient/omnipotent god, as the whole notion is full of contradictions and causes people to not take action or take action no better than placebo when they could actually do something positive to help themselves; - the belief in a single, universal code of morality, usually including ideas of purity/sexuality/slavery/etc. that serve to oppress large swaths of people when applied - the belief in heaven for certain people, which I see the "good" purpose of (comforting people as they die or go into a fatal situation), but I also see the "bad" purpose of (being able to get people to do things that are bad for them here by telling them it will help others later--for example, cash for indulgences) - the belief in hell, used to scare people into acting right (despite dubious values of right, see above), especially children - the belief in a saviour, which leads some people to expect an actual saviour (of the mortal variety), which rarely comes - the belief in prophets, which enables people to claim authority from nothing, manipulate people, and lead a cult of personality I could probably think of more if I gave it more time. > c) religions do "shackle... the mind", because they, through various > > methods, "force" their followers to hold views that may or may not be > true, > > usually without allowing them freedom to differ > > This is only with orthodox interpretations. More liberal > interpretations of religions allow more freedom. And, supposing we all > had the freedom to choose, we could choose a religion that fit us > better. I think the issue here is being forced to follow a certain > religion. Like I mentioned, I am a big fan of more liberal interpretations, but the liberalization of a religion seems to happen rather slowly. And when they are sufficiently liberal, perhaps religions are mostly harmless. But I don't think "freedom to choose" is entirely the issue. In some places, yes. But the thing is, most people will stick with the religion they grew up with even if they are given a choice; it is far more likely that they will just practice their religion weakly (Christmas and Easter Christians) rather than change it. And they'll probably feel a bit guilty about it. > > d) however, for all their cons, in many places religions are practised > > with most of the doctrine at an arm's length, thereby reducing the > negative > > impact, while bringing together strong, loving communities who do, in > fact, > > do a great deal of good > > This is one of the major purposes of religion, to build communities. > This again is part of the orthodoxy argument. Strict interpretation is > often detrimental. Major purposes according to you. Functions is a better word, because it doesn't imply a purpose-giver. Some religions seem to consider their community-building functions as secondary (Christianity is for spreading the gospel first, spreading goodwill second; Judaism is pretty pro-community at this point; Islam is fairly pro-community, Buddhism is about goodwill/enlightenment first, with communities as a means to an end, Hinduism doesn't really seem to have an explicit purpose, being more about traditions and worship, etc. (but I'm not super-informed about the body of religions we call Hinduism)... I could go on). Again, definitely agree that strict interpretation is often detrimental. But liberalization is slow, given that people follow their parents, that we have "revivals" pretty often (especially when things go wrong), etc. > It's the belief in something bigger. For many athiests, the power > bigger than them is Science, and I do not mean this in an insulting > way. Have you ever met an athiest who doesn't believe in science? > Science is part of the "greater good", it can be reliev on, and it is > dependable if you treat it the way that is is supposed to be treated. > The faith mechanism (which I do not propoose as a literal thing, but a > metaphorical one) works in the same fashion, though this (science) is > inherently more logical. > I don't know. If this was the case, we'd have something like a scientific church. Perhaps you could say this is what a university is, but surely there would be something less temporary/exclusive. But perhaps it is about the "something bigger", and we just don't have critical mass yet, or there is some other social block (atheists perceiving an atheist group as being against the point or too religious-y)? Honestly, I'd prefer it not be an atheist/agnostic thing, just one independent of religion. There aren't very many social clubs like that, sadly. As for atheists who don't believe in science--you've obviously not taken many high-level humanities classes. Those guys hate science, but they're generally for complete cultural relativism, expressing that they don't believe in any of it but that it's all equally "valid". Whatever "valid" means in that context. For the record, I would like to say that I am pro-religious choice. > However, I am neither for or against religion. I'm the same thing in theory, but I am opposed to a lot of the actual practices of most religions. You can practice religion so that I don't care, or perhaps even support it (though you'd probably have to be a Buddhist near the edge of the philosophy-religion line). But most people don't. -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Aug 10 16:11:35 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:11:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] What is Rational? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <488443.42080.qm@web81503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 8/10/10, BillK wrote: ? >...painting your face blue and working yourself up into a religious fervour before attacking the neighbouring tribe is perfectly rational...BillK ? EP demonstrates the?brilliance of nuclear weapons in keeping world peace.? There is no point in making war on your neighbor to take his resources if those resources are in the form of radioactive dust in the upper atmosphere. ? spike ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 16:06:27 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:06:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What is Rational? Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:00 AM, BillK wrote: > > On 8/10/10, Keith Henson ?wrote: snip > > I think you might be approaching just playing with words here. ?;) No. I am deadly serious. Each of us needs an accurate enough model of physics to survive. The same is true for the whole society's need for an accurate model of human social interactions, especially the extreme cases (such as Rwanda). > You seem to be saying that you think that humans believe and do > strange and irrational things (on the surface), but when considered > from the viewpoint of reproductive success and genes they are really > rational after all. Essentially yes. However, you must keep in mind that selection of the mechanisms that detect bleak futures and hop a tribe's warriors up to attack neighbors happened in the EEA. > So how is the First World falling birth rates and aging populations > rational from the point of view of the genes? It isn't. > It seems to me that the First World falling birth rates is more > because women have been empowered and would rather have careers, > comfort and material wealth. (Even if it means that in the longer term > younger societies will grow and replace the aging societies). Our genes have no history of selection in the conditions the modern world has created. Before birth control, women didn't have these options. > But getting back to rationality----- > The usual view of extreme rationality is Spock saying 'That does not > compute' when faced with some strange 'human' behaviour. ?I think we > have to deal with human behaviour as it is demonstrated when > discussing rational behaviour. > > I would say that the basic human drives tend to corrupt rational > thinking. And this is often a good thing! Humans usually have to > operate in an environment where they don't have sufficient information > to make the 'best' decision. To avoid a collapse into helpless > indecision, humans have evolved emotions which force a decision to be > made. > (That's the old business cliche - Any decision is better than no decision). > > It is double-think to say that painting your face blue and working > yourself up into a religious fervour before attacking the neighbouring > tribe is perfectly rational. When the basic drives takeover, rational > thinking goes out the window. > > You can't have it both ways. To some extent you are just paraphrasing my arguments, and you can have it both ways. One of the most important things _The Selfish Gene_ did was to introduce "viewpoints." >From an individual's viewpoint, rational is not walking off cliffs or into fast traffic. It is rational to acquire food and consume it. It is not rational from an individual viewpoint to take part in a war where half will die. But under recurring conditions, namely a resource crisis, it can be more profitable *from the viewpoint of genes* to make the attempt to kill neighbors and take their resources even with the risk considered. As a result of strong selection, the mechanisms are nearly universal in humans. There are other psychological mechanisms that are rarely turned on fully in First world conditions. Capture-bonding for example. That mechanism is the root cause of a mess of otherwise hard to understand human behaviors, hazing, basic training, battered wife, and BDSM to name them. Keith From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Aug 10 17:03:15 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <943472.21738.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <855953.32935.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I believe most people use "faith" in either two senses. One as a synonym for "confident belief" -- the way you use it below.?The other is, to use a phrase, "believing what you know ain't so" -- as in Tertullian's ?Actully, the more charitable to put this is believing against the evidence and reasons for something. The latter is the kind usually used to mean religious faith -- i.e., believing something for which no other evidence exists and often against other evidence, logic, etc. Of course, people will often confuse these differing meanings and sometimes this is done purposefully -- as in when a religious believer wants everyone to believe only people with religious faith are confident. (Think also of the idiotic barb, "You don't believe in anything" often tossed at atheists. Never use such a statement within five meters of me. It's sure to result in a leap without any warning growl.) Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: Dave Sill To: ExI chat list Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 10:34:08 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Religions and violence On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Speaking personally, I'd very strongly deny that I 'believe in' science. ?It's >belief that is the root of the > whole problem of religions in the first place. Belief <> faith, and not all faith is religious. I believe that if I let go of a rock in my hand that it will drop. I believe that that happens due to gravity. I believe that I can calculate its speed when it hits the ground. In fact, have faith in those things, as well. Faith is nothing more than confident belief. -Dave From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Aug 10 17:41:55 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:41:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Myth of the Social Security System's Financial Shortfall Message-ID: <4C618F63.6030506@satx.rr.com> The Myth of the Social Security System's Financial Shortfall MICHAEL HILTZIK - Los Angeles Times The annual report of the Social Security Trustees is the sort of rich compendium of facts and analysis that has something for everybody... In recent years, during which conservatives have intensified their efforts to destroy one of the few U.S. government programs that actually works as intended, the report's publication has become an occasion for hand-wringing and crocodile tears over the (supposedly) parlous state of the system's finances. This year's report, which came out Thursday, is no exception. Within minutes of its release, some analysts were claiming that it projected a "shortfall" for Social Security this year of $41 billion. Before we get to the bogus math behind that statement - which doesn't actually appear in the report - let's look at the encouraging findings by the agency's trustees, who include the secretaries of Labor, the Treasury, and Health and Human Services. The trustees indicated that the program has made it through the worst economic downturn in its life span essentially unscathed. In fact, by at least one measure it's fiscally stronger than a year ago: Its projected actuarial deficit over the next 75 years (a measurement required by law) is smaller now than a year ago. The old age and disability trust funds, which hold the system's surplus, grew in 2009 by $122 billion, to $2.5 trillion. The program paid out $675 billion to 53 million beneficiaries - men, women and children - with administrative costs of 0.9% of expenditures. For all you privatization advocates out there, you'd be lucky to find a retirement and insurance plan of this complexity with an administrative fee less than five or 10 times that ratio. This year and next, the program's costs will exceed its take from the payroll tax and income tax on benefits. That's an artifact of the recession, and it's expected to reverse from 2012 through 2014. The difference is covered by the program's other income source - interest on the Treasury bonds in the Social Security trust fund. That brings us back to this supposed $41-billion "shortfall," which exists only if you decide not to count interest due of about $118 billion. ? And that, in turn, leads us to the convoluted subject of the trust fund, which for some two decades has been the prime target of the crowd trying to bamboozle Americans into thinking Social Security is insolvent, bankrupt, broke - pick any term you wish, because they're all wrong. The trust fund is the mechanism by which baby boomers have pre-funded their own (OK, our own) retirements. When tax receipts fall short, its bonds are redeemed by the government to cover the gap. Despite what Social Security's enemies love to claim, the trust fund is not a myth, it's not mere paper. It's real money, and it represents the savings of every worker paying into the system today. So I'm going to train a microscope on it. What trips up many people about the trust fund is the notion that redeeming the bonds in the fund to produce cash for Social Security is the equivalent of "the government" paying money to "the government." Superficially, this resembles transferring a dollar from your brown pants to your gray pants - you're no more or less flush than you were before changing pants. But that assumes every one of us contributes equally to "the government," and by equal methods - you, me and the chairman of Goldman Sachs. The truth is that there are two separate tax programs at work here - the payroll tax and the income tax - and they affect Americans in different ways. The first pays for Social Security and the second for the rest of the federal budget. Most Americans pay more payroll tax than income tax. Not until you pull in $200,000 or more, which puts you among roughly the top 5% of income-earners, are you likely to pay more in income tax than payroll tax. One reason is that the income taxed for Social Security is capped - this year, at $106,800. (My payroll and income tax figures come from the Brookings Institution, and the income distribution statistics come from the U.S. Census Bureau.) Since 1983, the money from all payroll taxpayers has been building up the Social Security surplus, swelling the trust fund. What's happened to the money? It's been borrowed by the federal government and spent on federal programs - housing, stimulus, war and a big income tax cut for the richest Americans, enacted under President George W. Bush in 2001. ? In other words, money from the taxpayers at the lower end of the income scale has been spent to help out those at the higher end. That transfer - that loan, to characterize it accurately - is represented by the Treasury bonds held by the trust fund. The interest on those bonds, and the eventual redemption of the principal, should have to be paid for by income taxpayers, who reaped the direct benefits from borrowing the money. So all the whining you hear about how redeeming the trust fund will require a tax hike we can't afford is simply the sound of wealthy taxpayers trying to skip out on a bill about to come due. The next time someone tells you the trust fund is full of worthless IOUs, try to guess what tax bracket he's in. It should come as no surprise that one of the leading advocates for cutting Social Security benefits or raising payroll taxes is the Wall Street billionaire Peter G. Peterson, who has pumped millions into an alarmist campaign about the federal deficit. But ask Peterson, who made his money as a hedge fund manager, about closing the enormous tax loophole enjoyed by hedge fund managers - it costs the Treasury a couple of billion dollars a year - and he warns that it would force hedge funds to move overseas, which would be bad for the U.S. economy. This is the sort of argument my mother used to describe as: "I like me, who do you like?" The trust fund may not last forever, but reports of its demise are certainly premature. The trustees say it will be drawn down to zero in 2037, at which point the program will only have enough money coming in from taxes to pay 78% of the benefits due under current law. So sometime in the next quarter-century - but by no means right now - does anything have to be fixed, say through a hike in the payroll tax ceiling (or, better, its elimination)? That 2037 deadline, in truth, is a moving target. It's based on long-term projections, which become more uncertain the further out you look. The estimated date is very sensitive to forecasts of immigration, wage and economic growth, and birth and death rates, all of which are uncertain. Over the last 10 years, it has fluctuated between 2037 and 2042, mostly due to economic factors. It has held steady at 2037 for two years despite the downturn, but that's still better than the projection in 1998, which was for exhaustion in 2032. In short, if the new trustees report gets examined wisely and responsibly, it should put an end to all the current talk about raising the retirement age or cutting benefits. Social Security doesn't contribute a dime to the federal deficit, and in these days of market stagnation and cutbacks in pensions, it has never been more important to millions of Americans. The Pete Petersons of the world should find themselves a different target. From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Tue Aug 10 17:51:09 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:51:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On 8/10/10, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > While I agree that you can interpret them metaphorically, I don't see any > evidence that they were written that way. Indeed, it seems rather unlikely > that all of the things modern people say are metaphorical were actually > written that way. (Obviously some of the language was figurative, though.) I can consede this point. However if interpretation was to become more figurative, it would lead to a more liberal interpretation. > Some specific falsehoods that I feel are dangerous include: > - the belief in a personal, benevolent, omniscient/omnipotent god, as the > whole notion is full of contradictions and causes people to not take action > or take action no better than placebo when they could actually do something > positive to help themselves; Again, I cannot speak specifically about anything other than Christianity, but I believe the bible mentions somewhere that god helps those who help themselves. And the "predetermination" notion is one that I think is beginning to wane as science becomes more prevalent. > - the belief in a single, universal code of morality, usually including > ideas of purity/sexuality/slavery/etc. that serve to oppress large swaths of > people when applied True. > - the belief in heaven for certain people, which I see the "good" purpose > of (comforting people as they die or go into a fatal situation), but I also > see the "bad" purpose of (being able to get people to do things that are bad > for them here by telling them it will help others later--for example, cash > for indulgences) I don't think that indulgences are used anymore, but I'm not sure. And Islam, Judism and Catholisim (don't know about Christianity as a whole) all say you must be truely sorry and be working to rid yourself of the particular sin in order to be forgiven. > - the belief in hell, used to scare people into acting right (despite > dubious values of right, see above), especially children Fear of jail is used to scare people, especially children into doing what is legal/"right" > - the belief in a saviour, which leads some people to expect an actual > saviour (of the mortal variety), which rarely comes Yes, this one leads to many unfortunate incidents. > - the belief in prophets, which enables people to claim authority from > nothing, manipulate people, and lead a cult of personality Also a sad one. But I believe a religion could exist without some of the negative framework that you have specified. But I'm nor sure if one actually *does*. > > This is only with orthodox interpretations. More liberal > > interpretations of religions allow more freedom. And, supposing we all > > had the freedom to choose, we could choose a religion that fit us > > better. I think the issue here is being forced to follow a certain > > religion. > > Like I mentioned, I am a big fan of more liberal interpretations, but the > liberalization of a religion seems to happen rather slowly. And when they > are sufficiently liberal, perhaps religions are mostly harmless. Yes, liberalization of religions is at times painfully slow. And I feel that the more liberal that a religion, the more "harmless" it is. > But I don't think "freedom to choose" is entirely the issue. In some > places, yes. But the thing is, most people will stick with the religion > they grew up with even if they are given a choice; it is far more likely > that they will just practice their religion weakly (Christmas and Easter > Christians) rather than change it. And they'll probably feel a bit guilty > about it. And a weaker version lends to/ is liberalization. > > This is one of the major purposes of religion, to build communities. > > This again is part of the orthodoxy argument. Strict interpretation is > > often detrimental. > > Major purposes according to you. Functions is a better word, because it > doesn't imply a purpose-giver. Some religions seem to consider their > community-building functions as secondary I agree with that. Perhaps even most view it as secondary. > > It's the belief in something bigger. For many athiests, the power > > bigger than them is Science, and I do not mean this in an insulting > > way. Have you ever met an athiest who doesn't believe in science? > > Science is part of the "greater good", it can be reliev on, and it is > > dependable if you treat it the way that is is supposed to be treated. > > The faith mechanism (which I do not propoose as a literal thing, but a > > metaphorical one) works in the same fashion, though this (science) is > > inherently more logical. > > > > I don't know. If this was the case, we'd have something like a scientific > church. Perhaps you could say this is what a university is, but surely > there would be something less temporary/exclusive. I mean that people put faith in is, not belief in a religious way. And I think most "Western Style" schools could be seen as the place where people learn about science. > But perhaps it is about the "something bigger", and we just don't have By something bigger, I mean an overarching goal or purpose to life. For many, it is to learn. For others, to make money. > As for atheists who don't believe in science--you've obviously not taken > many high-level humanities classes. Those guys hate science, but they're So they would discount gravity, evolution, and swear off cell phones and electricity? This is what I mean when I say "believing in science". I am not nessicarily refering to the scientific method, but I realize I should have been more clear. > I'm the same thing in theory, but I am opposed to a lot of the actual > practices of most religions. Agreed, it's the specific that I'm against, but in general I don't have an issue with it. That is, I am okay with the idea of religion, but rarely am I pleased with the way it is practiced. From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Aug 10 19:43:59 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Myth of the Social Security System's Financial Shortfall In-Reply-To: <4C618F63.6030506@satx.rr.com> References: <4C618F63.6030506@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <673742.40184.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> My main problem with Social Security (and all similar programs in other nations)?is it's not voluntary. I'm also a bit skeptical of all reports on what's in the fund when there's really been no independent audit. Regards, Dan From pharos at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 17:38:46 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:38:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] What is Rational? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:00 AM, ?BillK wrote: >> You seem to be saying that you think that humans believe and do >> strange and irrational things (on the surface), but when considered >> from the viewpoint of reproductive success and genes they are really >> rational after all. > > Essentially yes. ?However, you must keep in mind that selection of the > mechanisms that detect bleak futures and hop a tribe's warriors up to > attack neighbors happened in the EEA. > >> So how is the First World falling birth rates and aging populations >> rational from the point of view of the genes? > > It isn't. Good! You agree that at least one human behaviour affecting gene reproduction is not driven by evolved gene behaviour. Now to tackle the rest of human behaviour. ;) >> It seems to me that the First World falling birth rates is more >> because women have been empowered and would rather have careers, >> comfort and material wealth. (Even if it means that in the longer term >> younger societies will grow and replace the aging societies). > > Our genes have no history of selection in the conditions the modern > world has created. ?Before birth control, women didn't have these > options. That's the point, isn't it? Gene selection has no experience of any modern conditions, not just birth control. >> It is double-think to say that painting your face blue and working >> yourself up into a religious fervour before attacking the neighbouring >> tribe is perfectly rational. When the basic drives takeover, rational >> thinking goes out the window. >> >> You can't have it both ways. > > To some extent you are just paraphrasing my arguments, and you can > have it both ways. > > One of the most important things _The Selfish Gene_ did was to > introduce "viewpoints." > > >From an individual's viewpoint, rational is not walking off cliffs or > into fast traffic. ?It is rational to acquire food and consume it. ?It > is not rational from an individual viewpoint to take part in a war > where half will die. ?But under recurring conditions, namely a > resource crisis, it can be more profitable *from the viewpoint of > genes* to make the attempt to kill neighbors and take their resources > even with the risk considered. > > As a result of strong selection, the mechanisms are nearly universal in humans. > > There are other psychological mechanisms that are rarely turned on > fully in First world conditions. ?Capture-bonding for example. ?That > mechanism is the root cause of a mess of otherwise hard to understand > human behaviors, hazing, basic training, battered wife, and BDSM to > name them. > OK. Prehistoric gene selection has produced a breed of crazy humans who can't cope with modern civilization and the conflict between gene drives and brain choices. It seems to me that you have left yourself no circumstances which you could say was 'irrational behaviour'. Except perhaps the first world dwindling birth rate. You might call that irrational because it opposes evolved gene drives. Whereas most people would call that an example of supremely rational behaviour. You need to redefine your terms if you intend to claim that every crazy behaviour is really rational deep down. People will find it very difficult to follow your 'rational' reasoning. PS. When I say humans are basically irrational (with occasional moments of rational behaviour) I am not just referring to going to war. I am talking about almost every 'normal' day-to-day behaviour). BillK From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 20:18:16 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:18:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:42 AM, John Grigg wrote: snip > > It frightens me to think that a nation with little or no respect for > civil liberties (even of their own people), is going to probably be > the greatest economic and military power on the planet within several > decades! I am unimpressed with the US's treatment of its citizens. For example, a Federal Court decision this week (or last) gives "religions" (i.e., whatever calls itself a religion) the ability to evade laws on human trafficking (i.e., slavery or intolerable working conditions). Be that as it may, I think Extropians and related groups will abandon country centric, perhaps even culture centric, attitudes. If we don't get to the singularity relatively soon, say by the mid 2040s, then much of the effort that goes into doing it will be from China simply because that's where most the scientific progress will be made Keith From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Aug 10 20:39:24 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:39:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <106119.42990.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Here! Here! Another problem is one of perspective. If one sees the Chinese government or its military as a threat because at some distant time in the future it might be able to do harm to one, one should also look at what harm is being done now by the government one lives under. This is a lot like worrying that at some time an arsonist from another continent might burn down your house while one from your own is actually busy setting fire to each room. But as I quoted earlier, he who plays the sheep will find the butcher. In that light, one should ask, "Cui bono?" with regard to all this war rhetoric about China. Certainly helps out?our national political elites?and the mechants of death. Regards, Dan From: Keith Henson To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 4:18:16 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Meanwhile in China On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:42 AM,? John Grigg wrote: snip > > It frightens me to think that a nation with little or no respect for > civil liberties (even of their own people), is going to probably be > the greatest economic and military power on the planet within several > decades! I am unimpressed with the US's treatment of its citizens.? For example, a Federal Court decision this week (or last) gives "religions" (i.e., whatever calls itself a religion) the ability to evade laws on human trafficking (i.e., slavery or intolerable working conditions). Be that as it may, I think Extropians and related groups will abandon country centric, perhaps even culture centric, attitudes.? If we don't get to the singularity relatively soon, say by the mid 2040s, then much of the effort that goes into doing it will be from China simply because that's where most the scientific progress will be made Keith _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pharos at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 20:48:46 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:48:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Myth of the Social Security System's Financial Shortfall In-Reply-To: <4C618F63.6030506@satx.rr.com> References: <4C618F63.6030506@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > The Myth of the Social Security System's Financial Shortfall > MICHAEL HILTZIK - Los Angeles Times > > > The annual report of the Social Security Trustees is the sort of rich > compendium of facts and analysis that has something for everybody... > > In recent years, during which conservatives have intensified their efforts > to destroy one of the few U.S. government programs that actually works as > intended, the report's publication has become an occasion for hand-wringing > and crocodile tears over the (supposedly) parlous state of the system's > finances. > > He wrote a book about the Social Security system a few years ago, so he obviously knows more about it than the trustees of the fund. (sarky comment). The US system has the same problem as the UK and (I believe) most European pension systems. Since they were set up many years ago, the income has greatly exceeded the pensions being paid out. For the first time ever, due to the recession, the US finds itself having to pay out more in pensions that it raises in income. And this situation is likely to get worse. So what, you say, all the previous income is in a Trust Fund surely? Well, no. Not for the US or any other country. What there is in the Trust Fund is government IOUs. (Note - NOT real government securities which could be traded on the market by the trustees. Just bits of paper which have to be repaid by the government). So in previous years the government spent the trust income and promised to repay it, in the unlikely event that it would ever be needed. Well, now the repayments are needed. The teensy problem is that the US is currently running a 1.5 trillion deficit and is borrowing like crazy from the Chinese to keep going. If you see a picture of the bus driving over a cliff, you've understood the situation correctly. At least the Euro crowd seem to be trying to get their deficits under control. But they still have many painful years ahead. There are no easy choices left. It's too late. BillK From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Aug 10 21:00:48 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Myth of the Social Security System's Financial Shortfall In-Reply-To: References: <4C618F63.6030506@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <809393.71815.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In my opinion, there are easy choices, but they're unpopular. Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: BillK To: ExI chat list Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 4:48:46 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] The Myth of the Social Security System's Financial Shortfall On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Damien Broderick? wrote: > The Myth of the Social Security System's Financial Shortfall > MICHAEL HILTZIK - Los Angeles Times > > > The annual report of the Social Security Trustees is the sort of rich > compendium of facts and analysis that has something for everybody... > > In recent years, during which conservatives have intensified their efforts > to destroy one of the few U.S. government programs that actually works as > intended, the report's publication has become an occasion for hand-wringing > and crocodile tears over the (supposedly) parlous state of the system's > finances. He wrote a book about the Social Security system a few years ago, so he obviously knows more about it than the trustees of the fund. (sarky comment). The US system has the same problem as the UK and (I believe) most European pension systems.? Since they were set up many years ago, the income has greatly exceeded the pensions being paid out. For the first time ever, due to the recession, the US finds itself having to pay out more in pensions that it raises in income. And this situation is likely to get worse. So what, you say, all the previous income is in a Trust Fund surely? Well, no. Not for the US or any other country. What there is in the Trust Fund is government IOUs. (Note - NOT real government securities which could be traded on the market by the trustees. Just bits of paper which have to be repaid by the government). So in previous years the government spent the trust income and promised to repay it, in the unlikely event that it would ever be needed. Well, now the repayments are needed. The teensy problem is that the US is currently running a 1.5 trillion deficit and is borrowing like crazy from the Chinese to keep going. If you see a picture of the bus driving over a cliff, you've understood the situation correctly. At least the Euro crowd seem to be trying to get their deficits under control. But they still have many painful years ahead. There are no easy choices left. It's too late. BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From max at maxmore.com Tue Aug 10 21:54:14 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (max at maxmore.com) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:54:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Myth of the Social Security System's Financial Shortfall In-Reply-To: References: <4C618F63.6030506@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20100810165414.wq8bzhm3okk0cs80@webmail.maxmore.com> Quoting BillK : > The US system has the same problem as the UK and (I believe) most > European pension systems. The US system is in much better shape than that of continental Europe. And the UK, while worse off than the USA social security system, may be doing better than most of the continent -- both largely for demographic reasons. > Since they were set up many years ago, the > income has greatly exceeded the pensions being paid out. For the first > time ever, due to the recession, the US finds itself having to pay out > more in pensions that it raises in income. > And this situation is likely to get worse. Only if the government fails to take any of the available actions, such as significantly raising the retirement age. > > So what, you say, all the previous income is in a Trust Fund surely? > > Well, no. Not for the US or any other country. Hiltzik seems to try to weasel out of that point, but I agree with you. Here are a range of views in other sources: Can Pension Plans Age Gracefully? http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreco.aspx?coid=CO1270511134753 Do Americans Save Enough? It Depends on What Calculator You Use http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreco.aspx?coid=CO2120723434667 Aging Populations Can Prosper, or Not: Making the Right Investment Choices http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO511071247417 The Demographic Deficit: How Aging Will Reduce Global Wealth http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO418051455267 So You Want to Live to 100? More of Us Will, and Here Is What Life Might Look Like http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreco.aspx?coid=CO12110912372538 and links to many other relevant pieces on retirement funding, social security, and demographic issues. Max From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 00:02:30 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:02:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <5231D928-AF18-4F70-9D9D-30DF3DFA267C@bellsouth.net> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> <5231D928-AF18-4F70-9D9D-30DF3DFA267C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/8/10 John Clark : > On Aug 9, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Sabrina Ballard wrote: > I am neither for or against religion. > > What an incredible wishy-washy philosophy! Love it or hate it religion is a > major part of our world, how can you be neutral? It's easy John, just stop caring so much. You might not be right but you won't be wrong either. disclaimer: this message contains at least 50% sarcasm. From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 00:13:27 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:13:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] What is Rational? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:38 PM, BillK wrote: > OK. Prehistoric gene selection has produced a breed of crazy humans > who can't cope with modern civilization and the conflict between gene > drives and brain choices. Prehistoric gene selection has produced a breed of crazy humans who CAN cope with modern civilization better than any of the earlier versions who failed and are no longer around to compete. It may be a mess but it's the best we have to date. > PS. When I say humans are basically irrational (with occasional > moments of rational behaviour) I am not just referring to going to > war. I am talking about almost every 'normal' day-to-day behaviour). When the average frightened monkey stops dealing consciously with their situation in instead follows the herd or the rules of behavior for their collective - whose genes are being preserved? When individual survival is lulled into a sense of security, what traits are being positively selected? I'm not talking about the uncle sacrificing himself for the nephew (which can be explained by genetic proximity to family or tribal lines) I mean when "first world" women manage a higher quality of life for fewer children, genetic exploration is slowed and genetic exploitation of a small set of traits is accelerated. What are those traits that "modern" below-replacement birthrates are selecting for? From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Aug 11 04:10:53 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:10:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Aug 10, 2010, at 12:06 AM, Sabrina Ballard wrote: > I don't know Islam or any Muslims well enough to make a judgement call > as to the entire religion Do you have to eat the entire egg to know it is bad? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanite1018 at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 04:24:24 2010 From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (Uni Outsource) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:24:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] What is Rational? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > I would say that the basic human drives tend to corrupt rational > thinking. And this is often a good thing! Humans usually have to > operate in an environment where they don't have sufficient information > to make the 'best' decision. To avoid a collapse into helpless > indecision, humans have evolved emotions which force a decision to be > made. > BillK Boy, its been a while since I posted here, but this topic compelled me to (I'm passionate about it). Rationality is not some floating abstraction. Rationality is, fundamentally, applying reason to your context (all information, and the objective conditions) to reach the best decision by certain criteria. For beings like humans, the only purpose that using reason can have is to further one's life in some way. Humans must think in order to survive and thrive (civilization is built upon our ability to reason about things). So, what criteria must we use when applying the rules of logic? Well, the furtherance of our lives of course, physically, mentally, and socially. Physically, in terms of our health and length of life. Mentally, in terms of our desire to live and our enjoyment of life. And socially, in having a society which allows us to live. So being rational, for a human being, is all about using reason to make our lives better. Humans have finite time and information, therefore in every problem we face we will have to settle for a non-ideal answer (that is, something less than the answer we would arrive at with perfect knowledge and infinite time/resources). Doing so, for example by simply picking what seems to be the best answer because there is no more time to think about it, is not being irrational. It is being perfectly rational. It would be blatantly irrational to stand in Publix for 10 hours, tablet pc out, researching all the academic research on the effect on health of various brands of peanut butter, building spreadsheets with cost-benefit analyses, etc. just so you can go home and eat a fluffernutter sandwich for what was originally going to be lunch, but would now at best be a late-night snack. That's not just irrational, it's bonkers. Indeed, outside the context of a simple game (like checkers, perhaps), the idealist standard of rationality, based on perfect knowledge and resources sufficient to track the entire range of possible consequences of an action, is impossible to achieve. No being will ever have perfect knowledge or infinite resources, and so no being can be perfect, in the sense of never making a non-ideal decision. But that doesn't mean that no being can be rational. Rationality isn't about perfection, it is about making the best decision to further one's life given all conditions, including concerns of time and relative importance to other goals, etc. In short, Spock standing there pondering the question of which direction is the best way to jump out of the way of a Gorn trying to bite his head off is not being rational, it's being stupid. -- Joshua Job nanite1018 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanite1018 at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 04:28:22 2010 From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (Joshua Job) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:28:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: What is Rational? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > I would say that the basic human drives tend to corrupt rational > thinking. And this is often a good thing! Humans usually have to > operate in an environment where they don't have sufficient information > to make the 'best' decision. To avoid a collapse into helpless > indecision, humans have evolved emotions which force a decision to be > made. > BillK Boy, its been a while since I posted here, but this topic compelled me to (I'm passionate about it). Rationality is not some floating abstraction. Rationality is, fundamentally, applying reason to your context (all information, and the objective conditions) to reach the best decision by certain criteria. For beings like humans, the only purpose that using reason can have is to further one's life in some way. Humans must think in order to survive and thrive (civilization is built upon our ability to reason about things). So, what criteria must we use when applying the rules of logic? Well, the furtherance of our lives of course, physically, mentally, and socially. Physically, in terms of our health and length of life. Mentally, in terms of our desire to live and our enjoyment of life. And socially, in having a society which allows us to live. So being rational, for a human being, is all about using reason to make our lives better. Humans have finite time and information, therefore in every problem we face we will have to settle for a non-ideal answer (that is, something less than the answer we would arrive at with perfect knowledge and infinite time/resources). Doing so, for example by simply picking what seems to be the best answer because there is no more time to think about it, is not being irrational. It is being perfectly rational. It would be blatantly irrational to stand in Publix for 10 hours, tablet pc out, researching all the academic research on the effect on health of various brands of peanut butter, building spreadsheets with cost-benefit analyses, etc. just so you can go home and eat a fluffernutter sandwich for what was originally going to be lunch, but would now at best be a late-night snack. That's not just irrational, it's bonkers. Indeed, outside the context of a simple game (like checkers, perhaps), the idealist standard of rationality, based on perfect knowledge and resources sufficient to track the entire range of possible consequences of an action, is impossible to achieve. No being will ever have perfect knowledge or infinite resources, and so no being can be perfect, in the sense of never making a non-ideal decision. But that doesn't mean that no being can be rational. Rationality isn't about perfection, it is about making the best decision to further one's life given all conditions, including concerns of time and relative importance to other goals, etc. In short, Spock standing there pondering the question of which direction is the best way to jump out of the way of a Gorn trying to bite his head off is not being rational, it's being stupid. -- Joshua Job nanite1018 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 11:01:42 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:01:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Carl Sagan once conjectured that, if things had gone In-Reply-To: <166214.66937.qm@web27008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <166214.66937.qm@web27008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 3 August 2010 16:22, Tom Nowell wrote: > Regarding whether or not the ancient greeks questioned the wisdom of slavery, a quick google reveals the following page http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Live/Writer/ZenoCitium.htm > which claims Zeno, founder of Stoicism, had at one point been a slave and was the first philosopher to condemn slavery. As Nietzsche points out, the first to be adversely affected by slavery... are the masters. In fact, I think that not only the Greeks, but most European cultures realised that the large-scale adoption of slavery, which was a rather marginal and relative institution in the indo-european legacy, involved a progressive decadence... -- Stefano Vaj From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed Aug 11 13:43:20 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 06:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <695243.51711.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No, but eating an egg is different from dealing with all the members of a religion or all the people living in a large region, don't you think? Perhaps a better metaphor would be eating one egg, finding it bad and presuming all eggs now and forever are bad. (Side note: a chef once told me that, if you don't like a particular dish,?you should never say you don't?the certain food item -- eggs, aubergine, whatever -- that went into it, but that you don't like it prepared that way. Even so, I still find it hard to imagine certain foods would ever taste good no matter how they're prepared.:) And, unlike Sabrina, I've met and?worked with many Muslims. Few of the ones I've met fit the scriptural or doctrinal determinist model. (Scriptural determinism is the view that one can know all about a member of a religion merely by looking at the scriptures of that religion. Doctrinal determinism is the same view applied to doctrines. Typically, such determinisms fail because religious people don't slavishly follow the scriptures (or a specific interpretation thereof) or doctrines of their respective religions. In fact, many other factors seem to impinge -- leaving out free will -- as much as or more than religious scripture or doctrine for most believers of any religion. This is exactly the sort of thing "fundamentalists" of any religion usually complain about too: most members of their religion are weak and water down the beliefs.*) Regards, Dan * Add to this, most members of any religion having more than a few hundred members tend to be born into the religion --?their parents raise them up in it or it's part of their cultural wallpaper. These people are unlikely to be the scriptural literalists or doctrinal purists that make headlines. From: John Clark To: ExI chat list Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 12:10:53 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero On Aug 10, 2010, at 12:06 AM, Sabrina Ballard wrote: I don't know Islam or any Muslims well enough to make a judgement call >as to the entire religion Do you have to eat the entire egg to know it is bad? ??John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From painlord2k at libero.it Wed Aug 11 14:16:28 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:16:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: <693194.72701.qm@web81503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <693194.72701.qm@web81503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C62B0BC.40109@libero.it> Il 08/08/2010 1.27, Gregory Jones ha scritto: > --- On *Sat, 8/7/10, Gregory Jones //* wrote: > The bastards were carrying bibles; justifiable homicide: > http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/07/medical-charity-americans-killed-militants-remote-area-n-afghanistan/ > Wait, retract, apologies. CNN says the slain were innocent of bible > carrying: > http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/08/07/afghanistan.americans.killed/index.html?hpt=T2 > Hans Ronnlund, the assistant to the executive director of the > mission group, denied statements by the Taliban that the medical > staff was carrying Bibles. Ronnlund said the International Assistance > Mission is a humanitarian development organization formed by various > Christian groups, but said medical staffers do not carry Bibles... If the Taliban tall us that they killed the medical staff because they were missionaries and they were proselytizing, I think we must trust their words. What really the medical staff did is inconsequential. The Talibans support the Islamic Laws (Shaaria). Shaaria have the death penalty for the people that try to convert Muslims to other religions. Shaaria have the death penalty for the people that change their (Islamic) religion. Shaaria state that the shedding of blood of infidels (kuffars) is not an a criminal act for a Muslim. He can be fined to repay the family of the dead, if he killed him without reason, but only half of what would pay for a male Muslim or the same of a female Muslim. He can not be killed or jailed for this. The reverse, a kuffar that kill a Muslim, is always punished with death and the family must pay for the damage. Islam is nothing without Shaaria and Shaaria is to be applied to Muslims and Kuffar, to believers and unbelievers. Who that don't submit must be killed, converted or drived away. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog * * Leggimi su Estropico Blog * * * * *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3064 - Data di rilascio: 08/11/10 08:34:00 From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Wed Aug 11 14:06:19 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:06:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: But what if it's like an onion, where you can peel the bad part away? On 8/11/10, John Clark wrote: > Do you have to eat the entire egg to know it is bad? > > John K Clark From spike66 at att.net Wed Aug 11 14:53:20 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 07:53:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: <4C62B0BC.40109@libero.it> Message-ID: <858911.24007.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 8/11/10, Mirco Romanato wrote: ? >...If the Taliban tall us that they killed the medical staff because they were missionaries and they were proselytizing, I think we must trust their words... . According to the story, the murderers stopped the medical team in transit.? They had with them a muslim driver, so it is possible the murderers were hoping to save his eternal soul.? Or something.? . As for carrying bibles, advances in electronic memory have changed that picture a bit.? A bible can be carried in a cell phone, in a PDF, in a memory stick, in pretty much any electronic device.? Perhaps the law should specify that any medical team entering Taliban controlled areas must leave behind anything with an electric cord or battery.? They did not have these things in the seventh century, and were subsequently invented by infidels in any case. . >...Shaaria state that the shedding of blood of infidels (kuffars) is not an a criminal act for a Muslim. He can be fined to repay the family of the dead, if he killed him without reason, but only half of what would pay for a male Muslim or the same of a female Muslim... . Is extra compensation added if?the slain person has a medical degree, these being enormously difficult and expensive to obtain?? We must assume of course that the value of the slain infidel female, regardless of her degree,?can never exceed the value of any male, being as one cannot through mere education earn a penis. . spike ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 11 15:08:07 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:08:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China... In-Reply-To: References: <497607.38451.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <577779.11661.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <34211.26475.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <242742.59371.qm@web65613.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: John Grigg > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 7:15:10 AM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Meanwhile in China... ? > I have very mixed feelings about China.? I don't quite have the > "neocon knee-jerk reaction" I used to possess, but their nation still > does greatly disturb me.? I find it interesting that the Bush > administration put a greater focus on preparing for a future war with > China, than they did the current Middle Eastern war, which they had > started.? But as Secretary of Defense Gates later said after > correcting course, "if we are going to have this war, we must put all > available resources into it, to support our troops!"? And I agree with > him, though we do need to end the current war fairly soon, to better > focus on the economic & political & military struggle we now have with > China. What we need is a specific and definable victory condition. Something we can achieve and say that we won the war. Otherwise we face the possibility of simply running out of money and pulling out like the Soviet Union did just before it collapsed and broke up. I hate to say it but China is doing to us what we did to the Soviets. That is not interrupting an enemy who is making a mistake, to paraphrase Napoleon. > It frightens me to think that a nation with little or no respect for > civil liberties (even of their own people), is going to probably be > the greatest economic and military power on the planet within several > decades!? I realize some experts say the upcoming generation of savvy > young Chinese college professionals are going to change everything, > but I suspect pursuing money and status will be their burning goal, > and not Western-style basic human rights. The Chinese government is generally good about recruiting well-educated young professionals for party membership and?cushy appointments in the beauracracy. China has a long history as a meritocracy. If the best and the brightest are well taken care of, little will change.?If the attrition of the middle class and unemployment amongst well-educated professionals continues in this country, there might be a revolution here before there is one in China. Student loan default rates are higher than they have ever been in the U.S., that should be a huge red flag, but the news barely reports it. > The U.S. will burn itself out if we think we can single-handedly stand > up to the growing might of China (some experts say by 2050 their > military budget will be larger than ours).? We must have allies to do > it, as we did during the cold war years with the NATO Alliance.? The > U.S. could fence in China's ambitions, at least up to a point, by > having a strong bond with Japan, Korea, Vietnam, India, Europe and > even Russia (Russia controls extremely mineral rich areas north of > China, that used to belong to China, and China wants them back even if > war comes of it, but Taiwan will be dealt with first, Russia's best > military forces face China and not Europe!, always keep that in > mind...).? This would discourage China from a Tibet-style invasion & > occupation, but this time on a much bigger and more powerful neighbor > (such as Korea, Vietnam or even Japan). Agreed. But keep in mind that experts said that the Chinese auto industry wouldn't surpass?ours for another couple of decades. But it already did, this year. I expect the Chinese military to be ahead of schedule.? ? > But with China owning so much U.S. debt, and being so connected at the > hip with us, in regards to trade, I wonder to what extent it is > probable that the two nations will really get into a shooting war.? It > would greatly harm both our economies, and my impression is that China > has a "victory without a single shot ever fired" economic world > domination strategy in dealing with the United States.? They have a > vastly more sophisticated playbook than the old Soviet Union ever > had... Indeed. I too think that China will mostly flex economic muscle, until the surplus of men gets too high there. > China will have a major challenge when the rising generation of young > men don't have enough young women to be their brides (due to Chinese > parents wanting male offspring and the highly enforced one child only > laws, that only recently has been softened somewhat).? And this could > be a major cause of social discontent, if not properly dealt with.? I > suppose foreign girls from the Philippines and elsewhere may be > brought in.? Black market smuggling of young women into China will > also probably be a very big industry. Perhaps.?Also, historically, populations with surplus men have been more belligerent. Consider arabs from Islamic theocracies, for example. Because of the three wives law, the wealthy men get three wives and the poor men get none.?The promise of?virgins in paradise in exchange for martyrdom?feeds directly off of their sexual frustration. > Through the lens of transhumanism, I especially worry.? I don't want > to see AGI and advanced nanotech subverted by China and used to > control the Earth and beyond.? As much as I cringe at some of the > things the United States has done, a China that masters such > convergence technologies ahead of any other nation, would potentially > be a terrifying force for tyranny at a level never before seen. Well if Keith is right and the combination of AGI and nanotech?is going to?cause the extinction of the human race, maybe we are better off having it start in China. It would give the west time to prepare. Maybe I am a bit humanocentric but most of my loved ones are human. ? > We Americans think the good times can go on forever and the bills will > never come due.? The Chinese will be waiting... Well said, John, as was your whole post.?Thanks for understanding. Stuart LaForge "Old men read the lesson in the setting sun. Beat the cymbal and sing in this life, or wail away the hours fearing death. Their choice is their fortune." - I Ching From painlord2k at libero.it Wed Aug 11 15:39:56 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:39:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] authors, italian and otherwise In-Reply-To: <3D7F49A9253A4CE88DDF9AC67FE5E0FB@spike> References: <3D7F49A9253A4CE88DDF9AC67FE5E0FB@spike> Message-ID: <4C62C44C.3020606@libero.it> Il 17/05/2010 19.33, spike ha scritto: > Friends, A bit later, but, maybe, interesting: > Question please: if you wished to explain your native culture to > someone outside, which book would you recommend and why? This > question is not what is your favorite book, or what explains > transhumanism etc. Rather, if you wanted to explain your native land > and culture for instance, which book or which author? A trick to understand Italy is to remember that it is not homogeneous as people could think, but really a mosaic of different cultures and attitudes, reflection the history of any parcel of land. It is like asking what explain the US culture and looking at Westerns movies to explain New York City or San Francisco. I would suggest the writing of Giovannino Guareschi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guareschi http://www.mondoguareschi.com/home.php?lang=en&page=home Mainly the books about Don Camillo (and the movies). Surely you can find the movies to Netflix and will enjoy them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Camillo The Little World of Don Camillo http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043918/ The Return of Don Camillo http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045081/ Don Camillo e l'on. Peppone http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048002/ Don Camillo monsignore ma non troppo http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054814/ Don Camillo in Moscow http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059049/ -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog * * Leggimi su Estropico Blog * * * * *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3064 - Data di rilascio: 08/11/10 08:34:00 From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Aug 11 16:11:53 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:11:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> <222BC0DC-B005-4C14-816F-B229158A6B03@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Aug 9, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > even Jefferson at least was a deist Ever hear of the Jefferson Bible? One day he took a pair of scissors to his Bible and cut out all the supernatural stuff and all the things he thought was morally repugnant, he then pasted the remaining parts back together. He referred to the process as picking out "diamonds in a dunghill". The result was a book only 46 pages long, you can buy a copy at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Bible-Thomas/product-reviews/B000I0RSQ6/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 11 17:39:38 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:39:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com>, <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net>, <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net>, , , , , , <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net>, , <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net>, , <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net>, , <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com>, , , , <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.ne! t>,, <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net>, , , , <222BC0DC-B005-4C14-816F-B229158A6B03@bellsouth.net>, , Message-ID: > Ever hear of the Jefferson Bible? One day he took a pair of scissors to > his Bible and cut out all the supernatural stuff and all the things he > thought was morally repugnant, he then pasted the remaining parts back > together. I like what Carl Sagan called the Judeo-Christian Bible in Contact: half barbarian history, half fairy-tale. Darren "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer ________________________________ > From: jonkc at bellsouth.net > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:11:53 -0400 > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] Religions and violence. > > On Aug 9, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > > even Jefferson at least was a deist > > Ever hear of the Jefferson Bible? One day he took a pair of scissors to > his Bible and cut out all the supernatural stuff and all the things he > thought was morally repugnant, he then pasted the remaining parts back > together. He referred to the process as picking out "diamonds in a > dunghill". The result was a book only 46 pages long, you can buy a copy > at Amazon: > > http://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Bible-Thomas/product-reviews/B000I0RSQ6/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 > > John K Clark > > > > _______________________________________________ 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 Aug 11 17:50:03 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:50:03 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Sarah Palin In-Reply-To: <145659.45529.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <145659.45529.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C62E2CB.7050700@libero.it> Il 21/07/2010 0.59, The Avantguardian ha scritto: > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Keith Henson To: >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 12:13:30 >> PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Sarah Palin >> There are reasons rooted in human evolution for behavior of this >> sort including 9/11, the US response and the political rise of >> people such as Sarah Palin. I have expounded on them enough. Can >> someone else speak up? > There is probably something to your hypothesis, Keith. The odd thing > however is that it has been perverted from its evolutionary purpose > of gaining the tribe resources to gaining a select few economic > players the resources at the cost of the economic stability of the > tribe as a whole. The tribe got suckered by the > military/industrial/media complex into nearly breaking itself for the > benefit of a few through the deliberate manipulation of EP. Which is > probably why the media bends over backwards to avoid calling > incidents like this terrorism: > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html Why? This is the action of a solitary madman. I don't see a theology supporting his action, a religious establishment advocating more of this, etc. When a stupid is a lone he is a stupid; when there are 10 stupid, they are ten stupid, but when 10.000 stupid are organized in a movement, they are a force of history. By the way, we in Italy had a similar incident a few years ago, when a man launched his plane against the House of Lombardy Government. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Milan+pilot+wanted+to+copy+Twin+Towers.-a084975899 The type of personality appear the same of the Texas IRS crash. He had a bad, bad day, and he decided to close his life with a bang. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog * * Leggimi su Estropico Blog * * * * *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3064 - Data di rilascio: 08/11/10 08:34:00 From painlord2k at libero.it Wed Aug 11 18:11:45 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:11:45 +0200 Subject: [ExI] EP was Sarah Palin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C62E7E1.2010806@libero.it> Il 22/07/2010 3.04, Keith Henson ha scritto: > To the extent that religions have *anything* to do with it, the > Christian religion was the one infesting the dudes who drove the > holders of the Islam religion out of Spain, and turned them back in > the Balkins. Historical fact. Well, at the time, the Christians had not problems with self-defense. > Though I tend to think of it in terms of cultures rather than > religions. Arabic and other mid east cultures were genetically > selected in different ways than those of northwest Europe where the > industrial revolution started. At least that is Gregory Clark's > well researched opinion. > > You should also consider that after WW II, the cultures of the mid > east didn't generate the extremes you see today. Can you answer > why? My opinion is that the extremes we see today are the effects of what happened decades and century ago. For example, Sayyid Qutb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb was the leading intellectual of the Muslim Brotherhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood in the '50 and '60. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 with the goal of: The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state". The extreme we see today are a consequence of oil trade. The government that profited most from oil is the Kingdom of Saudi (like House of Saud) Arabia. The Kingdom is old a few centuries and his foundation is and always was the Wahabbism AKA Salafism. With oil's money come the power to finance the Da'Wa (proselytism) in the rest of the Middle East and farer. No money and they would not be so dangerous. >From the Wikipedia (with citations) The general goals and strategic plans of the MB are only found in Arabic documents. One for Europe called "The Project" was found in 2001 in Switzerland, another for North America was found in 2005 called the "General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America."[25] An evaluation of this Memorandum was made for the US-Congress and for the Pentagon.[26] Their influence is fast growing, especially in Europe, but not easy to trace while the active members have to keep their membership secret. One citation from the document "General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America"[27] makes the objectives of the MB clear: "The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." Even the Muslims believe there are many way to skin a cat (or the Western Civilization). -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog * * Leggimi su Estropico Blog * * * * *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3064 - Data di rilascio: 08/11/10 08:34:00 From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 18:06:21 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:06:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What is Rational? (BillK) Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:00 AM, BillK wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Keith Henson ?wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:00 AM, ?BillK ?wrote: >>> You seem to be saying that you think that humans believe and do >>> strange and irrational things (on the surface), but when considered >>> from the viewpoint of reproductive success and genes they are really >>> rational after all. >> >> Essentially yes. ?However, you must keep in mind that selection of the >> mechanisms that detect bleak futures and hop a tribe's warriors up to >> attack neighbors happened in the EEA. >> >>> So how is the First World falling birth rates and aging populations >>> rational from the point of view of the genes? >> >> It isn't. > > Good! ?You agree that at least one human behaviour affecting gene > reproduction is not driven by evolved gene behaviour. ?Now to tackle > the rest of human behaviour. ? ;) I don't think there is a lot less mating going on, it's just that the consequences can be avoided. >>> It seems to me that the First World falling birth rates is more >>> because women have been empowered and would rather have careers, >>> comfort and material wealth. (Even if it means that in the longer term >>> younger societies will grow and replace the aging societies). >> >> Our genes have no history of selection in the conditions the modern >> world has created. ?Before birth control, women didn't have these >> options. > > That's the point, isn't it? Gene selection has no experience of any > modern conditions, not just birth control. I should modify this a bit. Gregory Clark makes a strong case that the English (where he can find probate records) and other western European peoples who lived in a stable agrarian society were subjected to very strong selection for certain personality characteristics over at least 20 generations. That's what it took for the Russian investigators to make tame foxes out of wild ones. But effective birth control has not been available that long. >>> It is double-think to say that painting your face blue and working >>> yourself up into a religious fervour before attacking the neighbouring >>> tribe is perfectly rational. When the basic drives takeover, rational >>> thinking goes out the window. >>> >>> You can't have it both ways. >> > >> To some extent you are just paraphrasing my arguments, and you can >> have it both ways. >> >> One of the most important things _The Selfish Gene_ did was to >> introduce "viewpoints." >> >> >From an individual's viewpoint, rational is not walking off cliffs or >> into fast traffic. ?It is rational to acquire food and consume it. ?It >> is not rational from an individual viewpoint to take part in a war >> where half will die. ?But under recurring conditions, namely a >> resource crisis, it can be more profitable *from the viewpoint of >> genes* to make the attempt to kill neighbors and take their resources >> even with the risk considered. >> >> As a result of strong selection, the mechanisms are nearly universal in humans. >> >> There are other psychological mechanisms that are rarely turned on >> fully in First world conditions. ?Capture-bonding for example. ?That >> mechanism is the root cause of a mess of otherwise hard to understand >> human behaviors, hazing, basic training, battered wife, and BDSM to >> name them. > > OK. Prehistoric gene selection has produced a breed of crazy humans > who can't cope with modern civilization and the conflict between gene > drives and brain choices. We are a remarkably adaptable species. Most of the time we do OK. It is just useful to understand what turns on the psychological mechanisms. For example, this theory states that the Chinese will not go to war (unless attacked) as long as the future looks better than the present for the bulk of the population. This is in strong contrast to the expectations of the "excess males" theory of why we have wars. > It seems to me that you have left yourself no circumstances which you > could say was 'irrational behaviour'. Not at all. The point is that the same behavior can be rational from one view and irrational from another. > Except perhaps the first world > dwindling birth rate. You might call that irrational because it > opposes evolved gene drives. Whereas most people would call that an > example of supremely rational behaviour. In humans I can't see how "evolved gene drives" could be feedback coupled to the birth rate. Genes have built humans who get maximum pleasure from the mating act, and bonding mechanisms for the babies that result. In former times, the population just increased till a resource crisis knocked it back, directly by famines and disease or indirectly by wars Actually, the low first world birth rate is just exceptionally lucky--especially as we rapidly approach the level of medicine where people just quit dying or live very long times. > You need to redefine your terms if you intend to claim that every > crazy behaviour is really rational deep down. People will find it very > difficult to follow your 'rational' reasoning. I have not made a case that every crazy behavior is really rational. Just wars between hunter gatherer groups facing a starvation crisis. I admit EP is very hard for most people, even relatively smart ones. Part of that may be that we have a bias against understanding our motives. > PS. When I say humans are basically irrational (with occasional > moments of rational behaviour) I am not just referring to going to > war. I am talking about almost every 'normal' day-to-day behaviour). I don't believe you can make a case for this. The majority of human behavior is goal directed and in those terms, rational. Keith From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Aug 11 18:50:16 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:50:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] EP was Sarah Palin In-Reply-To: <4C62E7E1.2010806@libero.it> References: <4C62E7E1.2010806@libero.it> Message-ID: <4C62F0E8.2080704@mac.com> Your own government is eating your freedom and your future at an accelerating rate and you are worrying about a primitive religion with almost no military power? Is this rational? - samantha From spike66 at att.net Wed Aug 11 18:24:20 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: <858911.24007.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <357006.37095.qm@web81505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 8/11/10, Gregory Jones wrote: ? >...Is extra compensation added if?the slain person has a medical degree, these being enormously difficult and expensive to obtain?? We must assume of course that the value of the slain infidel female, regardless of her degree,?can never exceed the value of any male, being as one cannot through mere education earn a penis... spike ? ? I realize my comments are inflammatory, but I can scarcely disguise the depth of my contempt for the Taliban and everything?for which?it stands.? Infidel missionaries make?unfathomable sacrifices, facing enormous risk and discomfort to help an unappreciative, benighted?and hostile populace.? For their generosity they are slain,?while the American media debate over whether the victims were guilty of carrying bibles.? ? Meanwhile in America,?the fidels are?caught proselytizing and carrying the koran, for which they are brutally invited to build a mega-mosque. ? Let us not?become so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance, nor so enlightened that we embrace darkness. ? spike ? ? ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From painlord2k at libero.it Wed Aug 11 18:53:39 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:53:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C62F1B3.6050906@libero.it> Il 25/07/2010 17.39, Keith Henson ha scritto: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 5:00 AM, John Clark wrote: > If you wanted to see Islam become a peaceful religion, figure out how > to raise the average income per capita over a long term for those > peoples. It can be pointed out that wealth don't change much the attitudes of people. What change the attitudes of people is the number of children. When you have six children, you can afford to lose half of them because of violence, a plague, whatever. When you have one or two, losing a child or two is a big issue. Parents will be less than happy if their child become a jihadi, if he is the only one or one of two. And will reject any preacher telling them to kill themselves or to go in war. The falling birth rates in the Muslim nations are a good thing. But, the basic tenets and example of Islam are to bound to continue to cause harm, because their example to follow (Mohammad) was a killer, a liar, a highway robber, a slaver, a torturer, child molester and so on. Islam never was contaminated, like Christianity, by the Greek Philosophy. Christianity was, initially, a religion for the city dwellers, where Islam was a religion for the Bedouins raiders. In many way the reason of the initial success of Islam (the Sword) is the reason it stagnated after. It was reinvigorated only by the wealth of new conquests and the armies of new converts. Now, from the wealth of oil. Before oil, it was retreating. When Britain conquered India, the Hindus were kicking the Muslims (with Sikh help) out of the Sub-Continent, something like a Hindu Reconquista. In a similar way, when America was discovered, this projected the energies of the Europeans there and not against North Africa and the Near East. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog * * Leggimi su Estropico Blog * * * * *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3064 - Data di rilascio: 08/11/10 08:34:00 From pharos at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 19:24:05 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:24:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] What is Rational? (BillK) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 8/11/10, Keith Henson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:00 AM, BillK wrote: > > PS. When I say humans are basically irrational (with occasional > > moments of rational behaviour) I am not just referring to going to > > war. I am talking about almost every 'normal' day-to-day behaviour). > > I don't believe you can make a case for this. The majority of human > behavior is goal directed and in those terms, rational. > > This is a fundamental difference in outlook. Behaving irrationally is what makes people 'human'. (As opposed to being cold emotionless calculating machines). The whole travesty of the 'Efficient Market Theory' collapsed because people didn't behave rationally. I am really surprised that you don't seem to know about the many studies in psychology, marketing, philosophy, etc. showing that human decision-making is based on emotions, likes, dislikes, herd instinct, peer pressure, status, etc. and not on logical analysis. Humans are notorious for making bad decisions that damage their lives, friends and family. You know- It seemed like a good idea at the time. Some googling found many references to human irrational behaviour, but this is too big a subject to be solved by quoting a couple of links. We'll have to just view humanity from opposite poles. BillK From max at maxmore.com Wed Aug 11 19:36:57 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:36:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > Message-ID: <201008111937.o7BJb624025262@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Spike: >Meanwhile in America, the fidels are caught proselytizing and >carrying the koran, for which they are brutally invited to build a >mega-mosque. Holy crap! Thanks to Spike's post, I just realized that Fidel Castro must secretly be a Muslim. Max From painlord2k at libero.it Wed Aug 11 19:28:57 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:28:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> Il 31/07/2010 21.41, Ben Zaiboc ha scritto: > While we're talking about the idea of a modern and acceptable Islam: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHdMlT3E7cg > > In light of the principle of abrogation in the Koran, I'm wondering > if anyone has created a version of it that omits the abrogated bits. > That would make things much clearer. Sorry, but it is not so easy. First, there is not a secure chronology of the suras, so it is matter of opinions what is abrogated and was it is no. Then adding or subtracting from the word of God is a capital offense in Islam. Given the belief that the Kuran is uncreated and exist from the beginning of the time, the contradicting texts are considered correct. Think at them like the Cat of Schroedinger, it is dead and alive in the same time, until you observe it. So the Muslim, like the Cat, must be peaceful and violent in the same time. What you observe is one of the states possible. But the other is equally possible under different circumstances, often random one. Or, if you prefer, it is like a buffet, where the Muslim take what he like and want when he prefer. Good and peaceful Muslims can become rabid killers in just a moment of faith. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog * * Leggimi su Estropico Blog * * * * *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3064 - Data di rilascio: 08/11/10 08:34:00 From sparge at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 20:05:05 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:05:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> Message-ID: 2010/8/11 Mirco Romanato : > Given the belief that the Kuran is uncreated and exist from the > beginning of the time... Wikipedia says: "Followers of Islam further believe that the Qur?an was memorized, recited and written down by Muhammad's companions after every revelation dictated by Muhammad." I suppose you could say it existed before it was revealed to Muhammad... -Dave From spike66 at att.net Wed Aug 11 20:27:06 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: <201008111937.o7BJb624025262@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <552903.64599.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 8/11/10, Max More wrote: ? Holy crap! Thanks to Spike's post, I just realized that Fidel Castro must secretly be a Muslim. Max ? The commies can never be trusted.??What if Cuba's leader?had apostatized?? Would we then need to call him Infidel Castro? ? spike ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From painlord2k at libero.it Wed Aug 11 20:43:20 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:43:20 +0200 Subject: [ExI] EP was Sarah Palin In-Reply-To: <4C62F0E8.2080704@mac.com> References: <4C62E7E1.2010806@libero.it> <4C62F0E8.2080704@mac.com> Message-ID: <4C630B68.5070702@libero.it> Il 11/08/2010 20.50, samantha ha scritto: > Your own government is eating your freedom and your future at an > accelerating rate and you are worrying about a primitive religion with > almost no military power? Is this rational? It is rational to put a security belt when you know to have a cancer? They fix two entirely different existential problems. Anyway, as Richard Fernandez pointed out, acquisition of WMD ability by Islam will cause its destruction. http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html Conjecture 1: Terrorism has lowered the nuclear threshold Conjecture 2: Attaining WMDs will destroy Islam Conjecture 3: The War on Terror is the 'Golden Hour' -- the final chance -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog * * Leggimi su Estropico Blog * * * * *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3064 - Data di rilascio: 08/11/10 08:34:00 From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Wed Aug 11 19:46:39 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:46:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> Message-ID: The same is true with Christans and any variety of agnostic or atheist that is not a pacifist. 2010/8/11 Mirco Romanato > Good and peaceful Muslims can become rabid > killers in just a moment of faith. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Wed Aug 11 20:08:42 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:08:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > "Followers of Islam further believe that the Qur?an was memorized, > recited and written down by Muhammad's companions after every > revelation dictated by Muhammad." > > I suppose you could say it existed before it was revealed to Muhammad... > Yes, that would be the thought. After all, God is the one who revealed it, right? God would have known this all along! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Wed Aug 11 20:30:40 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:30:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: <552903.64599.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <201008111937.o7BJb624025262@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <552903.64599.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Isn't the cold war over? Or did we just put it on ice? (sorry >< I'm rusty) 2010/8/11 Gregory Jones > > The commies can never be trusted. What if Cuba's leader had apostatized? > Would we then need to call him Infidel Castro? > > spike > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Wed Aug 11 20:47:37 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:47:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] EP was Sarah Palin In-Reply-To: <4C630B68.5070702@libero.it> References: <4C62E7E1.2010806@libero.it> <4C62F0E8.2080704@mac.com> <4C630B68.5070702@libero.it> Message-ID: 2010/8/11 Mirco Romanato > It is rational to put a security belt when you know to have a cancer? > > If it's not terminal, it would be irrational *not* to. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Aug 11 22:14:21 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <183023.53504.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 8/11/10, Sabrina Ballard wrote: ? Isn't the cold war over? Or did we just put it on ice? (sorry >< I'm rusty) ? Like antisemitism, communism never dies, but rather only sleeps, and then only lightly.??Twentieth century?communism came to an end on 9 November 1989. ? Modern China is what happens when communism discovers the power of capitalism. ? spike ? ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 22:33:36 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:33:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China... Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:43 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: snip > Well if Keith is right and the combination of AGI and nanotech?is going to?cause > the extinction of the human race, maybe we are better off having it start in > China. It would give the west time to prepare. Maybe I am a bit humanocentric > but most of my loved ones are human. It's possible for the human race to go extinct or close to it (remnant population) and only a few people die in the process. Easy, reversible uploading is probably enough to cause it. I explored this in "The Clinic Seed" a chapter in a larger work set in a nearly depopulated world. (I don't know how to set a story in a completely depopulated world.) But having the singularity start in China would not help the west in any way. Unless you are on top of the unfriendly AGI problem before it reaches takeoff, it seems unlikely you could do anything about it. I am aware of a worm some years ago that had a doubling time around 8 seconds and the fact that there are programs that play the stock market on a time scale of milliseconds. Keith From painlord2k at libero.it Wed Aug 11 22:38:13 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:38:13 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> Message-ID: <4C632655.2080307@libero.it> Il 11/08/2010 22.05, Dave Sill ha scritto: > 2010/8/11 Mirco Romanato : >> Given the belief that the Kuran is uncreated and exist from the >> beginning of the time... > > Wikipedia says: > > "Followers of Islam further believe that the Qur?an was memorized, > recited and written down by Muhammad's companions after every > revelation dictated by Muhammad." > > I suppose you could say it existed before it was revealed to > Muhammad... This is what the Sunni Islam teach. Shia and other disagree. This bring the problem of Free Will and Predestination. And the problem of the Oneness of God. Usually the final solution to these questions is to kill the questioner because it is spreading disbelief. Just like happened to the Mutazilite. Anyway, Islam is concerned about orthopraxys not orthodoxy: the faithfull must believe and obey, don't think or ask questions. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog * * Leggimi su Estropico Blog * * * * *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3064 - Data di rilascio: 08/11/10 08:34:00 From painlord2k at libero.it Wed Aug 11 22:49:22 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:49:22 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> Message-ID: <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> Il 11/08/2010 21.46, Sabrina Ballard ha scritto: > 2010/8/11 Mirco Romanato > > > Good and peaceful Muslims can become rabid killers in just a moment > of faith. > The same is true with Christians and any variety of agnostic or > atheist that is not a pacifist. I politely disagree: Christians, like Buddhists and others tend to become killers against the tenets of their faiths, where the Muslims tend to become killer when they start to take their faith too seriously. A Jews could ask himself "What would do Moses, or David, or Salomon"? A Christians could ask himself "What would do Jesus?" A Muslim would ask himself "What would do Mohammad?" The difference is all there. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog * * Leggimi su Estropico Blog * * * * *Mirco Romanato* From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 11 22:49:20 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:49:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > Message-ID: > Like antisemitism, communism never dies, but rather only sleeps, and > then only lightly. I always thought that the majority of antisemitism in the middle-east came from the occupation of parts of Palestine and the six day war. But then I looked into it a bit more, and realized the hatred was there long before, and has been present in the world since hellenistic times and the byzantine empire. Jews have accused of everything throughout the ages from poising wells to sucking the blood of babies to trying to take over the world. Why? I often try to look at things through a sociological or evolutionary lens, but this particular phenomenon baffles me. Jewish culture has been particularly beneficial to the world as a whole. So why the hatred? Darren "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer ________________________________ > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:14:21 -0700 > From: spike66 at att.net > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence> > > > --- On Wed, 8/11/10, Sabrina Ballard wrote: > > Isn't the cold war over? Or did we just put it on ice? (sorry>< I'm rusty) > > > Like antisemitism, communism never dies, but rather only sleeps, and > then only lightly. Twentieth century communism came to an end on 9 > November 1989. > > Modern China is what happens when communism discovers the power of > capitalism. > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing > list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at att.net Wed Aug 11 22:58:22 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <263594.70253.qm@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 8/11/10, Keith Henson wrote: ? >...?I explored this in "The Clinic Seed" a chapter in a larger work set in a nearly depopulated world... Keith Keith!? You are a SF author in addition to being a general engineering Jupiter brain!? Far too modest are you, sir.? I never knew this. ? spike ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Aug 11 22:53:33 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> Message-ID: <330599.67024.qm@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 8/11/10, Mirco Romanato wrote: ? >...A Christians could ask himself "What would do Jesus?" ? Mary Magdalene? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 11 23:32:11 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:32:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence Message-ID: >>...A Christians could ask himself "What would do Jesus?" > > Mary Magdalene? I would say John, but then I'm biased. I'm an infidel AND an abomination. No wonder I support life-extension. My after-life prospects are looking pretty grim. Darren "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer ________________________________ > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:53:33 -0700 > From: spike66 at att.net > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] Religions and violence > > > --- On Wed, 8/11/10, Mirco Romanato wrote: > >>...A Christians could ask himself "What would do Jesus?" > > Mary Magdalene? > > > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing > list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at att.net Wed Aug 11 23:57:09 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <822856.8990.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 8/11/10, darren shawn greer wrote: ? >>...A Christians could ask himself "What would do Jesus?" > > Mary Magdalene? >I would say John, but then I'm biased. ? No, Peter was doing John, but?specifically denied doing?Jesus: ? Luke chapter 22:? "Peter was sitting among them. 56?And a servant-girl, seeing him as he sat in the firelight and looking intently at him, said, ?This man was with Him too.? 57?But he denied it, saying, ?Woman, I do not know Him.? ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 12 00:45:25 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:45:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence Message-ID: > Luke chapter 22: "Peter was sitting among them. > 56 And a servant-girl, seeing him as he > sat in the firelight and looking intently at him, said, ?This man was > with Him too.? 57 But he denied it, > saying, ?Woman, I do not know Him.? My bet has always been on Paul. Corninthians; Chapter 22 "To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me." Not to mention he had to go and ruin the whole new testament by denouncing us in Romans, where Jesus was sensibly silent on the subject, Typical diversion tactics. Darren ________________________________ > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:57:09 -0700 > From: spike66 at att.net > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] Religions and violence > > > > --- On Wed, 8/11/10, darren shawn greer wrote: > >>>...A Christians could ask himself "What would do Jesus?" >> >> Mary Magdalene? > >>I would say John, but then I'm biased. > > No, Peter was doing John, but specifically denied doing Jesus: > > Luke chapter 22: "Peter was sitting among them. > 56 And a servant-girl, seeing him as he > sat in the firelight and looking intently at him, said, ?This man was > with Him too.? 57 But he denied it, > saying, ?Woman, I do not know Him.? > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing > list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Aug 12 01:29:09 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:29:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: <183023.53504.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <183023.53504.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/11 Gregory Jones > > --- On Wed, 8/11/10, Sabrina Ballard wrote: > > Isn't the cold war over? Or did we just put it on ice? (sorry >< I'm rusty) > > Like antisemitism, communism never dies, but rather only sleeps, and then only lightly.??Twentieth century?communism came to an end on 9 November 1989. > > Modern China is what happens when communism discovers the power of capitalism. I thought modern china was coated with nanoparticles to resist staining and be dishwasher safe. From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 12 01:30:51 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:30:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and vending machines. Message-ID: Amid all this topic discussion about good vs evil in world religions, I came across this while playing a game of Wiki Challenge with a friend of mine tonight. If nothing else, I can now say that religion contributed to our technology by making M&M's accessible after the local 7/11 closes. "The first recorded reference to a vending machine is found in the work of Hero of Alexandria, a first-century engineer and mathematician. His machine accepted a coin and then dispensed a fixed amount of holy water.[1][2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vending_machines Darren "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer ---------------------------------------- > From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:45:25 -0400 > Subject: Re: [ExI] Religions and violence > > > > >> Luke chapter 22: "Peter was sitting among them. >> 56 And a servant-girl, seeing him as he >> sat in the firelight and looking intently at him, said, ?This man was >> with Him too.? 57 But he denied it, >> saying, ?Woman, I do not know Him.? > > My bet has always been on Paul. > > Corninthians; Chapter 22 "To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me." > > Not to mention he had to go and ruin the whole new testament by denouncing us in Romans, where Jesus was sensibly silent on the subject, Typical diversion tactics. > > Darren > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ >> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:57:09 -0700 >> From: spike66 at att.net >> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Religions and violence >> >> >> >> --- On Wed, 8/11/10, darren shawn greer wrote: >> >>>>...A Christians could ask himself "What would do Jesus?" >>> >>> Mary Magdalene? >> >>>I would say John, but then I'm biased. >> >> No, Peter was doing John, but specifically denied doing Jesus: >> >> Luke chapter 22: "Peter was sitting among them. >> 56 And a servant-girl, seeing him as he >> sat in the firelight and looking intently at him, said, ?This man was >> with Him too.? 57 But he denied it, >> saying, ?Woman, I do not know Him.? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing >> list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Wed Aug 11 22:32:20 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:32:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: <183023.53504.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <183023.53504.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I was mostly joking, but thanks for the perspective. So it has it's "revivals" too. > Like antisemitism, communism never dies, but rather only sleeps, and then > only lightly. Twentieth century communism came to an end on 9 November > 1989. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Aug 12 04:49:04 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:49:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: References: <183023.53504.qm@web81502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Darren wrote: I always thought that the majority of antisemitism in the middle-east came from the occupation of parts of Palestine and the six day war. But then I looked into it a bit more, and realized the hatred was there long before, and has been present in the world since hellenistic times and the byzantine empire. Jews have accused of everything throughout the ages from poisoning wells to sucking the blood of babies to trying to take over the world. Why? I often try to look at things through a sociological or evolutionary lens, but this particular phenomenon baffles me. Jewish culture has been particularly beneficial to the world as a whole. So why the hatred? >>> I think part of it came from the Jews being seen as being very different from the local mainstream populations in terms of religion, and their general desire to stay distinct people religiously and culturely, & not blend too much with the larger society. When it comes to humanity's darkside, appearing different can unfortunately sometimes be fatal... Finally, their great success in banking (in Medieval times Christians were barred from money-lending, and so the Jews stepped in and greatly succeeded in this niche) , business, writing, academia, various crafts, etc, lead to definite jealousy and envy (especially against those Jews who had become very wealthy). And so especially when times get tough, people will look to "outsiders" to blame their problems on and persecute. We all know how much the world loves a scapegoat! I find it strange how Hitler expounded about a "master race," and then tried to wipe out the Jewish people! I think the Jews, in terms of their accomplishments over the millennia (in business, the arts, religion, politics, science, etc.) are perhaps closer to being a master race than anyone else. And the sometimes very painful forces of social and biological evolution refined them into what they are today. John On 8/11/10, Mike Dougherty wrote: > 2010/8/11 Gregory Jones >> >> --- On Wed, 8/11/10, Sabrina Ballard wrote: >> >> Isn't the cold war over? Or did we just put it on ice? (sorry >< I'm >> rusty) >> >> Like antisemitism, communism never dies, but rather only sleeps, and then >> only lightly.??Twentieth century?communism came to an end on 9 November >> 1989. >> >> Modern China is what happens when communism discovers the power of >> capitalism. > > I thought modern china was coated with nanoparticles to resist > staining and be dishwasher safe. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Aug 12 05:01:17 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:01:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and vending machines. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Darren wrote: The first recorded reference to a vending machine is found in the work of Hero of Alexandria, a first-century engineer and mathematician. His machine accepted a coin and then dispensed a fixed amount of holy water.[1][2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vending_machines >>> It has only been fairly recently that scholars have realized the impressive level of mechanical skill the ancient Greeks/Romans had in their possession. And religion can certainly be a key factor in human motivations to build things (but this usually has to do with cathedrals and shrines and not vending machines!)! I wonder if vending machines were built for other purposes we currently have no knowledge of... "Marius, I think that naive girl from the outer provinces fancies me, and so please loan me a denarius that I may buy a sheep gut condom from this vending machine!" John : ) On 8/11/10, darren shawn greer wrote: > > > Amid all this topic discussion about good vs evil in world religions, I came > across this while playing a game of Wiki Challenge with a friend of mine > tonight. If nothing else, I can now say that religion contributed to our > technology by making M&M's accessible after the local 7/11 closes. > > > "The first recorded reference to a vending machine is found in the work of > Hero of Alexandria, a first-century engineer and mathematician. His machine > accepted a coin and then dispensed a fixed amount of holy water.[1][2]" > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vending_machines > > Darren > > > "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof > against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting > ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." > > -Herbert Spencer > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- >> From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com >> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:45:25 -0400 >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Religions and violence >> >> >> >> >>> Luke chapter 22: "Peter was sitting among them. >>> 56 And a servant-girl, seeing him as he >>> sat in the firelight and looking intently at him, said, ?This man was >>> with Him too.? 57 But he denied it, >>> saying, ?Woman, I do not know Him.? >> >> My bet has always been on Paul. >> >> Corninthians; Chapter 22 "To keep me from becoming conceited because of >> these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my >> flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me." >> >> Not to mention he had to go and ruin the whole new testament by denouncing >> us in Romans, where Jesus was sensibly silent on the subject, Typical >> diversion tactics. >> >> Darren >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >>> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:57:09 -0700 >>> From: spike66 at att.net >>> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Religions and violence >>> >>> >>> >>> --- On Wed, 8/11/10, darren shawn greer wrote: >>> >>>>>...A Christians could ask himself "What would do Jesus?" >>>> >>>> Mary Magdalene? >>> >>>>I would say John, but then I'm biased. >>> >>> No, Peter was doing John, but specifically denied doing Jesus: >>> >>> Luke chapter 22: "Peter was sitting among them. >>> 56 And a servant-girl, seeing him as he >>> sat in the firelight and looking intently at him, said, ?This man was >>> with Him too.? 57 But he denied it, >>> saying, ?Woman, I do not know Him.? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ 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 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From moulton at moulton.com Thu Aug 12 09:22:22 2010 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:22:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> Message-ID: <1281604942.3851.292.camel@desktop-linux> On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 00:49 +0200, Mirco Romanato wrote: > > I politely disagree: Christians, like Buddhists and others tend to > become killers against the tenets of their faiths, where the Muslims > tend to become killer when they start to take their faith too seriously. The statement above is example of the failure to understand and appreciate that within most religions there is a diversity of opinion about matters of doctrine and what it means to take a faith seriously. Thus Christianity has had periods where most elements were virtually pacifist and periods where many elements were violent and many were slaughtered. The question is at this point not what is "correct Christian doctrine" according to the members of this list but what are the different doctrines and who holds them. Using this approach allows us to differentiate between the Christian Reconstructionist movement and the pastor of some old Anglican church in the English countryside. And for the person who says about some doctrinal dispute "but it is in the Bible" we can reply "well certain words may be there but different persons who claim to follow the religion interpret them differently and so we can continue to make the distinctions". Thus with Islam we can differentiate between the various branches and movements ranging from the Wahhabi movement to Ahmadiyya Muslim Community movement. Each of these (and many other divisions) have a view about what is the correct doctrine of Islam and they can be equally serious. Since many religious texts have conflicting and contradictory passages it is possible to give textual based reasons for a variety of doctrines which do not agree. Giving teh So instead of saying the Christian doctrine about some issue is X it is more useful to say that the Christian Reconstruction doctrine is X and the Anglican doctrine is Y and so on. Similarly one can differentiate between various Muslim movements and thus rather than say that all Muslims believe in a certain doctrine about Jihad; one can make a more nuanced differentiation. This avoids the obvious error of making some grand statement about what Jihad means for all Muslims and then having a Muslim stand up and say "Well I am Muslim and I have a different interpretation of Jihad". Now consider proclaiming the (mistaken in my opinion) approach that Islam justifies and requires the killing of non-believers and enemies of Islam. Making that proclamation might agree with the Wahhabi and taliban and similar elements but this is not the view one wants to reinforce. Why reinforce a view which is both inaccurate and counterproductive? Is it not much better to give a descriptive analysis which describes the view of Islam on a subject for each movement in Islam? How does this play out? First stating views which are not intellectually rigorous put us in a poor position to criticize any religion. If someone wants to criticize Islam or Christianity one needs to be aware of the various movements and to avoid over simplification. This has the benefit of avoiding reinforcing the most extreme elements of a religion because you are not validating their view as the correct view. Second is that by continually making these key distinctions we can hopefully continue to facilitate discussion within a religion because they are reminded of issues within their own religion. On a related note it is important to remember that according to the reports I have encountered that many of the recruits for terrorist actions have been recruited using what some call "The Narrative". This Narrative goes something like this: - There are various forces out to destroy Islam - Chief among these forces is the government of the USA and its agents - The people of the USA hate Islam and want to destroy it For a devout Muslim that is a very powerful narrative. Now consider the Cordoba House project and two possible outcomes: 1. The Cordoba House project is built because the USA has a legal doctrine of freedom of religion. Muslims are allowed the same legal protection as any other group. 2. The Cordoba House project is not built due to protests of its proximity to Ground Zero. Now consider which of the above reinforces "The Narrative" and which does not. Blocking the Cordoba House project reinforces the very story that is told to potential terrorist recruits; I do not think any of us want that. One the other hand allowing the Cordoba House project to go forward is one more example that can be used to blunt the force of "The Narrative". Fred From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Aug 12 13:23:45 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> Message-ID: <253233.90948.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I disagree. The tenets of any religion are open to interpretation, and both various Christian and various Buddhists (again, see http://www.amazon.com/Zen-at-War-Daizen-Victoria/dp/0834804050?-- the title is _Zen at War_) have interpreted their religious doctrine to justify war. (You completely left out Judaism and the fact that Christians generally accept the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) as canonical. The Hebrew scriptures definitely provide rationales for wars and even for genocides -- as well as supposedly documenting both wars and genocides carried out in the name of that religion.) I bet the truth is any long lived and widespread religion is going to be open to justifying war -- because, it seems to me,?human societies have always made war and any society that was bound by an absolutely pacifist religion would likely be wiped out by others not so bound. Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: Mirco Romanato To: ExI chat list Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 6:49:22 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Religions and violence Il 11/08/2010 21.46, Sabrina Ballard ha scritto: > 2010/8/11 Mirco Romanato > > > Good and peaceful Muslims can become rabid killers in just a moment > of faith. > The same is true with Christians and any variety of agnostic or > atheist that is not a pacifist. I politely disagree: Christians, like Buddhists and others tend to become killers against the tenets of their faiths, where the Muslims tend to become killer when they start to take their faith too seriously. A Jews could ask himself "What would do Moses, or David, or Salomon"? A Christians could ask himself "What would do Jesus?" A Muslim would ask himself "What would do Mohammad?" The difference is all there. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog * * Leggimi su Estropico Blog * * * * *Mirco Romanato* _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 12 13:44:26 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:44:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > Message-ID: > I find it strange how Hitler expounded about a "master race," and then > tried to wipe out the Jewish people! I think the Jews, in terms of > their accomplishments over the millennia (in business, the arts, > religion, politics, science, etc.) are perhaps closer to being a > master race than anyone else. Memetically, perhaps. Genetically, and as Hitler usually meant it, not likely. Adaption through genetic mutation seems to take a lot longer than inter-species differentiation through cultural memes, and Hitler was very specific about how he thought the Aryan race had adapted and specialized. Modern art is a good example. He hated it, preferring his own style of German kitsch and declared that artists like Paul Klee and other modernists had a genetically "degenerative" eye. I saw a TV show once that traced the role of evolutionary theory on twentieth century politics, including Nazism, Stalinism and Capitalism. It was very interesting. Hitler used it to his own ends, as he did most science. He accepted natural selection, but denied the role of genetic mutation and the adaptive power of a varied gene pool in fueling it. Stalin did his best to suppress evolutionary theory, as natural selection was antithetical to Leninist doctrine. He championed pseudo-sciences like Lysenkoism and as a result held Russian genetic science back thirty years. But I get your point. And it is otherwise well taken. >And the sometimes very painful forces of social and biological evolution refined them into what they are today. In his A Passionate Mind Eric Hoffer said that oppression, provided it is not too harsh, sometimes acts as a powerful catalyst on a culture, and can produce originality, ingenuity and a prolific volume of arts and science that might not other-wise exist. In the same book he also said that being unable, or not allowed, to compete in mainstream culture can cause you to express yourself in alternate ways, forcing originality in form and idea and expression outside the cultural norm. I was in the closet at the time and barely more than a boy, looking for positive ways to express my sexual identity in a culture that was extremely hostile to the idea of it. I adopted this theory to explain why my own "Diaspora" were so creative and culturally prominent. A few years later I decided the same thing was probably applicable to Jewish culture. Humorous (I hope) aside: A Jewish friend and I were sitting in a cafe in Vienna enjoying a cup of coffee. It was a rough place, and there were two Viennese men in work-coveralls at a table near by us, swilling beer. My friend speaks German and over-heard one say to the other that we were two "Juden" touring Europe. My friend was offended. "You don't look smart enough to be Jewish," he said. "And I know for a fact you buy retail." True story. Thanks for answering my questions, John. Darren "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer ---------------------------------------- > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:49:04 -0700 > From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence> > > Darren wrote: > I always thought that the majority of antisemitism in the middle-east > came from the occupation of parts of Palestine and the six day war. > But then I looked into it a bit more, and realized the hatred was > there long before, and has been present in the world since hellenistic > times and the byzantine empire. Jews have accused of everything > throughout the ages from poisoning wells to sucking the blood of > babies to trying to take over the world. Why? I often try to look at > things through a sociological or evolutionary lens, but this > particular phenomenon baffles me. Jewish culture has been particularly > beneficial to the world as a whole. So why the hatred? >>>> > > I think part of it came from the Jews being seen as being very > different from the local mainstream populations in terms of religion, > and their general desire to stay distinct people religiously and > culturely, & not blend too much with the larger society. When it > comes to humanity's darkside, appearing different can unfortunately > sometimes be fatal... > > Finally, their great success in banking (in Medieval times Christians > were barred from money-lending, and so the Jews stepped in and greatly > succeeded in this niche) , business, writing, academia, various > crafts, etc, lead to definite jealousy and envy (especially against > those Jews who had become very wealthy). And so especially when times > get tough, people will look to "outsiders" to blame their problems on > and persecute. We all know how much the world loves a scapegoat! > > > John > > > On 8/11/10, Mike Dougherty wrote: >> 2010/8/11 Gregory Jones >>> >>> --- On Wed, 8/11/10, Sabrina Ballard wrote: >>> >>> Isn't the cold war over? Or did we just put it on ice? (sorry>< I'm >>> rusty) >>> >>> Like antisemitism, communism never dies, but rather only sleeps, and then >>> only lightly. Twentieth century communism came to an end on 9 November >>> 1989. >>> >>> Modern China is what happens when communism discovers the power of >>> capitalism. >> >> I thought modern china was coated with nanoparticles to resist >> staining and be dishwasher safe. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Aug 12 13:25:45 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <822856.8990.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <822856.8990.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <327775.37345.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> If you're going to quote the Bible, where the scriptural support for Jesus having a sexual interest in Mary Magdalene? Regards, Dan From: Gregory Jones To: ExI chat list Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 7:57:09 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Religions and violence --- On Wed, 8/11/10, darren shawn greer wrote: >>...A Christians could ask himself "What would do Jesus?" > > Mary Magdalene? >I would say John, but then I'm biased. No, Peter was doing John, but?specifically denied doing?Jesus: Luke chapter 22:? "Peter was sitting among them. 56?And a servant-girl, seeing him as he sat in the firelight and looking intently at him, said, ?This man was with Him too.? 57?But he denied it, saying, ?Woman, I do not know Him.??? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 12 14:07:09 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:07:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence Message-ID: > If you're going to quote the Bible, where the scriptural support for Jesus having a sexual interest in Mary Magdalene? I can't answer for Spike, but I'll take a shot at it myself. No canonical reference, but the extant gnostic Gospel of Mary is missing pages 1 to 6 and 11 to 14. I bet somebody tore out the dirty parts. Darren "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 12 14:49:17 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:49:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <308177.71189.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 8/12/10, darren shawn greer wrote: ? >> If you're going to quote the Bible, where the scriptural support for Jesus having a sexual interest in Mary Magdalene? >I can't answer for Spike, but I'll take a shot at it myself. No canonical reference, but the extant gnostic Gospel of Mary is missing pages 1 to 6 and 11 to 14. I bet somebody tore out the dirty parts... Darren ? ? Sure but before anyone gets all righteously indignant, do keep in mind that many of us did stuff like this when we were kids.? I can honestly say *I did not steal those pages* out of the Gospel of Mary.? I didn't, I swear!? I may have taken a page or three out of the library copy of National Geographic from time to time in my misspent youth, but as often as not, the good stuff was already gone by the time I got there, even if I?showed up early on?the exact day on which the new NatGeo arrived each month.? Some other youthful?miscreant took them you can be sure, perhaps the same gnostic malefactor who took the sexy pages out of Mary.? ? I didn't do it, but if I catch him, it's BANG Zoooooom!? Right to the moon. ? spike? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Thu Aug 12 15:15:32 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:15:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence Message-ID: <201008121515.o7CFFeQs014062@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Dan: >(You >completely left out Judaism and the fact that Christians generally accept the >Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) as canonical. As I understand it, Jesus brought a new dispensation, rendering the moral imperatives in the barbaric Old Testament obsolete. The "factual" history may still be accepted as Canonical, at least by fundamentalists (who are the minority and not "Christians generally"), but even fundies need not accept the O.T. moral commands without question. They (and to a lesser degree less literal Christians) continue to accept those of the O.T. moral commands (especially the Ten Commandments) when they find them suitable or convenient. When a fundamentalist Christian says that "God hates homos", they are ignoring their own doctrine of Christ's new dispensation. They typically also ignore the equally real injunctions to kill those homos (thank the Lord!). They manage to be inconsistent in their inconsistency. Max From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 12 14:59:58 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:59:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <308177.71189.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <640783.69825.qm@web81507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 8/12/10, Gregory Jones wrote: ? >...I may have taken a page or three out of the library copy of National Geographic from time to time in my misspent youth... ? Oh and furthermore, I?only read National Geographic for the aaarrrticles. Aside especially for you (us) older guys who will relate: I often hafta wonder about National Geographic.? Those editors try to play all innocent, but they had to know what their "photographic team" was doing.? They knew they were teasing us lonely?lads.? But from a marketing standpoint, IT WORKED!? I am a National Geographic reader to this day.? Even though they got all politically correct on us and discontinued *those* kinds of pictures, it is still an excellent magazine, and actually getting better.? In some important ways in the past decade or so, NatGeo took over where Scientific American left off. ? spike ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 12 15:49:31 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:49:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence Message-ID: > As I understand it, Jesus brought a new dispensation, rendering the moral imperatives in the barbaric Old Testament obsolete. I suspect he would have, if it had not been for Paul, who re-instated a few of them in Corinthians and Romans. And Paul is responsible for much of the evangelical flavor of early Christianity. His zeal for carrying the word and his judgment of those who didn't listen was legendary. He still walked into Ephesus after being warned his life was in danger if he tried to preach in monotheistic Jewish synagogues and in the polytheistic city itself. He did it anyway. If Jesus was the message, Paul was the very determined messenger. > When a fundamentalist Christian says that "God hates homos", they are ignoring their own doctrine> of Christ's new dispensation. Again, thank Paul for the first official selective interpretation of Christ's doctrine, ignoring the admonition to "judge not" and giving modern Christians New Testament scriptural support for homophobia in Romans 1: 26-27. It's hard to find a religion that doesn't condemn homosexuality. Even the relatively benign Baha?is denigrate it in their founding literature, though practitioners of the faith thankfully tend to ignore that bit. Darren "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Thu Aug 12 15:19:33 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:19:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <201008121515.o7CFFeQs014062@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201008121515.o7CFFeQs014062@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: I believe the current Catholic belief is "hate the sin, love the sinner". And I think that Catholics are SOMEWHAT (not very) accepting of homosexuals, *as long as they never have sex*... > When a fundamentalist Christian says that "God hates homos", they are > ignoring their own doctrine of Christ's new dispensation. They > typically also ignore the equally real injunctions to kill those > homos (thank the Lord!). They manage to be inconsistent in their > inconsistency. > > Max From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Wed Aug 11 22:58:59 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:58:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> Message-ID: > > Good and peaceful Muslims can become rabid killers in just a moment > > of faith. > > > The same is true with Christians and any variety of agnostic or > > atheist that is not a pacifist. > > I politely disagree: Christians, like Buddhists and others tend to > become killers against the tenets of their faiths, where the Muslims > tend to become killer when they start to take their faith too seriously. However this doesn't mean that they *won't*. Who says those Muslims do it, THEN find an excuse in their religion? The Catholics had their crusades too. And the bible contradicts itself, especially when you compare the old and new testament. There is a foundation for violence in the Torah and Bible, but they are largely ignored. From sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com Wed Aug 11 23:01:35 2010 From: sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com (Sabrina Ballard) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:01:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 8/11/10, darren shawn greer wrote: Perhaps because of the "holier than thou" attitude, calling themselves "the chosen people" openly, heavy ritualism, speaking a different language, in-faith marriage, etc. The sort of "insular" nature of Jews, for whatever reason. > > Like antisemitism, communism never dies, but rather only sleeps, and > > then only lightly. > > > > I always thought that the majority of antisemitism in the middle-east came from the occupation of parts of Palestine and the six day war. But then I looked into it a bit more, and realized the hatred was there long before, and has been present in the world since hellenistic times and the byzantine empire. Jews have accused of everything throughout the ages from poising wells to sucking the blood of babies to trying to take over the world. Why? I often try to look at things through a sociological or evolutionary lens, but this particular phenomenon baffles me. Jewish culture has been particularly beneficial to the world as a whole. So why the hatred? From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Aug 12 16:03:02 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:03:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <201008121515.o7CFFeQs014062@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201008121515.o7CFFeQs014062@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7F04CF6D-3B12-4511-AF12-8BB56F8C9F69@bellsouth.net> On Aug 12, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Max More wrote: > As I understand it, Jesus brought a new dispensation, rendering the moral imperatives in the barbaric Old Testament obsolete. But let's not be unfair to the Old Testament, however barbaric the character called God was in that disjointed novel, at least once you were dead God was finished playing with you and it was over; but in the New Testament the fun was just getting started. It was Jesus, the Prince of Peace, who we can thank for dreaming up the idea of a loving God fiendishly and ingeniously torturing you for all eternity with absolutely no hope of it ever stoping. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Thu Aug 12 16:24:29 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:24:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Sabrina Ballard < sabrina.ballard at hotmail.com> wrote: > Again, I cannot speak specifically about anything other than > Christianity, but I believe the bible mentions somewhere that god > helps those who help themselves. Nope, that was Ben Franklin. > And the "predetermination" notion is > one that I think is beginning to wane as science becomes more > prevalent. I was talking about praying and waiting for healing and that sort of thing. There's an old joke--a guy is at home one day when it starts to rain, hard. Suddenly there's a flood, and there's water coming in his house. He climbs onto his roof and, being a devout believer, starts praying for God to save him. As he's doing so, two guys floating on a dinky raft come by and they ask if he needs help, but he says, "No, God will save me." Then a group in a speedboat comes by and they ask if he needs help, but he says, "No, God will save me." Then a helicopter comes by and those people ask if he needs help, but he says, "No, God will save me." Finally the water gets too high and he drowns. He finds himself in heaven, so he goes to see God, and says, "Hey, God, I was always an extremely devout believer, and I helped lots of people, and I was really begging for your help down there during the flood. Why didn't you save me?" And God replies, "Didn't you see the boat?" Besides, I don't think most Western people believe in predetermination. Too much love for "free will". Also, predetermination is rather more scientific than not, modulo perhaps quantum weirdness. > - the belief in heaven for certain people, which I see the "good" purpose > > of (comforting people as they die or go into a fatal situation), but I > also > > see the "bad" purpose of (being able to get people to do things that are > bad > > for them here by telling them it will help others later--for example, > cash > > for indulgences) > > I don't think that indulgences are used anymore, but I'm not sure. And > Islam, Judism and Catholisim (don't know about Christianity as a > whole) all say you must be truely sorry and be working to rid yourself > of the particular sin in order to be forgiven. Indulgences aren't usually used anymore. Other more modern examples include things like following food purity laws (which can be wasteful), spending lots of time praying/practicing the religion (which for many people isn't enjoyable, and which wastes a lot of time), being willing to die for your religion (whether through martyrdom or suicide bombing), etc. > - the belief in hell, used to scare people into acting right (despite > > dubious values of right, see above), especially children > > Fear of jail is used to scare people, especially children into doing > what is legal/"right" > Yeah, and I don't think jail is usually a good idea either. But at least jail is a real threat, which is rational to respond to, whereas hell is not (and keeps people in the closet/eating "properly"/stoning witches/etc.). > But I believe a religion could exist without some of the negative > framework that you have specified. But I'm nor sure if one actually > *does*. The thing is, once you remove ideas of the divine, afterlives, superpowers, religious laws, etc., it stops looking like a religion. For instance, take certain forms of Buddhism, which are often considered to be philosophies rather than religions. > As for atheists who don't believe in science--you've obviously not taken > > many high-level humanities classes. Those guys hate science, but they're > > So they would discount gravity, evolution, and swear off cell phones > and electricity? This is what I mean when I say "believing in > science". I am not nessicarily refering to the scientific method, but > I realize I should have been more clear. I wish people would use "science" specifically to refer to the practice of the scientific method. Then again, I'm not big on linguistic prescription. No, these people are happy to enjoy the products of science (which is equally as valid as voodoo and Scientology), but they don't use the scientific method and they believe that the scientific method is no more "valid" (which is their word for their somewhat arbitrary system of valuation) than, say, rolling a die or reading bones or something. -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Thu Aug 12 16:25:25 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:25:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> Message-ID: I have not paid too much attention to this thread so far, but here are a few comments: All religions have been used to justify violence and oppression. All political ideologies have been used to justify violence and oppression. All philosophies have been used to justify violence and oppression. All ethnic identities have been used to justify violence and oppression. There may be quantitative differences, but I don't see any fundamental differences. Books, songs and flags are not violent or oppressive. Some people are violent and oppressive, and for them religious and political beliefs are just means to justify their thirst for violence and oppression. @Mirco "Christians, like Buddhists and others tend to become killers against the tenets of their faiths, where the Muslims tend to become killer when they start to take their faith too seriously." Come on MIrco. I assume you have been raised a Christian, and I think you should study the history of your own religion more carefully. Should I provide a bibliography of atrocities committed by Christians in the name of Christ? G, On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Sabrina Ballard wrote: >> ?> Good and peaceful Muslims can become rabid killers in just a moment >> ?> of faith. >> >> ?> The same is true with Christians and any variety of agnostic or >> ?> atheist that is not a pacifist. >> >> ?I politely disagree: Christians, like Buddhists and others tend to >> ?become killers against the tenets of their faiths, where the Muslims >> ?tend to become killer when they start to take their faith too seriously. > > > However this doesn't mean that they *won't*. Who says those Muslims do > it, THEN find an excuse in their religion? The Catholics had their > crusades too. > > And the bible contradicts itself, especially when you compare the old > and new testament. There is a foundation for violence in the Torah and > Bible, but they are largely ignored. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From spike66 at att.net Thu Aug 12 17:00:26 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] national geographic, was Re: Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <640783.69825.qm@web81507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <743589.50123.qm@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 8/12/10, Gregory Jones wrote: ? >...I may have taken a page or three out of the library copy of National Geographic from time to time in my misspent youth... ? ...but I didn't take those pages out of the Gospel of Mary, it was already like that when I got here, but I did see both Fred and Keith hanging out at the library about the time those pages?went missing, and of couse Mary was a sporting lass (thus the nickname "Virgin") and Keith and Fred were both friends of hers dontcha know, until she turned up pregnant, at which time they were nowhere to be found. To belabor a point(less) on National Geographic, they did more to tear down racial prejudice than any other factor.? It wasn't Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson or Frank George Pinkston, it was NatGeo.? Why do you suppose America lost its collective mind when a 40 something woman flashed one boob for one second in a "wardrobe malfunction"?at the superbowl a few years ago???She reminded us of our first sexual fantasy. ? spike ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Aug 12 17:00:35 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:00:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NEWS Max More is Running for Board of Humanity+ Message-ID: <01D9A985360C435090CB3457C3395C66@DFC68LF1> Friends, It is my pleasure to endorse Max More's candidacy for joining the Board of Directors of Humanity+. Today is the last day to become a member of Humanity+ in order to vote for Max as a new Board member. Voting opens this weekend! Please join now! http://humanityplus.org/join/ Thank you for your support of Max! Natasha Natasha Vita-More (If you have any questions, please email me off list.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Aug 12 17:02:08 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:02:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NEWS: Max More is Running for Board of Humanity+ Message-ID: <3F1864EA87BF487286C0166F31CA276E@DFC68LF1> Friends, It is my pleasure to endorse Max More's candidacy for joining the Board of Directors of Humanity+. Today is the last day to become a member of Humanity+ in order to vote for Max as a new Board member. Voting opens this weekend! Please join now! http://humanityplus.org/join/ Thank you for your support of Max! Natasha Natasha Vita-More (If you have any questions, please email me off list.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Aug 12 17:17:53 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <201008121515.o7CFFeQs014062@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201008121515.o7CFFeQs014062@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <396006.82054.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Well, the problem comes down to specifics and the contradictions even in the New Testament. Looking at the Gospels, or the rest of it, does not give a clear picture of what's rejected from the Old Testament -- save for divorce (if there's anything that's clear, Jesus as depicted in the Gospels, didn't like divorce and rejected that; the Gospels are silent on gays and no mention is made at all of abortion). Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: Max More To: Extropy-Chat Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 11:15:32 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Religions and violence Dan: > (You > completely left out Judaism and the fact that Christians generally accept the > Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) as canonical. As I understand it, Jesus brought a new dispensation, rendering the moral imperatives in the barbaric Old Testament obsolete. The "factual" history may still be accepted as Canonical, at least by fundamentalists (who are the minority and not "Christians generally"), but even fundies need not accept the O.T. moral commands without question. They (and to a lesser degree less literal Christians) continue to accept those of the O.T. moral commands (especially the Ten Commandments) when they find them suitable or convenient. When a fundamentalist Christian says that "God hates homos", they are ignoring their own doctrine of Christ's new dispensation. They typically also ignore the equally real injunctions to kill those homos (thank the Lord!). They manage to be inconsistent in their inconsistency. Max _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Thu Aug 12 17:23:59 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:23:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: I can see your point here, and I find it valid. On 8/12/10, Jebadiah Moore wrote: >I wish people would use "science" specifically to refer to the practice of the >scientific method. Then again, I'm not big on linguistic prescription. From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Thu Aug 12 16:32:15 2010 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:32:15 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence References: <201008121515.o7CFFeQs014062@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <00b001cb3a3b$ee3cbaf0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> As I understand it, Jesus brought a new dispensation, rendering the moral imperatives in the barbaric Old Testament obsolete. Not really... http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/5.html >From which I quote: "5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." "5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." "5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" And there's also... http://www.greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_06/default.htm >From which I quote: "Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words and letters!" From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Thu Aug 12 17:33:57 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:33:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <00b001cb3a3b$ee3cbaf0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> References: <201008121515.o7CFFeQs014062@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <00b001cb3a3b$ee3cbaf0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Message-ID: But if Jesus didn't annul the old commandments, why do christians eat bacon? Or wear cotton-flaxseed blend? On 8/12/10, Henrique Moraes Machado (CI) wrote: > > As I understand it, Jesus brought a new dispensation, rendering the > moral imperatives in the barbaric Old Testament obsolete. > > > Not really... > http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/5.html > > >From which I quote: > > "5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not > come to destroy, but to fulfil." > "5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one > tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." > "5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and > shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: > but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the > kingdom of heaven" > > > And there's also... > http://www.greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_06/default.htm > > >From which I quote: > > "Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable > Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He > referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the > "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: > "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall > pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice > that he mentions even the words and letters!" > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Thu Aug 12 17:54:32 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:54:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <201008121515.o7CFFeQs014062@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <00b001cb3a3b$ee3cbaf0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Message-ID: On 8/12/10, Sen Yamamoto wrote: > But if Jesus didn't annul the old commandments, why do christians eat > bacon? Or wear cotton-flaxseed blend? > > Because Paul invented a new religion when he combined bits of Jesus' stuff with bits of Greek mythology and spread it around the Mediterranean. This was after the traditional Jewish followers of Jesus were killed in AD70 when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. In later years the New Testament was created from this mish-mash by later generations after all the originators had died. BillK From giulio at gmail.com Thu Aug 12 17:19:57 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:19:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] NEWS: Max More is Running for Board of Humanity+ In-Reply-To: <3F1864EA87BF487286C0166F31CA276E@DFC68LF1> References: <3F1864EA87BF487286C0166F31CA276E@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: I look forward to voting for Max! 2010/8/12 Natasha Vita-More : > Friends, > > It is my pleasure to endorse Max More's candidacy for joining the Board of > Directors of Humanity+. > > Today is?the last day to become a member of Humanity+ in order to vote for > Max as a new Board member.?? Voting opens this weekend! > > Please join now!? http://humanityplus.org/join/ > > Thank you for your support of Max! > > Natasha > > > Natasha Vita-More > > (If you have any questions, please email me off list.) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Thu Aug 12 17:50:35 2010 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:50:35 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence References: <201008121515.o7CFFeQs014062@andromeda.ziaspace.com><00b001cb3a3b$ee3cbaf0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <00e101cb3a46$df9cad60$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sen Yamamoto" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Religions and violence But if Jesus didn't annul the old commandments, why do christians eat bacon? Or wear cotton-flaxseed blend? Because this is all bullshit and all religions are made up stuff that people adapt to suit their needs? From jrd1415 at gmail.com Thu Aug 12 22:16:14 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:16:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:49 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: [re antisemitism] > I often try to look at things through a sociological or evolutionary lens, but this particular phenomenon baffles me. Darren, Check out "Concerning the Jews". It's very entertaining and not the least bit polemical. I'm sending you a copy by email without the author's name. See how far into it you have to go before you figure out who the author is, then email me and tell me at what point you figured it out. These two links are also useful for understanding this ancient problem: The Hidden History of Zionism http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/ Behind the Balfour Declaration http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html#ftn180 Best, Jeff Davis "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." George Orwell From rtomek at ceti.pl Fri Aug 13 03:15:30 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 05:15:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Religion and banking Message-ID: Howdy, As I have skimmed through posts of people worring about how Islam and China are growing danger for the West, and I agree that they can be a danger indeed, there was one more thing that have caught my attention. Quite incidentally, I've stumbled upon this article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796 It is quite looong but I find it interesting. But, since I haven't read opposing views, I cannot actually judge how good (or bad) it really is. I wonder if there are any alternative views on this and I'd like to learn more about them. If the article was right, the truth would be scary - the democracy is gone already and West (or at least US-ians, at the moment) are fscked in the ass from the inside, so it would be hard to deal with any future external hazard. However, I have used logic, as usual (aha! good logic, good), and came to totally different results. Here is how. 0. Let's assume the article says truth. In this case, there should be milions of unethical practices' victims in US (people losing their emerital plans, jobs, families losing their prospects etc). 1. It is relatively easy to get shot dead on the street in US, which suggests easy access to weapons. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_(film) ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_California_Street_shootings ] (gee, TEC-9? never heard of it, I must educate myself more - but M1911 is great and looks great... at least from the engineering point... well, let's finish this sidenote). 2. 0+1 => a lot of victims still posess their weapons 3. From how I feel about injustice on a big scale, and from probability, and from 2. there should be quite enough victims, at the same time angry, equipped and posessing real guts, capable of selling everything still owned, sawing off their double barrels and going on their last trip to East Coast. 4. 3 => so, one would expect quite a lot of untimely deaths in financial sector. At least among big names. But, AFAIK there is no such news at all (what I hear is some asshole shooting unknown people passing by, before he blows his head off - or maybe this was his corpse). So, somewhere along points 0-4 I have made a mistake. I really wonder what the mistake was, but if I had to speculate, it was "0", i.e. the article was not telling the truth actually. But, this speculation still lefts me wondering if I guessed right? Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From giulio at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 06:28:29 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:28:29 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Remote access via Teleplace to the ASIM 2010 Conference, San Francisco, August 16-17 Message-ID: Remote access via Teleplace to the ASIM 2010 Conference, San Francisco, August 16-17 http://giulioprisco.blogspot.com/2010/08/remote-access-via-teleplace-to-asim.html If you cannot be in San Francisco next Monday and Tuesday you can virtually attend in telepresence the Advancing Substrate-Independent Minds (ASIM-2010) conference, the satellite to the Singularity Summit arranged by carboncopies.org, focusing on the potential ways to realise substrate independent minds. The conference will take place on the 16th and 17th of August, in the evenings (after the Singularity Summit workshop sessions) at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown San Francisco. Those who already have a Teleplace account for teleXLR8 can just show up at the conference, others who wish to attend should contact the organizers... http://giulioprisco.blogspot.com/2010/08/remote-access-via-teleplace-to-asim.html http://telexlr8.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/remote-access-via-teleplace-to-the-asim-2010-conference-san-francisco-august-16-17/ From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 06:39:35 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:39:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] national geographic, was Re: Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <743589.50123.qm@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <640783.69825.qm@web81507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <743589.50123.qm@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I remember looking at NatGeo pictures of African women as my mom looked over my shoulder and said, "that's why women must wear their bra's!" John ; ) On 8/12/10, Gregory Jones wrote: > > > --- On Thu, 8/12/10, Gregory Jones wrote: > >>...I may have taken a page or three out of the library copy of National >> Geographic from time to time in my misspent youth... > > ...but I didn't take those pages out of the Gospel of Mary, it was already > like that when I got here, but I did see both Fred and Keith hanging out at > the library about the time those pages?went missing, and of couse Mary was a > sporting lass (thus the nickname "Virgin") and Keith and Fred were both > friends of hers dontcha know, until she turned up pregnant, at which time > they were nowhere to be found. > > To belabor a point(less) on National Geographic, they did more to tear down > racial prejudice than any other factor.? It wasn't Martin Luther King, Jesse > Jackson or Frank George Pinkston, it was NatGeo.? Why do you suppose America > lost its collective mind when a 40 something woman flashed one boob for one > second in a "wardrobe malfunction"?at the superbowl a few years ago???She > reminded us of our first sexual fantasy. > > spike > > From pharos at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 09:17:14 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:17:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Religion and banking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:15 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > Howdy, > > As I have skimmed through posts of people worring about how Islam and > China are growing danger for the West, and I agree that they can be a > danger indeed, there was one more thing that have caught my attention. > Quite incidentally, I've stumbled upon this article: > > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796 > > It is quite looong but I find it interesting. But, since I haven't read > opposing views, I cannot actually judge how good (or bad) it really is. I > wonder if there are any alternative views on this and I'd like to learn > more about them. > > If the article was right, the truth would be scary - the democracy is gone > already and West (or at least US-ians, at the moment) are fscked in the > ass from the inside, so it would be hard to deal with any future external > hazard. However, I have used logic, as usual (aha! good logic, good), and > came to totally different results. Here is how. > > I reckon this article is pretty much correct. There are many similar comments in the blogosphere. My feeling is that there is a slow fire building in the US. See: 15 Economic Statistics That Just Keep Getting Worse August 11, 2010 By Michael T. Snyder Money Quote: Any rational observer (and clearly U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner does not qualify) can see that the foundations of the U.S. economy are coming apart. The rapidly accumulating mountain of debt that has fueled our ?prosperity? is impossible to repay and is going to progressively choke the life out of our economic system. The good jobs that we have allowed to be shipped out of our country are never coming back. Every single day, more wealth flows out of this country than flows into it. Anyone who claims that things are getting ?better? is either ignorant, completely deluded or is purposely lying. The U.S. economy is not getting ?better?. The U.S. economy is dying. ----------------------------------------------------------- What's happening is like the lobster slowly being boiled. The people are confused and unhappy, many losing their jobs, but getting government handouts. The government keeps issuing soothing words about how things will get better soon. The Tea Party protest movement against Obama seems to have been mostly hijacked by the Republicans to help them get re-elected. So the people are lost, with nowhere to release their pent-up anger against all the government reps. I don't know how it will all unfold. Maybe everyone will vote for independent candidates in the Nov elections. But I feel that a new protest movement for a third party could well arise and sweep away the Reps and Dems. This is what almost happened in the UK, when the Liberal party increased their vote sufficiently to form a coalition government. There are plenty of doom-mongers around prophesying civil war and riots. (Strikes and riots seem to be appearing in Europe). Maybe - who knows? BillK From painlord2k at libero.it Fri Aug 13 12:50:20 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:50:20 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <330599.67024.qm@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <330599.67024.qm@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C653F8C.8010606@libero.it> Il 12/08/2010 0.53, Gregory Jones ha scritto: > > --- On *Wed, 8/11/10, Mirco Romanato //* wrote: > >>...A Christians could ask himself "What would do Jesus?" > Mary Magdalene? This is a "Who" not a "What". Anyway it would be an interesting way to inject the divine in the human. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog * * Leggimi su Estropico Blog * * * * *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3067 - Data di rilascio: 08/12/10 20:34:00 From rtomek at ceti.pl Fri Aug 13 16:33:58 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:33:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Religion and banking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, BillK wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:15 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > Howdy, > > > > As I have skimmed through posts of people worring about how Islam and > > China are growing danger for the West, and I agree that they can be a > > danger indeed, there was one more thing that have caught my attention. > > Quite incidentally, I've stumbled upon this article: > > > > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796 > > [...] > > I reckon this article is pretty much correct. There are many similar > comments in the blogosphere. Interesting and very sad. > My feeling is that there is a slow fire building in the US. It's good the process is slow, because... > What's happening is like the lobster slowly being boiled. > The people are confused and unhappy, many losing their jobs, but > getting government handouts. The government keeps issuing soothing > words about how things will get better soon. > > The Tea Party protest movement against Obama seems to have been mostly > hijacked by the Republicans to help them get re-elected. So the people > are lost, with nowhere to release their pent-up anger against all the > government reps. > > I don't know how it will all unfold. Maybe everyone will vote for > independent candidates in the Nov elections. But I feel that a new > protest movement for a third party could well arise and sweep away the > Reps and Dems. This is what almost happened in the UK, when the > Liberal party increased their vote sufficiently to form a coalition > government. > > There are plenty of doom-mongers around prophesying civil war and > riots. (Strikes and riots seem to be appearing in Europe). Maybe - > who knows? ... because I am not a big civil wars and riots supporter. I think, they do almost nothing wrt justice, but they serve very well to various sons of bitches and their minions. As a sidenote, they could also be instigated using money, for example to cover somebody's stinking traces. Especially that media oriented minds are prone to forget anything that tv set displayed earlier - their minds are like this phosphorous layer in cathode tubes, wiped every time a new picture is displayed. As of independent candidates, this would be great, just let's not forget Hitler was independent, too (AFAIK). BTW, I keep wondering, what can be bought for a trillion? I am rather imaginative, but I can hardly imagine a prostitute worth ten grands a day. And even so, I doubt I would have strength to have her "full service" this pricey more than once a month. So, this leaves us with a trillion anyway... Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From painlord2k at libero.it Fri Aug 13 16:42:04 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:42:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> Message-ID: <4C6575DC.5010900@libero.it> Il 12/08/2010 0.58, Sabrina Ballard ha scritto: >>> Good and peaceful Muslims can become rabid killers in just a >>> moment of faith. >> >>> The same is true with Christians and any variety of agnostic or >>> atheist that is not a pacifist. >> >> I politely disagree: Christians, like Buddhists and others tend to >> become killers against the tenets of their faiths, where the >> Muslims tend to become killer when they start to take their faith >> too seriously. > However this doesn't mean that they *won't*. Who says those Muslims > do it, THEN find an excuse in their religion? The Catholics had > their crusades too. Your is moral relativism, where you are unable to tell the difference from who went in war to defend itself and his liberty and property and others and who went in war with the goals of taking liberty, life and property to others. Crusades came after 400 years of Muslims Jihads that conquered, converted and submitted with the sword more than half of the Christianity. Constantinople was sieged two times by the Arabs Muslims and the Frank stalled the conquest of Spain. Large part of the populations were enslaved and sold in the slave market in the Middle East, where in the Christianity the institution of slavery was ending. If you don't see a genetic mark in the M.E. populations today is because they were worked to death, castrated or both. Until the 1800 ("shores of Tripoli" anyone) the Muslims pirates of North Africa raided the European coasts of the Mediterranean Sea to take booty and slaves. We are talking of a few million of people taken and enslaved. Two million only after the XV century. This is the reason the coastal areas were depopulated and economically backward. They arrived to raid England many times and a time they attacked Iceland. And what the Muslims did to India make this pale in confront. Now, if the Christians were the same as Muslims, where are the Muslims slaves taken from North Africa and brought to work to death in Europe? Where were the slave market of Europe? Who they sold the slave to? Christianity have groups actively buying back the captured slaves to return them to their homes. Were the Muslims doing the same? Then we fall to discuss about the Christian and Catholics concept of "JUST WAR". Under this concept, if all followed it (and you don't need to be a Christian to follow it), wars would not happen. from the Wikipedia <> by the way, <> Shaaria is enough to justify war against Muslims by any other, subjected or not to them. > And the Bible contradicts itself, especially when you compare the > old and new testament. There is a foundation for violence in the > Torah and Bible, but they are largely ignored. You confuse the record of violence with the endorsement of violence as a tool men can use as they like to obtain what they wish. For example, when you look at the Deuteronomy 2, you can read of the extermination of Sichon king of Chesbon and all of his people. But if you start to take away your attention from the gore, you can read that: 1) the Jews where forbidden to attack Seir (because it was of the children of Esau) and Ar (because it was of the children of Lot). And god stated he would not allow the Jews to take enough land from them to put a feet over. And ordered them to pay for food and water they used. Lesson to the Jews: not all of this is your to take. What God gave to others you can not take. And pay for what you take. 2) Even with Sichon, he ordered the Jews to ask for peaceful passage before and offer to pay for anything they needed (water and food) like they did before. Sichon choose to go at war with them, instead. Bad choice, wrong decision. God only knew before what would be the decision of Sichon. Lesson to the Jews: you don't start a war with anyone or I will not support you. They start the war, I support you to win. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog * * Leggimi su Estropico Blog * * * * *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3068 - Data di rilascio: 08/13/10 08:34:00 From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 13 16:47:46 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religion and banking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <336478.29149.qm@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: BillK > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 2:17:14 AM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Religion and banking > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:15 AM, Tomasz Rola? wrote: > > Howdy, > > > > As I have skimmed through posts of people worring about how Islam and > > China are growing danger for the West, and I agree that they can be a > > danger indeed, there was one more thing that have caught my attention. > > Quite incidentally, I've stumbled upon this article: China and Islam are only dangerous to us because of an epic fail on our part. We gave both of them power to wield against us. The radical Islamacists were trained by our own CIA and our media has blown the threat they pose?way out of proportion. Furthermore, our government has given Islam a free pass from policing their own by enforcing a political correctness that absolves the majority of Muslims from responsibility for their radical brethren. This is despite the facts that the majority benefits from the actions of the minority, in the sense that the minority wants universal submission to Islam, and the minority benefits from?covert funding and obfuscation by the majority. When the differences between a peacable Muslim and a Jihadist?are merely some ill-concieved ideas they might harbor, it is very difficult to?tell "friend" from foe. With regard to China, we did all their espionage for them by?giving them?most of?our technology for free.?We moved?all our advanced manufacturing facilities over there to benefit the bottom line of a bunch of rich people who didn't want to pay American wages and taxes. Now those rich people are going to?find out that?without jobs or credit, we Americans can't afford to buy their stuff.?So unless China or Europe pick up the slack of the endangered species of middle-class?American consumers, it's just a matter of time before the formerly rich are applying for food stamps like the rest of us. And if the Chinese government?wanted to simply nationalize all of those factories, who is going to stop them??Those fools?may regret?ignoring the value of loyalty.? > > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796 > > > > It is quite looong but I find it interesting. But, since I haven't read > > opposing views, I cannot actually judge how good (or bad) it really is. I > > wonder if there are any alternative views on this and I'd like to learn > > more about them. > > > > If the article was right, the truth would be scary - the democracy is gone > > already and West (or at least US-ians, at the moment) are fscked in the > > ass from the inside, so it would be hard to deal with any future external > > hazard. However, I have used logic, as usual (aha! good logic, good), and > > came to totally different results. Here is how. The article is old but I think it focuses too much on Goldman-Sachs. Goldman-Sachs is merely a symptom and not the underlying problem. The underlying problem is far more complicated but can be boiled down to the misguided notion popularized by the media that "easy money" is a virtue. I seem to recall that it really started to gain momentum in the 80's, but the upshot is that we have a brainwashed?population that believes that someone who earns millions of dollars by playing golf all day and selling worthless vapor is more important than the barista who earns minimum wage pouring our coffee. In other words, our culture glorifies its?parasites over its true producers of value. Bill writes: ? > I reckon this article is pretty much correct. There are many similar > comments in the blogosphere. > > My feeling is that there is a slow fire building in the US. > > > See: > >> > > 15 Economic Statistics That Just Keep Getting Worse > August 11, 2010? ? ? ? By Michael T. Snyder > > Money Quote: > Any rational observer (and clearly U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy > Geithner does not qualify) can see that the foundations of the U.S. > economy are coming apart.? The rapidly accumulating mountain of debt > that has fueled our ?prosperity? is impossible to repay and is going > to progressively choke the life out of our economic system. Well unlike individuals, countries cannot be foreclosed upon, repossessed, or have its wages garnished. If China wants to stop lending us money, it is welcome to and if it wants to try to forcibly collect, well that would be good for our economy if a little messy otherwise. If the dollar becomes worthless well that just helps equalize the wealth gap, we can pay off our debt with worthless dollars,?and then we'll start from scratch bartering hardware and services if necessary. The government's debt is the government's problem. There is an?ancient Roman saying that "The man with an empty purse can whistle when accosted by a thief."? > The good > jobs that we have allowed to be shipped out of our country are never > coming back.? Every single day, more wealth flows out of this country > than flows into it. Unlike the national debt, this is something that ordinary Americans can do something about. Buy used goods, recycle, buy locally grown produce, support American small business,?avoid Walmart, etc. Sooner or later American manufacturing will come back because?whatever works will be stabilize, survive, and multiply. > Anyone who claims that things are getting ?better? is either ignorant, > completely deluded or is purposely lying. Change is happening. Better or worse depends on where you stand. ? > The U.S. economy is not getting ?better?. > > The U.S. economy is dying. > ----------------------------------------------------------- The?American economy is dead! Long live the?American economy!? > > What's happening is like the lobster slowly being boiled. > The people are confused and unhappy, many losing their jobs, but > getting government handouts. The government keeps issuing soothing > words about how things will get better soon. > The Tea Party protest movement against Obama seems to have been mostly > hijacked by the Republicans to help them get re-elected. So the people > are lost, with nowhere to release their pent-up anger against all the > government reps. > I don't know how it will all unfold. Maybe everyone will vote for > independent candidates in the Nov elections. But I feel that a new > protest movement for a third party could well arise and sweep away the > Reps and Dems. This is what almost happened in the UK, when the > Liberal party increased their vote sufficiently to form a coalition > government. > > There are plenty of doom-mongers around prophesying civil war and > riots. (Strikes and riots seem to be appearing in Europe).? Maybe - > who knows? ? We have been, are, and always will be nine meals from a revolution. And revolution is as natural as the change of seasons. It's not a matter of if, but of when and how.? Stuart LaForge "Old men read the lesson in the setting sun. Beat the cymbal and sing in this life, or wail away the hours fearing death. Their choice is their fortune." - I Ching From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 16:58:41 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:58:41 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values In-Reply-To: References: <20100803210004.6ee0ot27ks0osggg@webmail.maxmore.com> Message-ID: On 4 August 2010 06:46, John Grigg wrote: > I found this somewhat surprising because normally music is used as a > key means to indoctrinate believers (whatever the religion). Monotheists (with the possible exception of Luther) always had a problem with music, even though they regularly made efforts to "domesticate" it and put it at the service of the Highest Good. But I believe that The Guardian reads too much in the alleged statement of Kamenei. In fact, he expressly proclaims music "halal" (kosher, legal, orthodox) and limits himself to the usual conservative mumble that the youth should not invest too much time in it. The popes's distrust for what used to be called "one of the most dangerous of Satan's seduction" has probably much been much harsher in average. Let me add from personal experience that in Iran music is equally or more ubiquitous than in Europe, and that nobody seems especially scandalised by that. -- Stefano Vaj From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Fri Aug 13 17:13:24 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:13:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <4C6575DC.5010900@libero.it> References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> <4C6575DC.5010900@libero.it> Message-ID: But my point is, people go to war for reasons other than religion. Why can't these people want to attack and THEN justify it through their religion? I think that this happens a lot. On 8/13/10, Mirco Romanato wrote: > > > Your is moral relativism, where you are unable to tell the difference > from who went in war to defend itself and his liberty and property and > others and who went in war with the goals of taking liberty, life and > property to others. > > Crusades came after 400 years of Muslims Jihads that conquered, > converted and submitted with the sword more than half of the > Christianity. Constantinople was sieged two times by the Arabs Muslims > and the Frank stalled the conquest of Spain. Large part of the > populations were enslaved and sold in the slave market in the Middle > East, where in the Christianity the institution of slavery was ending. > If you don't see a genetic mark in the M.E. populations today is because > they were worked to death, castrated or both. > Until the 1800 ("shores of Tripoli" anyone) the Muslims pirates of North > Africa raided the European coasts of the Mediterranean Sea to take booty > and slaves. We are talking of a few million of people taken and > enslaved. Two million only after the XV century. This is the reason the > coastal areas were depopulated and economically backward. They arrived > to raid England many times and a time they attacked Iceland. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 17:01:00 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:01:00 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values In-Reply-To: References: <20100803210004.6ee0ot27ks0osggg@webmail.maxmore.com> Message-ID: On 4 August 2010 17:51, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Interestingly, he thinks peoples' time is better spent doing science: Besides religious aspects, he is in fact likely to believe that science education might end up being more strategic for the future of the country than an extensive knowledge of the last trends in pop music... :-) -- Stefano Vaj From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Fri Aug 13 17:30:41 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:30:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values In-Reply-To: References: <20100803210004.6ee0ot27ks0osggg@webmail.maxmore.com> Message-ID: Well, I think that science and music should have a tighter partnership. More music about science could increase the talk about it. On 8/13/10, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 4 August 2010 17:51, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> Interestingly, he thinks peoples' time is better spent doing science: > > Besides religious aspects, he is in fact likely to believe that > science education might end up being more strategic for the future of > the country than an extensive knowledge of the last trends in pop > music... :-) > > -- > Stefano Vaj > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Aug 13 18:30:05 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence Message-ID: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> One needs to ask why were the early Muslims so successful in their conquest. One reason seems to be that Christians living in the areas they conquered were busy persecuting other Christians so some (maybe most?) of the population welcomed the new conquerors or the societies were so internally weakened that it didn't matter. This doesn't excuse the conquests as such, but the success of the Muslim armies seems to have had less to do with their rules of war (and though the just war tradition stretches back to the Roman "law of nation"?and went through Augustine to later Christian thinkers, it doesn't seem many Christian armies practiced it at the time of the Muslim conquests). ? (I'll leave alone, too, the theory that Islam itself is an offshoot of Middle Eastern Christianity that was reinvented to have a beginning among the Arabs. I'm not familiar enough with the evidence and arguments to weigh in on this. I only present it here to see if others have read up on it. The implications should be clear though: if one religion is a further development of another, then talk about it being?warlike should lead to wonder if the fruit has fallen far from the tree.) ? Regards, ? Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: Mirco Romanato To: ExI chat list Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 12:42:04 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Religions and violence Il 12/08/2010 0.58, Sabrina Ballard ha scritto: >>> Good and peaceful Muslims can become rabid killers in just a >>> moment of faith. >> >>> The same is true with Christians and any variety of agnostic or >>> atheist that is not a pacifist. >> >> I politely disagree: Christians, like Buddhists and others tend to >> become killers against the tenets of their faiths, where the >> Muslims tend to become killer when they start to take their faith >> too seriously. > However this doesn't mean that they *won't*. Who says those Muslims > do it, THEN find an excuse in their religion? The Catholics had > their crusades too. Your is moral relativism, where you are unable to tell the difference from who went in war to defend itself and his liberty and property and others and who went in war with the goals of taking liberty, life and property to others. Crusades came after 400 years of Muslims Jihads that conquered, converted and submitted with the sword more than half of the Christianity. Constantinople was sieged two times by the Arabs Muslims and the Frank stalled the conquest of Spain. Large part of the populations were enslaved and sold in the slave market in the Middle East, where in the Christianity the institution of slavery was ending. If you don't see a genetic mark in the M.E. populations today is because they were worked to death, castrated or both. Until the 1800 ("shores of Tripoli" anyone) the Muslims pirates of North Africa raided the European coasts of the Mediterranean Sea to take booty and slaves. We are talking of a few million of people taken and enslaved. Two million only after the XV century. This is the reason the coastal areas were depopulated and economically backward. They arrived to raid England many times and a time they attacked Iceland. And what the Muslims did to India make this pale in confront. Now, if the Christians were the same as Muslims, where are the Muslims slaves taken from North Africa and brought to work to death in Europe? Where were the slave market of Europe? Who they sold the slave to? Christianity have groups actively buying back the captured slaves to return them to their homes. Were the Muslims doing the same? Then we fall to discuss about the Christian and Catholics concept of "JUST WAR". Under this concept, if all followed it (and you don't need to be a Christian to follow it), wars would not happen. from the Wikipedia <> by the way, <> Shaaria is enough to justify war against Muslims by any other, subjected or not to them. > And the Bible contradicts itself, especially when you compare the > old and new testament. There is a foundation for violence in the > Torah and Bible, but they are largely ignored. You confuse the record of violence with the endorsement of violence as a tool men can use as they like to obtain what they wish. For example, when you look at the Deuteronomy 2, you can read of the extermination of Sichon king of Chesbon and all of his people. But if you start to take away your attention from the gore, you can read that: 1) the Jews where forbidden to attack Seir (because it was of the children of Esau) and? Ar (because it was of the children of Lot). And god stated he would not allow the Jews to take enough land from them to put a feet over. And ordered them to pay for food and water they used. Lesson to the Jews: not all of this is your to take. What God gave to others you can not take. And pay for what you take. 2) Even with Sichon, he ordered the Jews to ask for peaceful passage before and offer to pay for anything they needed (water and food) like they did before. Sichon choose to go at war with them, instead. Bad choice, wrong decision. God only knew before what would be the decision of Sichon. Lesson to the Jews: you don't start a war with anyone or I will not support you. They start the war, I support you to win. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog * * Leggimi su Estropico Blog * * * * *Mirco Romanato* From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Aug 13 18:43:09 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values In-Reply-To: References: <20100803210004.6ee0ot27ks0osggg@webmail.maxmore.com> Message-ID: <298568.27225.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I believe music becomes central to many religions and even ideologies (think of Plato or think of Soviet control over music) because music seems to rile people up -- for whatever reason -- or give them religious-like experience -- hence, competing with any official religion.* (I've read some of the evolutionary psych arguments for this. Regardless of their validity, even the ancients understood music had some influence over people.) Regards, Dan * A typical development in religions -- as it becomes more organized -- seems to be taking personal contact with religious states away from the average person and making these the purview of religious authorities and the state. This seems a simple enough process to understand. Just as earlier elites would ban rival?astrologers -- who might predict the fall of a given elite -- so the same process goes for religious experiences. Whether this was a conscious thing -- such as leaders being aware rival forms of such experience might question their authority and the social order in general (if you and I can have such experiences, why should we listen to those guys over at the?temple who ask for us to supply them with grain, goats, and money? if we have contact with the divine, why do we need them?) -- or just some sort of unconscious process -- such as elites that do ban such practices tend to be more successful at staying in power -- is, I believe, an open question. ----- Original Message ---- From: Stefano Vaj To: ExI chat list Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 12:58:41 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values On 4 August 2010 06:46, John Grigg wrote: > I found this somewhat surprising because normally music is used as a > key means to indoctrinate believers (whatever the religion). Monotheists (with the possible exception of Luther) always had a problem with music, even though they regularly made efforts to "domesticate" it and put it at the service of the Highest Good. But I believe that The Guardian reads too much in the alleged statement of Kamenei. In fact, he expressly proclaims music "halal" (kosher, legal, orthodox) and limits himself to the usual conservative mumble that the youth should not invest too much time in it. The popes's distrust for what used to be called "one of the most dangerous of Satan's seduction" has probably much been much harsher in average. Let me add from personal experience that in Iran music is equally or more ubiquitous than in Europe, and that nobody seems especially scandalised by that. -- Stefano Vaj _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 18:54:45 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:54:45 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero In-Reply-To: References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/8/11 John Clark : > Do you have to eat the entire egg to know it is bad? I would say "no", and in fact have no desire to become an Islam scholar in order to be better informed in my decision *not* to convert. But I am contented with it being a matter of taste, and I would not generalise in terms of "objective" good and bad. -- Stefano Vaj From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Fri Aug 13 19:32:00 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:32:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values In-Reply-To: <298568.27225.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20100803210004.6ee0ot27ks0osggg@webmail.maxmore.com> <298568.27225.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Then wouldn't it make sense to promote music that promoted their religion, and their point of views and values. On 8/13/10, Dan wrote: > I believe music becomes central to many religions and even ideologies (think > of > Plato or think of Soviet control over music) because music seems to rile > people > up -- for whatever reason -- or give them religious-like experience -- > hence, > competing with any official religion.* (I've read some of the evolutionary > psych > arguments for this. Regardless of their validity, even the ancients > understood > music had some influence over people.) > > Regards, > > Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Aug 13 19:48:25 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values In-Reply-To: References: <20100803210004.6ee0ot27ks0osggg@webmail.maxmore.com> <298568.27225.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <131918.7983.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes, and it makes sense (from the point of view of the religious or political elite -- usually not separate in most earlier societies), the more developed and organized things are, to try to keep rival entrants into the music "market." In other words, you don't want just anyone giving themselves or other people such experiences. That would either de-mystify the experience (as in, this experience is no big deal, so why should we should obey all the social rules the elites tell us to)?or de-mystify the elites having control over it (as in maybe we can talk to the spirits ourselves, so why no cut out the middlemen?). Again, though, this might not be a conscious process of elites recognizing the actual power of music and the threat it could represent, but more just a process of elites that control music tend to be more successful in the long run, so they become the norm. Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: Sen Yamamoto To: ExI chat list Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 3:32:00 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Music fails to chime with Islamic values Then wouldn't it make sense to promote music that promoted their religion, and their point of views and values. On 8/13/10, Dan wrote: > I believe music becomes central to many religions and even ideologies (think > of > Plato or think of Soviet control over music) because music seems to rile > people > up -- for whatever reason -- or give them religious-like experience -- > hence, > competing with any official religion.* (I've read some of the evolutionary > psych > arguments for this. Regardless of their validity, even the ancients > understood > music had some influence over people.) > > Regards, > > Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Aug 13 19:55:53 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Art might upset power structures in society/was Re: Music fails to chime with Islamic values In-Reply-To: References: <20100803210004.6ee0ot27ks0osggg@webmail.maxmore.com> <298568.27225.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <673339.62392.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Further in this vein of the relationship of art to ideology and power, one might consider a recent double review by Jeff Riggenbach: ? http://mises.org/daily/4236 ? While both books should be of interest to people here, but, for this discussion, skim down to his review of Lynn?Hunt's _Inventing Human Rights_. She locates the rise of the concept of human rights as helped along by the rise of the modern novel. What's the pay off here? Again, it seems, an art form might have upset the balance of power in society. (And I don't know if Hunt mentions it in her book, which I've yet to read, but novels were looked down upon and even suppressed by elites. I doubt this was because they understood that novels might help to usher in a new age in thinking about human freedom and dignity, but it's likely some understood that novels and other forms of mass literacy were upsetting the balance of power in society.) ? Regards, ? Dan From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 20:19:03 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:19:03 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: References: <201008091808.o79I8DnN000622@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 10 August 2010 06:03, Aleksei Riikonen wrote: > Not universally, no. The word "singularitarian", just like the word > "singularity", has become very difficult to use in a sensible manner > since these days people mean such a large variety of different things > by it. Given this confusion, every time one uses the word, one > essentially would need to proceed to explicitly cite what definition > one is using. Indeed. My reluctance to employ the S word for my views derives from: - some rapture-like undertones of Kurzweil-like versions of the idea, especially those presenting the Singularity as an event which will automagically happen no-matter-what, instead of presenting it as a goal and a horizon towards which to strive; - the "cool" attitude of some of us, perhaps not unrelated to the previous point, according to which our main, if not only, concern should be that of "steering" it, rather than fighting the stagnation which our globalised culture has been suffering from for a while now. Both things are in fact quite vulnerable to the ridicule easily aspersed by individuals such Dale Carrico, and the second puts one in a position dangerously bordering neoluddite positions. -- Stefano Vaj From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Fri Aug 13 20:25:17 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:25:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: References: <201008091808.o79I8DnN000622@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Wouldn't destagnating help lead to singularity? >the "cool" attitude of some of us, perhaps not unrelated to the >previous point, according to which our main, if not only, concern >should be that of "steering" it, rather than fighting the stagnation >which our globalised culture has been suffering from for a while now From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 20:33:32 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:33:32 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10 August 2010 22:18, Keith Henson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:42 AM, ?John Grigg > wrote: >> It frightens me to think that a nation with little or no respect for >> civil liberties (even of their own people), is going to probably be >> the greatest economic and military power on the planet within several >> decades! Mmhhh. I have US, not Chinese military forces based in my country's territory, and while Chinese may pose more of a threat to its ethnical identity in terms of immigration, US cultural colonisation is certainly much more invasive (see under "Hollywood" or "pop music") than anything likely to come from China anytime soon. In fact, it seems that it was quite difficult in Milan to recruit just 15 professors able to teach Mandarin in high schools as opposed to the pervasive presence of English in the Italian educational system... > Be that as it may, I think Extropians and related groups will abandon > country centric, perhaps even culture centric, attitudes. Personally, I would love a more "pluralist" approach, where relativism, diversity and self-determination, including at a collective level, would make for a healthy and hopefully peaceful competition where Darwinian mechanisms would take care of neoluddite and anyway less efficient societies by themselves... -- Stefano Vaj From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Aug 13 21:19:56 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:19:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] SXSWi - Please Vote for My Panel! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100813171956.hnn8x6en4gcscs48@webmail.natasha.cc> I have entered the panel competition for SXSWi 2011 - the international film, music, and interactive Festival. My panel title is "The Singularity: Humanity's Hugh Technological Challenge". Panelists include: Max More, Doug Lenat, Bryan Bishop and Michael Vassar and Natasha Vita-More PLEASE VOTE FOR MY PANEL! - Go to: http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/users/register - After you register, go to: http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/index/7 - In the "Organizer" box, put "Natasha Vita-More" and you will be directed to http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/index/7/presenter:Natasha+Vita-More and you will see my title "The Singularity: Humanity's Hugh Technological Challenge" Thank you very much! Natasha From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 21:08:33 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:08:33 +0200 Subject: [ExI] NEWS Max More is Running for Board of Humanity+ In-Reply-To: <01D9A985360C435090CB3457C3395C66@DFC68LF1> References: <01D9A985360C435090CB3457C3395C66@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: Congratulations and best wishes to Max. Let me add my official, albeit modest, endorsement to Natasha's. -- Stefano Vaj 2010/8/12 Natasha Vita-More : > Friends, > > It is my pleasure to endorse Max More's candidacy for joining the Board of > Directors of Humanity+. > > Today is?the last day to become a member of Humanity+ in order to vote for > Max as a new Board member.?? Voting opens this weekend! > > Please join now!? http://humanityplus.org/join/ > > Thank you for your support of Max! > > Natasha > > > Natasha Vita-More > > (If you have any questions, please email me off list.) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- Stefano Vaj From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 21:47:14 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:47:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] NEWS Max More is Running for Board of Humanity+ In-Reply-To: References: <01D9A985360C435090CB3457C3395C66@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: I am very excited about Max running for a position on the Board of Directors of Humanity+. I wish him a landslide victory! : ) It's time for him to flex his political/organizational muscles once again... John On 8/13/10, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Congratulations and best wishes to Max. > > Let me add my official, albeit modest, endorsement to Natasha's. > > -- > Stefano Vaj > > > 2010/8/12 Natasha Vita-More : >> Friends, >> >> It is my pleasure to endorse Max More's candidacy for joining the Board of >> Directors of Humanity+. >> >> Today is?the last day to become a member of Humanity+ in order to vote for >> Max as a new Board member.?? Voting opens this weekend! >> >> Please join now!? http://humanityplus.org/join/ >> >> Thank you for your support of Max! >> >> Natasha >> >> >> Natasha Vita-More >> >> (If you have any questions, please email me off list.) >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > > > > -- > Stefano Vaj > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From max at maxmore.com Sat Aug 14 04:57:29 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:57:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Super-strong materials contest for space tethers Message-ID: <201008140457.o7E4vajv021693@andromeda.ziaspace.com> http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/13/4883934-tethers-tortured-in-2-million-contest Max From max at maxmore.com Sat Aug 14 05:06:40 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:06:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] More on the Strong Tether Challenge Message-ID: <201008140506.o7E56l9K021832@andromeda.ziaspace.com> http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/13/4881974-50-years-of-space-elevator-dreams From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 11:12:11 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:12:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: References: <201008091808.o79I8DnN000622@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 13 August 2010 22:25, Sen Yamamoto wrote: > Wouldn't destagnating help lead to singularity? Certainly it would, and anyway would make for a more interesting world even though such goal were to prove elusive... :-) Ultimately, if christians prefer to live in a christian society while waiting for, and as a second best to, paradise, I am increasingly persuaded that a societal egemony of transhumanist value, besides being obviously more likely to deliver than alleged and dubious automagic mechanisms, is something worth fighting for per se. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 11:15:32 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:15:32 +0200 Subject: [ExI] What is Rational? (BillK) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11 August 2010 20:06, Keith Henson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:00 AM, ?BillK wrote: >> Good! ?You agree that at least one human behaviour affecting gene >> reproduction is not driven by evolved gene behaviour. ?Now to tackle >> the rest of human behaviour. ? ;) > > I don't think there is a lot less mating going on, it's just that the > consequences can be avoided. Darwinism does not postulate that disgenic behaviours do not exist. It simply implies that sooner or later they lead to extinction those affected. :-) -- Stefano Vaj From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Sat Aug 14 11:24:59 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 07:24:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: References: <201008091808.o79I8DnN000622@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: "societal egemony of transhumanist value, besides being obviously more likely to deliver than alleged and dubious automagic mechanisms" Ummm... I have no idea what that means. I think that a great societal mixing would do us good From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Sat Aug 14 11:25:51 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 07:25:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] What is Rational? (BillK) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Darwinism does not postulate that disgenic behaviours do not exist. It simply implies that sooner or later they lead to extinction those affected. :-)" Who says that the human race is not currently headed for extinction? On 8/14/10, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 11 August 2010 20:06, Keith Henson wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:00 AM, ?BillK wrote: >>> Good! ?You agree that at least one human behaviour affecting gene >>> reproduction is not driven by evolved gene behaviour. ?Now to tackle >>> the rest of human behaviour. ? ;) >> >> I don't think there is a lot less mating going on, it's just that the >> consequences can be avoided. > > Darwinism does not postulate that disgenic behaviours do not exist. > > It simply implies that sooner or later they lead to extinction those > affected. :-) > > -- > Stefano Vaj > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From painlord2k at libero.it Sat Aug 14 11:39:49 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:39:49 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <313044.57182.qm@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <313044.57182.qm@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C668085.5050208@libero.it> Il 03/08/2010 2.52, Adrian Tymes ha scritto: > --- On Mon, 8/2/10, samantha wrote: > Save for that whole "economies of scale" thing, wherein a larger > entity (the government) could distribute aid much more effectively > than individual private entities, which efficiency might preclude the > decision to donate individually. (A cabbage or two is nothing > against a famine, so why bother? It might just get fought over and > produce more suffering. 1,000 tons of food - of many varieties, even > - is another story.) The "economy of scale" work also to thieves. It is easier to stole in a centralized government-driven economy than in a decentralized, market-driven economy. The best business for Mafia, in Italy, is fixing the Public Contracts. I think it is not so different in UK or US or anywhere, for the matter. The name of the group change, but they feed anyway from the public coffers at the expense of the producers. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog Mirco Romanato -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3069 - Data di rilascio: 08/13/10 20:34:00 From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Aug 14 12:19:36 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:19:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <6E5DC588-035F-40D0-B736-703CB8E2B2A6@bellsouth.net> On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > I would not generalise in terms of "objective" good and bad. I see, there is nothing you would generalize as good or bad. Would you say that such a policy was objectively good? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 13:03:12 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:03:12 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <60B1E1A8-15C3-4FF4-9D46-EBCB8D1D2EA4@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On 3 August 2010 21:04, Tomasz Rola wrote: > I think that Muslims commiting crimes are on par with Nazis commiting > crimes. As of other Nazis, some of them (those caught) have been tried in > Nuremberg. I don't see reason to mix them with criminals, if the court > didn't find such reason. As of non-criminals among Muslims, I don't know > enough about them to judge them. "Crime" is a legal concept (including perhaps the retroactive legalisms of the winner). But as such, it does not really take into account in its definition the ideology or the motive of the perpetrator. Would a crime perpetrated by a Buddhist or a New Atheist be any different in term of social damage? -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 13:10:15 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:10:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <148E92F2-A8F6-43E0-95E8-3741543DC4DC@bellsouth.net> <01285F5B-F594-4CA8-BFE9-CF055E97211C@bellsouth.net> <222BC0DC-B005-4C14-816F-B229158A6B03@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On 9 August 2010 22:34, Sabrina Ballard wrote: > On 8/9/10, John Clark wrote: >> So the more weakly someone believes in this retarded toxic waste the better >> off they are. I agree with that. > > What is it that makes religion "retarded toxic waste"? What about > Shinto or Buddhism? Or Zen, or the religions of Homer and the Edda, or Hinduism, or Confucianism? In western countries, especially the US, I think that we are used to interpret the "religion" concept altogether in exclusively monotheistic terms. Even caricatural version such as Scientology have Holy Scriptures, Good vs. Evil, paradise and hell, etc. OTOH, this is a very reductionist view and most "religions" in history and geography have little to do with obscurantism, metaphysics, crusades, intolerance, sin, dualism, and all the traits one reconnects with traditional forms of christianism, hebraism and Islam. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 13:13:00 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:13:00 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence > In-Reply-To: <904188.78185.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <904188.78185.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/8 Gregory Jones > > The bastards were carrying bibles; justifiable homicide: > > Why, this is a little extreme. And speaking of weapons of mass destruction the justification would anyway be more persuasive if the killers were not carrying Corans themselves... :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wildcat2030 at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 13:50:24 2010 From: wildcat2030 at gmail.com (Wildcat) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 16:50:24 +0300 Subject: [ExI] A sort of Introduction Message-ID: Not knowing what is the best way to introduce myself to this list on which I have been lurking for a while, and being in contact with some of you (Natasha, Max) it occurred to me that maybe my latest ultrashort scifi story (a second project I am working upon beside the Polytopia Project) is an interesting manner of introduction, so here goes: -- ?If one doesn?t put one?s reason at stake in an experiment, the experiment is not worth attempting.? ( Bachelard in ?Le Surrationalisme? (1936) -- Presentation to the Titan board of AGI, Biorobotics, and Other sentient life forms. Dear members of the board, As it is the duty of every future officer of the board to present its conception of identity and its epistemic profiles, I send you this photon-transmission as part of my CV (which you already received and light stamped). I wish to use this particular presentation as an explication of why I will require certain concessions as part of my existential requirements. Though I still inhabit a material manifestation that is commonly referred to as ?my body?, I do not regard this as a ?one size fits all? proposition, therefore, though it is a factuality that I ?have? a body this in no fashion stands as the signifier of an identity. Moreover though it is still true to a biological constraint that said body has grown and evolved to carry a gender specification, in no fashion do I regard this specificity to signify a gender that I carry as a state of mind. My basic standpoint in this respect is that both enhancements and uploads are viable options as well as mind transfer or biodiversified personification, I consider all choices of modification, transformation and or mutation into other species as equally valid under the freedom of individuation act of solar date, march 2117. To further explicate, it is also true that on the common scheme of identification the above body was born in a certain location commonly referred by most minds as a certain nation, having a legitimacy and validity of existence and thus providing an identification of sorts, let it be said that I do not regard this mind as identified in any such manner. Having thus relinquished the common denominators of age, gender, nationality, race and creed, all tools of designation the need for which has dissipated, the habit that is ?I?, is for purposes of this presentation an anticipation of sorts. I have for the purpose of this presentation re-cohered and re- entangled the myriad personas that variously stand and represent said simulacra of habits called ?I? into an apparent compounded interest. Since the respect and regard I carry for the board is high indeed it is my desire to announce that in no fashion will any bias of any sort imply upon my performance. All sub personas I have created, limited sentiency notwithstanding, can and shall be immediately deleted andor preserved for further assistance if such requirement will be made. For the benefit of full transparency let it be presented that all semantic representations within said confined event of personhood can be inspected at will and upon request, confirmed signature follows. Moreover since the realization of the full import of my future employment within the board is tantamount to personhood modification I hereby grant the board of Titan AGI, Biorobotics, and other sentient life forms, full and irrevocable permission to mutate the undersigned to the extant of tolerance within the topologically relevant needs. The only requirement I propose the board to acknowledge concerns the signature identity ?Osran.V.2.17?, this is a particular persona created in Oct. 2124 for the purpose of exploring a precise sensation of correlativity within an emotional phase space, the overall expenditure of intelligence and energy will be minimal and inconsequential to future job performance (see extrapolated and predicted expenditure for ?Osran.V.2.17?- attached). In the event of total transmutation as required by the board or to the extent that Titan et al will so demand, ?Osran.V.2.17? will be stored as compressed light data with a time stamp approval of no more than 150 solar standard years. Finally, to the extent that such request as presented above is accepted, recycled and re-iterated by the board, all other personas are ready to coagulate, integrate and or disassociate within a single solar date as specified (commensurate unified signature attached). Global Signature confirmation 346 Ken Landar personas (out of total of 347 - ?Osran.V.2.17? excluded.) -- (originally published at Space Collective ) -- warm regards, Tyger (a.k.a Friendfeed Wildcat or twitter Wildcat2030 ) The Polytopia Project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Aug 14 15:44:00 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:44:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A sort of Introduction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5AD1D4DEAD3A4073878C4C29E000482F@DFC68LF1> Welcome wildcat! Natasha Vita-More _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Wildcat Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 8:50 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [ExI] A sort of Introduction Not knowing what is the best way to introduce myself to this list on which I have been lurking for a while, and being in contact with some of you (Natasha, Max) it occurred to me that maybe my latest ultrashort scifi story (a second project I am working upon beside the Polytopia Project) is an interesting manner of introduction, so here goes: -- "If one doesn't put one's reason at stake in an experiment, the experiment is not worth attempting." ( Bachelard in "Le Surrationalisme" (1936) -- Presentation to the Titan board of AGI, Biorobotics, and Other sentient life forms. Dear members of the board, As it is the duty of every future officer of the board to present its conception of identity and its epistemic profiles, I send you this photon-transmission as part of my CV (which you already received and light stamped). I wish to use this particular presentation as an explication of why I will require certain concessions as part of my existential requirements. Though I still inhabit a material manifestation that is commonly referred to as 'my body', I do not regard this as a 'one size fits all' proposition, therefore, though it is a factuality that I 'have' a body this in no fashion stands as the signifier of an identity. Moreover though it is still true to a biological constraint that said body has grown and evolved to carry a gender specification, in no fashion do I regard this specificity to signify a gender that I carry as a state of mind. My basic standpoint in this respect is that both enhancements and uploads are viable options as well as mind transfer or biodiversified personification, I consider all choices of modification, transformation and or mutation into other species as equally valid under the freedom of individuation act of solar date, march 2117. To further explicate, it is also true that on the common scheme of identification the above body was born in a certain location commonly referred by most minds as a certain nation, having a legitimacy and validity of existence and thus providing an identification of sorts, let it be said that I do not regard this mind as identified in any such manner. Having thus relinquished the common denominators of age, gender, nationality, race and creed, all tools of designation the need for which has dissipated, the habit that is 'I', is for purposes of this presentation an anticipation of sorts. I have for the purpose of this presentation re-cohered and re- entangled the myriad personas that variously stand and represent said simulacra of habits called 'I' into an apparent compounded interest. Since the respect and regard I carry for the board is high indeed it is my desire to announce that in no fashion will any bias of any sort imply upon my performance. All sub personas I have created, limited sentiency notwithstanding, can and shall be immediately deleted andor preserved for further assistance if such requirement will be made. For the benefit of full transparency let it be presented that all semantic representations within said confined event of personhood can be inspected at will and upon request, confirmed signature follows. Moreover since the realization of the full import of my future employment within the board is tantamount to personhood modification I hereby grant the board of Titan AGI, Biorobotics, and other sentient life forms, full and irrevocable permission to mutate the undersigned to the extant of tolerance within the topologically relevant needs. The only requirement I propose the board to acknowledge concerns the signature identity 'Osran.V.2.17', this is a particular persona created in Oct. 2124 for the purpose of exploring a precise sensation of correlativity within an emotional phase space, the overall expenditure of intelligence and energy will be minimal and inconsequential to future job performance (see extrapolated and predicted expenditure for 'Osran.V.2.17'- attached). In the event of total transmutation as required by the board or to the extent that Titan et al will so demand, 'Osran.V.2.17' will be stored as compressed light data with a time stamp approval of no more than 150 solar standard years. Finally, to the extent that such request as presented above is accepted, recycled and re-iterated by the board, all other personas are ready to coagulate, integrate and or disassociate within a single solar date as specified (commensurate unified signature attached). Global Signature confirmation 346 Ken Landar personas (out of total of 347 - 'Osran.V.2.17' excluded.) -- (originally published at Space Collective ) -- warm regards, Tyger (a.k.a Friendfeed Wildcat or twitter Wildcat2030 ) The Polytopia Project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 15:58:34 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:58:34 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religion and banking In-Reply-To: <336478.29149.qm@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <336478.29149.qm@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 13 August 2010 18:47, The Avantguardian wrote: > China and Islam are only dangerous to us because of an epic fail on our part. Absolutely. But I always wonder what an Iranian or Chinese transhumanist would think of those exchanges. Islam of course is a more mixed issue, being a universalist religion which installed itself destroying or at least repressing civilisations and value systems I am much fonder of. But it should be kept in mind that nowadays in Iran the conservative clergy is more open to compromise with the West which might ensure its internal social and economic power (see Rafsanjani), while many Iranians who are enthusiastically support the country's nuclear plans are religiously not especially fervent, and some of them are even nostalgic of the Shah regime... But coming to China, what should a Chinese transhumanist do or think? Most criticisms here have to do with its socialist past or its authoritarian aggressive-capitalist present. But one wonders if such political and economic systems are not a rather thin veneer over deeper cultural traits, which may explain why Chinese communism was fairly different from Russian communism, and Chinese capitalism is more similar to - albeit subtly different from - Japanese or Korean capitalism than to American or Russian capitalism. In turn, Russian capitalism is closer to German capitalism in the Kaiser era than to British capitalism. Ultimately, however, a Chinese citizen may have preferences as everybody else on how his or her country should be ruled and evolve, but is hardly going to complain about its taking an economic, technological or political lead according to its own specific identity and worldview. For sure, US citizens never complained when it was their turn from 1918 to 2000... -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 17:24:39 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:24:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> Message-ID: On 12 August 2010 00:58, Sabrina Ballard wrote: >The Catholics had their > crusades too. The Jihad certainly has some textual basis, and is justified through them. but in fact it borrowed plenty from the christian concept of "crusade". We may have learned some nautical tricks from muslims, but also taught something to them... :-) -- Stefano Vaj From rtomek at ceti.pl Sat Aug 14 17:37:01 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:37:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] What a trillion can buy? (was: Religion and banking) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Tomasz Rola wrote: > BTW, I keep wondering, what can be bought for a trillion? I am rather Obviously, I wasn't first. There was even someone having idea of proposing a indecent proposition to a milion women (ye, right, I was too busy watching Demi Moore to notice a milion bucks was there, too). But there were also other proposal, even more indecent, like: - a one-year cd yelding $15.5 billion in interest - buying 59-million army of privatees for a year (after that they could be payed from looting, I guess) [ http://kiplinger.com/features/archives/ways-to-spend-one-trillion-dollar-deficit.html ] And totally decadent proposals include: - "Basic education for all: $6 billion" - "Water and sanitation for all: $9 billion" - "Reproductive health for all women: $12 billion" - "Basic health and nutrition for all: $13 billion" I understand those money is for covering needs of only those, who cannot afford it by any other way, not those who are poor but somehow manage. Amounts seem to be microscopic in comparison to the big sum. Definitely insane: - 1 million Asimo Robots - "With a trillion dollars you could own and operate your own space program with an annual budget of $20 billion for the next 50 years. That's $2 billion more than NASA spends each year." [ http://www.cosmoloan.com/money-management/what-can-you-buy-with-a-trillion-dollars.html ] And, in 2011 they plan to build yet another fastest supercomputer in the world. The building cost is 208 millions, and housing it costs 72 millions (a year, hopefully). So, with a trillion, one can [15]> ((lambda (num) (/ (+ (* 208.0 million num) (* 10 72 million num)) trillion)) 1000) 0.928 one can build a thousand such supercomps and house them all for ten years... Fsck me in the arse... Actually they would have funds for one extra year, for, hohum, finishing their projects... Or for paying the crew. [ http://www.dailyillini.com/news/campus/2009/12/08/new-supercomputer-to-bring-academic-benefits-as-well-as-multimillion-price-ta ] Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Sat Aug 14 17:38:42 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:38:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> Message-ID: Culture is ever in a flux On 8/14/10, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 12 August 2010 00:58, Sabrina Ballard > wrote: >>The Catholics had their >> crusades too. > > The Jihad certainly has some textual basis, and is justified through > them. but in fact it borrowed plenty from the christian concept of > "crusade". > > We may have learned some nautical tricks from muslims, but also taught > something to them... :-) > > -- > Stefano Vaj > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 17:43:57 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:43:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: References: <201008091808.o79I8DnN000622@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 14 August 2010 13:24, Sen Yamamoto wrote: > "societal egemony of transhumanist value, besides > being obviously more likely to deliver than alleged and dubious > automagic mechanisms" > > Ummm... I have no idea what that means. Let me rephrase. A society based on transhumanist values such as change, prometheism, diversity, knowledge, self-overcoming, extropy, self-determination, directed evolution, "cosmic" challenges, etc. would make for a more interesting world irrespective of what and when could be actually achieved. *And* of course would make any singularity-like achievement much more likely to happen in the first place than a hostile and/or stagnating world would. -- Stefano Vaj From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Sat Aug 14 17:57:12 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:57:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Jaron Lanier on AI and Singularity, not transhumanism In-Reply-To: References: <201008091808.o79I8DnN000622@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Ah. Yes, I would have to agree. I have to say that where two cultures meet (non-violently) there seems to be a lot of ideas, and a lot of intellectual/cultural fun. Ah, the stuff of life! On 8/14/10, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Let me rephrase. A society based on transhumanist values such as > change, prometheism, diversity, knowledge, self-overcoming, extropy, > self-determination, directed evolution, "cosmic" challenges, etc. > would make for a more interesting world irrespective of what and when > could be actually achieved. > > *And* of course would make any singularity-like achievement much more > likely to happen in the first place than a hostile and/or stagnating > world would. > > -- > Stefano Vaj > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 17:57:23 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:57:23 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: <6E5DC588-035F-40D0-B736-703CB8E2B2A6@bellsouth.net> References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> <6E5DC588-035F-40D0-B736-703CB8E2B2A6@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/8/14 John Clark : > On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > I would not?generalise in terms of "objective" good and bad. > > I see, there is nothing you would generalize as good or bad. Would you say > that such a policy was objectively good? Indeed I think we should make an effort to think "Beyond Good and Evil" and overcome the relevant christian (or muslim) legacy in this area. This of course does not mean than a policy cannot be considered as good or bad, either in terms of suitability to its declared goals, or on the basis of some shared values. For instance, I think most transhumanists may agree that bioluddite prohibitionism is bad without any need to resort to some kind of cosmic manicheism or cultural imperialism. -- Stefano Vaj From jebdm at jebdm.net Sat Aug 14 18:12:31 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:12:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: <6E5DC588-035F-40D0-B736-703CB8E2B2A6@bellsouth.net> References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> <6E5DC588-035F-40D0-B736-703CB8E2B2A6@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/8/14 John Clark > On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > I would not generalise in terms of "objective" good and bad. > > > I see, there is nothing you would generalize as good or bad. Would you say > that such a policy was objectively good? > There is a form of relativism that doesn't posit that relativism itself is objectively good, only that objectivity doesn't exist. In fact, using a word like "good" or "bad" is like using the word "freedom" without qualification. "Freedom" does not exist by itself; in fact, freedom in one area almost always limits freedom in another. Instead, group X gains freedom from Y when X no longer has to worry about Y when making their decisions, and group X gains freedom to/of Y when X no longer has to worry about anything when deciding to do Y. It seems virtually impossible to gain complete freedom to/of anything (including freedom of speech, etc.), since if that were the case the action the freedom was for would probably be of no consequence, and very few things are truly of no consequence (and if they are, why would you want to do them?). So I advocate always qualifying "freedom", since it very easily becomes a patriotic buzzword with little meaning otherwise. I would prefer that instead of "freedom of speech" we called it "freedom from government restriction on speech that is not slanderous or violently threatening", since that's what we actually have. Roughly. Similarly, "good" and "bad" are super-generalized terms of value, with "good" and "bad" usually being relative to some value of "normal" and with "better" and "worse" being used comparatively. They aren't quite as general as "many" and "few"/"more" and "less", because they refer only to judgments of value. Value is judged according to some standard; there isn't a universal standard of value, obviously, because different entities have different values due to their different goals, positions, and domains of interaction. Morality is one particular set of systems of values. Moral values generally attempt to generalize so that what is moral to one person is moral to another; they do so based on perceptions of universality in the human species. Unfortunately, while there are some universals, they aren't nearly so many as people expect. This is especially true because most people grow up in moderately homogeneous cultures (although this has been less true for the past couple of centuries, this will probably become more true again within the next couple, because the forces of globalization/mass communication and trade tend to be homogenizing), and thus take what are actually just cultural normals from their particular society to be universal normals for all of humanity, or worse, universal imperatives for all of the universe. This is often aided along by various religions, as most posit some sort of divine/otherworldly source of morality, by laws, which generally apply across-the-board and give the illusion of a universal system of judgement, and by propagandists, which state their views in terms of an absolute morality either because they believe it or because it blurs away the subtle flaws of their arguments and builds up a feeling of righteous hatred or outrage in those it affects. However, as I mentioned above, moral systems are a subset of value systems, and valuation is always relative to some standard. In moral systems, this standard is strongly driven by genetically evolved social mores (hence the general trend to disallow murder, theft, incest, rape, etc.). But due to our application of intelligence to our intuitions through the miracle of consciousness, plus the biases instilled by societies that have decided it was in their interests to modify the average moral intuition for some purpose (i.e., allowing certain types of killing, considering copyright as theft, allowing theft in the form of taxation, etc.), plus the fact that our logic of morality operates on the level of people and not on the base level of reality, we find that people vary rather a lot in their beliefs on morality. There is a large overlap, to be sure, but even this overlap is not completely universal; for most acts, you would probably find that perhaps 95% will agree on the morality thereof, but it would be rare to get 100% agreement. And there are many acts where the agreement will not reach 95%, but 80%, 70%, 60%, and sometimes you will not even get a majority in agreement. So, in conclusion, there is no objective morality--because saying something is objectively good is like saying it is objectively tasty. There may be many things that many people find tasty, but there are no things that everyone finds tasty. Asserting an objective morality despite this requires a normative source of morality--in other words, a god of some sort. (Imagine if this wasn't so; if there just "is" an objective morality, what would that mean? Just because it exists doesn't mean that people follow it or believe it, obviously, due to the amount of variation in beliefs in behaviors. And morality doesn't really govern anything but people. So what influence does it have? What is its function?) Instead, morality is relative to a particular value system. Value systems vary between humans, although there is a large degree of overlap. Due to that overlap, it is possible to have sensible systems of law and operating moral frameworks, despite the existence of relativity; that is, although in theory each individual human could have a totally different system of morality, this is not actually the case (as you would expect given a shared evolutionary environment and lineage). It would be good to have a word for this overlap--perhaps one exists already that I'm not aware of, but if not you could call it "normal morality", so that things that most people consider to be good you'd say were "normally good" and things most people consider to be bad you'd say were "normally bad". In any case, "objective" is not the right term. (Note that, in response to your actual question--"Would you say that [not generalizing anything as good or bad] was objectively good?", the proper answer is, of course, "no". But this isn't the trap that you get when you consider all value systems equally "valid"--i.e., "I believe all value systems are equally valid." + "I believe that all value systems except mine are invalid." = contradiction. This is because this form of relativism doesn't say anything about "validity", which in this context is basically devoid of meaning. Instead, by saying that "not generalizing anything as good or bad is not objectively good", all I'm saying is that objective good doesn't make sense at all. It's equivalent to saying that "not generalizing anything as purple or green is not objectively purple". I would say that not generalizing all things as objectively good or bad *is* good in many human value systems, especially non-religious ones which usually don't have that nasty property which makes them value their value system first and foremost, because usually peace and prosperity--which are significantly aided by societies allowing multiple worldviews to coexist by endorsing relativism, given that the worldviews in questions aren't *too* different or are at least willing to liberalize themselves--are usually valued more highly than perfectly agreeing beliefs and one's own moral values being perfectly enforced.) Whew, that was long. Sorry. -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Aug 14 17:59:23 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:59:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Religions and silliness In-Reply-To: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> Putting all this in perspective: Cult Divided On Whether To Let Women Become Telepathic-Vision Clerics quote: Damien Broderick From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Sat Aug 14 20:22:35 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 16:22:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and silliness In-Reply-To: <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> References: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: (: Or perhaps they could let up on the manditory blinding? Or recruit more people who were born blind? I love The Onion! And yeah, that is perspective. On 8/14/10, Damien Broderick wrote: > Putting all this in perspective: > > > > Cult Divided On Whether To Let Women Become Telepathic-Vision Clerics > > quote: > support the ordination of female telepathic-vision clerics, many remain > vehement in their opposition: 31 percent said they would not allow a > woman to brand their newborn with the Marking, 23 percent said women are > incapable of translating the soul-transmissions of extraterrestrial > beings who await the disciples' return, and one in 10 threatened to > leave the cult entirely should some woman start telling them what to do. > > "It is our spiritual duty to preserve these sacred traditions," said > irate survey respondent Joseph Omicron, 48. "If we let women become > telepathic-vision clerics, then what's next? Allowing them to grow hair?"> > > Damien Broderick > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From painlord2k at libero.it Sat Aug 14 21:00:45 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 23:00:45 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> Message-ID: <4C6703FD.5060305@libero.it> Il 14/08/2010 19.38, Sen Yamamoto ha scritto: > Culture is ever in a flux Is it? > On 8/14/10, Stefano Vaj wrote: >> On 12 August 2010 00:58, Sabrina Ballard >> wrote: >>> The Catholics had their >>> crusades too. >> The Jihad certainly has some textual basis, and is justified through >> them. but in fact it borrowed plenty from the Christian concept of >> "crusade". >> We may have learned some nautical tricks from Muslims, but also taught >> something to them... :-) Are you advocating the Muslims or Christians mastered time travel? Are you advocating a miracle happened? Or, are you making fun of the people here that was failed by their history teachers and their school system? You know better than me that the FIRST Crusade started in 1094 and the First Jihad started in 622 (when Mohammad was kick out from Makka by his tribe). Telling that that the Muslims learned the concept of Jihad from the Crusaders is a lie. People drinking this cool-aid without detecting the lie show how easy they are to be manipulated by expert hands. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3071 - Data di rilascio: 08/14/10 10:48:00 From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 21:11:57 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 23:11:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <4C6703FD.5060305@libero.it> References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> <4C6703FD.5060305@libero.it> Message-ID: 2010/8/14 Mirco Romanato : > You know better than me that the FIRST Crusade started in 1094 and the > First Jihad started in 622 (when Mohammad was kick out from Makka by his > tribe). Of course. What I am saying is that the *evolution* of the Jihad concept - which as I said has some scriptural and traditional comfort - was largely influenced by the "crusade culture". More or less as Wahabism, in spite of its "traditionalist" pretences, is an exquisitely *modern* trend in Islam. -- Stefano Vaj From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Sat Aug 14 21:22:50 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:22:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> <4C6703FD.5060305@libero.it> Message-ID: >> Culture is ever in a flux >Is it? When cultures begin to stagnate, they streamline. When they grow, they expand amd mix. That seems like a flux. From painlord2k at libero.it Sat Aug 14 22:04:51 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 00:04:51 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <253233.90948.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> <253233.90948.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C671303.4020806@libero.it> Il 12/08/2010 15.23, Dan ha scritto: > I disagree. The tenets of any religion are open to interpretation, > and both various Christian and various Buddhists (again, see > http://www.amazon.com/Zen-at-War-Daizen-Victoria/dp/0834804050 -- the > title is _Zen at War_) have interpreted their religious doctrine to > justify war. Religion that don't justify war usually die, or mutate in ones that justify war. But the justification of war is different for every religion, because the tenets are different. Not all wars are justifiable, not always. But some were and are. You can tell the difference if you look at what war were justified and why, and what were not and why. care to look into the details? Islam, every school of Islamic Law, accept Jihad both aggressive and defensive. Every school of Islamic Law say changing religion from Islam is a crime punishable with death (one of them say life imprisonment and be beaten five time a day, but only for women - so tolerant). If you know a School of Islamic Law stating that people have the right to abandon Islam without retaliation, please share your knowledge. If not, your "open to interpretation" don't matter. Anyway, to return to the Ground Zero Mosque, from an article of Wafa Sultan to Pajama Media http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/daisy%E2%80%99s-con-ground-zero-mosque-imam%E2%80%99s-wife-tells-whopper-about-me/2/ ""As a member of Former Muslims United, last September ? along with other former Muslims ? I drafted a letter which was distributed to more than 100 Muslim clergy nationwide, including Imam Rauf and his wife Daisy. We asked them to sign the The Freedom Pledge, a declaration that calls for support for religious freedom and safety from harm for former Muslims. (Sharia requires a death penalty for anyone who leaves Islam.) We asked Muslims ? those who call themselves ?moderates? ? to ?repudiate the threat from authoritative Sharia to the religious freedom and safety of former Muslims.? Almost a year has passed, and neither Daisy nor Imam Rauf have responded to the letter and its call for tolerance of Muslim ?apostates.? It seems that ?reaching out? in brotherly love and acceptance is a one-way street for Daisy ? when she isn?t fabricating those gestures."" The Freedom Pledge is here: http://formermuslimsunited.americancommunityexchange.org/the-pledge/ > (You completely left out Judaism and the fact that Christians > generally accept the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) as canonical. The > Hebrew scriptures definitely provide rationales for wars and even for > genocides -- as well as supposedly documenting both wars and > genocides carried out in the name of that religion.) Sometimes wars are rationale, you know? Then, the genocide in the Bible, for what I remember, were not declared on the rationale of difference of religion or race, to convert the enemy; and they were not "open ended". Never read about "Go to Greece and convert the Athenians". > I bet the truth > is any long lived and widespread religion is going to be open to > justifying war -- because, it seems to me, human societies have > always made war and any society that was bound by an absolutely > pacifist religion would likely be wiped out by others not so bound. But there are religion that accept and mandate only defensive wars. Like I say, the "Just War" doctrine of the Catholic Church can be used without being Catholic. Try the "Just War" of Islam. It work only for Muslims. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3071 - Data di rilascio: 08/14/10 10:48:00 From pharos at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 21:46:47 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 01:46:47 +0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and silliness In-Reply-To: <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> References: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > "It is our spiritual duty to preserve these sacred traditions," said irate > survey respondent Joseph Omicron, 48. "If we let women become > telepathic-vision clerics, then what's next? Allowing them to grow hair?"> > > Oh Noooo! If women are allowed to be telepaths we men are in real trouble! It's the naughty step for us. :) BillK From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Sat Aug 14 22:32:11 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:32:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and silliness In-Reply-To: References: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: The real worry is when women start growing hair! They'll be able to learna ll your secrets AND take all your money! Who needs telepathy? ~Sabrina On 8/14/10, BillK wrote: > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: >> "It is our spiritual duty to preserve these sacred traditions," said irate >> survey respondent Joseph Omicron, 48. "If we let women become >> telepathic-vision clerics, then what's next? Allowing them to grow hair?"> >> >> > > > Oh Noooo! If women are allowed to be telepaths we men are in real trouble! > > It's the naughty step for us. :) > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From painlord2k at libero.it Sat Aug 14 23:21:25 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 01:21:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> <4C6575DC.5010900@libero.it> Message-ID: <4C6724F5.40603@libero.it> Il 13/08/2010 19.13, Sen Yamamoto ha scritto: > But my point is, people go to war for reasons other than religion. Often. > Why can't these people want to attack and THEN justify it through > their religion? Surely. But the justification is real or invented? > I think that this happens a lot. Usually justifications can be invented. Even with a "Just war" theory, I can claim the there is a "Clear and present danger" of this or that. Intelligent people usually look at the justifications and make their mind if they are believable or not, founded on facts or not. Strangely, even here, where intelligent people abound, some react with a knee-jerk reflex and not with reason and facts. If a woman fire to and kill a man and claim self-defense, because he was trying to rape her, one could look at the facts at hand to decide if believe her or not: 1) the man was shot 20 m away, in the back, he was full dressed and the women is without a mark or an hair out of order 2) the man was shot in front, point blank, was naked and the woman is wounded and bleeding Both could have invented the rape to justify the killing. But what is more coherent with the facts at hand? The first scenario or the second? Or it don't matter, as women kill men for reasons other than self defense? Islam (or Islamic Law - they are one and the same) is full of justification to kill, make war, enslave, rob, torture and so on against not Muslims. It is not difficult to find a justification. For example, Islamic Law call for sparing the life of the conquered people, apart for a few exception. Then, if you look at the exceptions, there are so many and so large, that the Muslims could kill anyone in the conquered land with an excuse or another. And, even some Muslim killed a Kuffar without an excuse, they are barren from punishing him for this. Do you ever tried to talk with some Muslim is a forum about these topics? Every time you will try to nail them to obtain a clear answer, they avoid to reply, change topics or ask for time to ask some "expert". Try to go to a forum for Muslism, where they talk between them in English, and read what they say to each other. It is enlightening. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3071 - Data di rilascio: 08/14/10 10:48:00 From painlord2k at libero.it Sat Aug 14 23:38:36 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 01:38:36 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> Message-ID: <4C6728FC.3090105@libero.it> Il 12/08/2010 18.25, Giulio Prisco ha scritto: > @Mirco "Christians, like Buddhists and others tend to become killers > against the tenets of their faiths, where the Muslims tend to become > killer when they start to take their faith too seriously." Come on > Mirco. I assume you have been raised a Christian, and I think you > should study the history of your own religion more carefully. Should > I provide a bibliography of atrocities committed by Christians in > the name of Christ? Instead of the past, tell me, at the present, a Bishop, a Cardinal, a Pope, whatever, that give out opinions like this and is not kicked out: Why is the apostate to be executed in Islam?. http://islamonline.com/news/articles/3/Why-is-the-apostate-to-be-executed-in-Islam-.html ""The evidence that the apostate is to be executed is the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): ???Whoever changes his religion, execute him.??? (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2794). What is meant by religion here is Islam (i.e., whoever changes from Islam to another religion). "" If you dare to read it all, maybe you can also find for us some authoritative and representative source that say this opinion is wrong. Maybe a source that say that good Muslims must oppose this opinion with words and acts and defend the apostate from his would be killers. When you find this Arabian Phoenix (that so many say exist but no one saw it) please fell free to share it will us. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3071 - Data di rilascio: 08/14/10 10:48:00 From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 01:21:56 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:21:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and silliness In-Reply-To: References: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Sen Yamamoto wrote: > The real worry is when women start growing hair! They'll be able to > learn all your secrets AND take all your money! Who needs telepathy? If not for women, men would have no use for money or secrets. Isn't all that a form of plumage meant to impress? From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Sun Aug 15 02:52:57 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 22:52:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and silliness In-Reply-To: References: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Hmmm... They could have the plumage to impress other men! ^.^? On 8/14/10, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Sen Yamamoto > wrote: >> The real worry is when women start growing hair! They'll be able to >> learn all your secrets AND take all your money! Who needs telepathy? > > If not for women, men would have no use for money or secrets. Isn't > all that a form of plumage meant to impress? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 03:37:07 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:37:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and silliness In-Reply-To: References: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: >From the Onion.com site: >>> Frankly, I find bald women very sexy (especially if they are beautiful to begin with, as with the Indian actress of Star Trek: The Motion Picture). But seriously, I think when humanity encounters aliens, it will help us to take a step back and notice how silly we are, ironically by viewing how goofy the other race may act at times. John On 8/14/10, Sen Yamamoto wrote: > Hmmm... They could have the plumage to impress other men! ^.^? > > On 8/14/10, Mike Dougherty wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Sen Yamamoto >> wrote: >>> The real worry is when women start growing hair! They'll be able to >>> learn all your secrets AND take all your money! Who needs telepathy? >> >> If not for women, men would have no use for money or secrets. Isn't >> all that a form of plumage meant to impress? >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 15 11:45:39 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 07:45:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and silliness Message-ID: John Grigg wrote: > But seriously, I think when humanity encounters aliens, it will help > us to take a step back and notice how silly we are, ironically by > viewing how goofy the other race may act at times. I saw Bill Clinton speak in South Africa in 2000. He said the same thing. He suggested that an advanced civilization of aliens coming to earth would probably not understand our refusal to help millions of fellow denizens on our planet who were dying of curable or controllable diseases such as AIDS and TB simply because they could not afford the drugs. He never mentioned the goofiness, but he was being mostly serious that day. Darren "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Aug 15 14:15:51 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:15:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> <6E5DC588-035F-40D0-B736-703CB8E2B2A6@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Aug 14, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > > There is a form of relativism that doesn't posit that relativism itself is objectively good, Then forget about good or bad, is relativism objectively true? > only that objectivity doesn't exist. But is what you just said really true, objectively? If we can't talk about good or evil or truth or falsehood then that would rather seriously limit the scope of philosophy and we'd only have the contemptible "the story of Adam and Eve and the talking snake is true for me" or "it's true for me that 2+2=5". Jebadiah, do you really think that is the proper way to figure out how the world works? By the way, does subjectivity exist, does existence exist? > > Similarly, "good" and "bad" are super-generalized terms of value, with "good" and "bad" usually being relative to some value of "normal" and with "better" and "worse" being used comparatively. [...] Yes but you almost make it sound like super-generalized concepts are a bad idea. > Value is judged according to some standard; there isn't a universal standard of value, obviously, because different entities have different values due to their different goals, positions, and domains of interaction. If a Muslim says "I think it was a good thing that a religious zealot through concentrated sulfuric acid into the face of a young schoolgirl for the crime of wanting an education" then I have learned something new, namely the persons standards are OBJECTIVELY incompatible with my own standards. We would disagree about who is right and who is wrong but we would both agree that are views are not in harmonious agreement. You can decide for yourself if your views are more similar to the Muslim's or to mine. > > in conclusion, there is no objective morality Absolutely true, but there is something far more important, subjective morality. I prefer to associate with people who's subjective morality is closer to mine than the acid thrower. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 15 18:00:04 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:00:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. Message-ID: > in conclusion, there is no objective morality . . . is a morally objective statement. Every conclusion that posits there absolutely "is" something or there absolutely "is not" something is in and of itself an absolutist position. That's why relativism is such a tough nut to crack: it relies on an objective perspective outside the system being judged to validate its observations. And the relative position beyond each relative assertion and waiting for its chance to respond is objectivism. And so on. It's a philosophical sink-hole. Not to mention a political mine-field, as objectivists (think Aristotle and slavery) usually end up making moral assertions that are repugnant to some, and relativists (think Machiavelli and drowning your enemies) usually (if inadvertently) undermine values that are important to most. Wittengstein noticed this, and said that to discuss such things you need a language and frame of reference entirely beyond what human beings are capable of as subjective observers. Perhaps what we are capable of is agreeing on that which would be acceptable to the largest number of people as mutually beneficial "universal" morality: a kind of philosophical and moral utilitarianism. Or we could step back a few years ( or a couple thousand of 'em) and adopt tribal territorial morality, which lets you do YOUR thing as long as it doesn't interfere substantially with MY thing. Either way, it would be better than what we have now, which is this constant back and forth between two dominant two world views and the conflict that always results when you try to impose your preference -- relativist or objectivist -- on others. A mish-mash of relative and objective opinion, I realize. But hey, I've given up trying to eat the meat of this particular chestnut. Darren "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer ________________________________ > From: jonkc at bellsouth.net > Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:15:51 -0400 > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. > > On Aug 14, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > > There is a form of relativism that doesn't posit that relativism itself > is objectively good, > > Then forget about good or bad, is relativism objectively true? > > only that objectivity doesn't exist. > > But is what you just said really true, objectively? If we can't talk > about good or evil or truth or falsehood then that would rather > seriously limit the scope of philosophy and we'd only have the > contemptible "the story of Adam and Eve and the talking snake is true > for me" or "it's true for me that 2+2=5". Jebadiah, do you really think > that is the proper way to figure out how the world works? > > By the way, does subjectivity exist, does existence exist? > > Similarly, "good" and "bad" are super-generalized terms of value, with > "good" and "bad" usually being relative to some value of "normal" and > with "better" and "worse" being used comparatively. [...] > > Yes but you almost make it sound like super-generalized concepts are a > bad idea. > > Value is judged according to some standard; there isn't a universal > standard of value, obviously, because different entities have different > values due to their different goals, positions, and domains of > interaction. > > If a Muslim says "I think it was a good thing that a religious zealot > through concentrated sulfuric acid into the face of a young schoolgirl > for the crime of wanting an education" then I have learned something > new, namely the persons standards are OBJECTIVELY incompatible with my > own standards. We would disagree about who is right and who is wrong > but we would both agree that are views are not in harmonious agreement. > You can decide for yourself if your views are more similar to the > Muslim's or to mine. > > > Absolutely true, but there is something far more important, subjective > morality. I prefer to associate with people who's subjective morality > is closer to mine than the acid thrower. > > John K Clark > > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing > list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From painlord2k at libero.it Sun Aug 15 22:14:24 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:14:24 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6866C0.1050408@libero.it> Il 13/08/2010 22.33, Stefano Vaj ha scritto: > Mmhhh. I have US, not Chinese military forces based in my country's > territory, and while Chinese may pose more of a threat to its ethnical > identity in terms of immigration, US cultural colonisation is > certainly much more invasive (see under "Hollywood" or "pop music") > than anything likely to come from China anytime soon. In fact, it > seems that it was quite difficult in Milan to recruit just 15 > professors able to teach Mandarin in high schools as opposed to the > pervasive presence of English in the Italian educational system... I never saw the US ARMY force anyone to buy Coke and watch Star Wars or Iron Man. In all my life I saw only voluntary buying of American stuff. For what I remember, the US military forces are here and stay here because the government approve it. The Center Left and the Center Right in the same way. It help reduce the need to pay for a costly armed force large and good enough to be useful to defend the country from external attacks. You are unable to find the 15 Mandarin teachers because you look for qualifications that are superfluous. You want "professors"; italian people with a piece of paper telling they know Mandarin and are able to teach it. I suggest you go in Via Paolo Sarpi in Milan: You will find as many Mandarin speaking individuals as you could wish and more. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3073 - Data di rilascio: 08/15/10 08:35:00 From seculartranshumanist at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 03:12:58 2010 From: seculartranshumanist at gmail.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:12:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] New Jersey Transhumanist Association Message-ID: For anyone in or around the Garden State, I have set up a meetup for Transhumanists in an attempt to jump-start the NJTA. The idea is to set up at least monthly meetups that are both social and practical. Anyone in the region who would be interested in such a thing, please check out the site at: http://www.meetup.com/NJ-Transhumanist-Association/ First meetup is September 13, in Rockaway, NJ. Joseph From moulton at moulton.com Mon Aug 16 06:19:18 2010 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:19:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China In-Reply-To: <4C6866C0.1050408@libero.it> References: <4C6866C0.1050408@libero.it> Message-ID: <1281939558.3851.392.camel@desktop-linux> On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 00:14 +0200, Mirco Romanato wrote: snip > large and good enough to be useful to defend the country from external > attacks. Exactly what entity is going to do this external attack? Fred From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Aug 16 14:26:58 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:26:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett In-Reply-To: <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> References: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6A0FE896-5DC6-40B0-AB23-8CB927A8AE9A@bellsouth.net> I've just finished this book and its one of the most enjoyable things I've read in a long time. Being a staple of science fiction and the only interpretation of quantum mechanics to enter the popular imagination it's a little surprising that "The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett" by Peter Byrne is the first biography of the originator of that amazing idea. Everett certainly had an interesting life, he was a libertarian and a libertine, became a cold warrior who with his top secret clearance was comfortable with the idea of megadeath, became wealthy by started one of the first successful software companies until alcoholism drove him and his company into the ground. Everett died of heart failure in 1982 at the age of 51, he was legally drunk at the time. He requested that his body be cremated and his ashes thrown into the garbage. And so he was. Byrne had an advantage other potential biographers did not, the cooperation of his son Mark, a successful rock musician and composer whose music has been featured in such big budget movies as American Beauty, Hellboy, Yes Man, all three of the Shrek movies and many others. Mark gave Byrne full access to his garage which was full of his father's papers that nobody had looked at in decades. Everett was an atheist all his life, after his death Paul Davies, who got 1,000,000 pounds for winning the Templeton religion prize, said that if true Many Worlds destroyed the anthropic argument for the existence of God. Everett would have been delighted. Nevertheless Everett ended up going to Catholic University of America near Washington DC. Although Byrne doesn't tell us exactly what was in it, Everett as a freshman devised a logical proof against the existence of God. Apparently it was good enough that one of his pious professors became very upset and depressed with "ontological horror" when he read it. Everett liked the professor and felt so guilty he decided not to use it on a person of faith again. This story is very atypical of the man, most of the time Everett seems to care little for the feelings of others and although quite brilliant wasn't exactly lovable. Everett wasn't the only one dissatisfied with the Copenhagen Interpretation which insisted the measuring device had to be outside the wave function, but he was unlike other dissidents such as Bohm or Cramer in that Everett saw no need to add new terms to Schrodinger's Equation and thought the equation meant exactly what it said. The only reason those extra terms were added was to try to rescue the single universe idea, and there was no experimental justification for that. Everett was unique in thinking that quantum mechanics gave a description of nature that was literally true. John Wheeler, Everett's thesis advisor, made him cut out about half the stuff in his original 137 page thesis and tone down the language so it didn't sound like he thought all those other universes were equally real when in fact he did. For example, Wheeler didn't like the word "split" and was especially uncomfortable with talk of conscious observers splitting, most seriously he made him remove the entire chapter on information and probability which today many consider the best part of the work. His long thesis was not published until 1973, if that version had been published in 1957 instead of the truncated Bowdlerized version things would have been different; plenty of people would still have disagreed but he would not have been ignored for as long as he was. Byrne writes of Everett's views: "the splitting of observers share an identity because they stem from a common ancestor, but they also embark on different fates in different universes. They experience different lifespans, dissimilar events (such as a nuclear war perhaps) and at some point are no longer the same person, even though they share certain memory records." Everett says that when a observer splits it is meaningless to ask "which of the final observers corresponds to the initial one since each possess the total memory of the first" he says it is as foolish as asking which amoeba is the original after it splits into two. Wheeler made him remove all such talk of amebas from his published short thesis. Byrne says Everett did not think there were just an astronomically large number of other universes but rather an infinite number of them, not only that he thought there were a non-denumerable infinite number of other worlds. This means that the number of them was larger than the infinite set of integers, but Byrne does not make it clear if this means they are as numerous as the number of points on a line, or as numerous as an even larger infinite set like the set of all possible clock faces, or maybe an even larger infinity than that where easy to understand examples of that sort of mega-infinite magnitude are hard to come by. Neill Graham tried to reformulate the theory so you'd only need a countably infinite number of branches and Everett at first liked the idea but later rejected it and concluded you couldn't derive probability by counting universes. Eventually even Graham seems to have agreed and abandoned the idea that the number of universes was so small you could count them. Taken as a whole Everett's multiverse, where all things happen, probability is not a useful concept and everything is deterministic. However for observers like us trapped in a single branch of the multiverse, observers who do not have access to the entire wave function and all the information it contains but only a small sliver of it, probability is the best we can do. That probability we see is not part of the thing itself but is just a subjective measure of our ignorance. Infinity can cause problems in figuring out probability but Everett said his theory could calculate what the probability any event could be observed in any branch of the multiverse, and it turns out to be the Born Rule (discovered by Max Born, grandfather of Olivia Newton John) which means the probability of finding a particle at a point is the squaring of the amplitude of the Schrodinger Wave function at that point. The Born Rule has been shown experimentally to be true but the Copenhagen Interpretation just postulates it, Everett said he could derive it from his theory it "emerges naturally as a measure of probability for observers confined to a single branch (like our branch)". He proved the mathematical consistency of this idea by adding up all the probabilities in all the branches of the event happening and getting exactly 100%. Dieter Zeh said Everett may not have rigorously derived the Born Rule but did justify it and showed it "as being the only reasonable choice for a probability measure if objective reality is represented by the universal wave function [Schrodinger's wave equation]". Rigorous proof or not that's more than any other quantum interpretation has managed to do. Everett wrote to his friend Max Jammer: "None of these physicists had grasped what I consider to be the major accomplishment of the theory- the "rigorous" deduction of the probability interpretation of Quantum Mechanics from wave mechanics alone. This deduction is just as "rigorous" as any deductions of classical statistical mechanics. [...] What is unique about the choice of measure and why it is forced upon one is that in both cases it is the only measure that satisfies the law of conservation of probability through the equations of motion. Thus logically in both classical statistical mechanics and in quantum mechanics, the only possible statistical statements depend upon the existence of a unique measure which obeys this conservation principle." Nevertheless some complained that Everett did not use enough rigor in his derivation. David Deutsch has helped close that rigor gap. He showed that the number of Everett-worlds after a branching is proportional to the conventional probability density. He then used Game Theory to show that all these are all equally likely to be observed. Everett would likely have been delighted as he used Game Theory extensively in his other life as a cold warrior. Professor Deutsch gave one of the best quotations in the entire book, talking about many worlds as a interpretation of Quantum Mechanics "is like talking about dinosaurs as an interpretation of the fossil record". Everett was disappointed at the poor reception his doctoral dissertation received and never published anything on quantum mechanics again for the rest of his life; instead he became a Dr. Strangelove type character making computer nuclear war games and doing grim operational research for the pentagon about armageddon. He was one of the first to point out that any defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles would be ineffectual and building an anti-balistic missile system could not be justified except for "political or psychological grounds". Byrne makes the case that Everett was the first one to convince high military leaders through mathematics and no nonsense non sentimental reasoning that a nuclear war could not be won, "after an attack by either superpower on the other, the majority of the attacked population that survived the initial blasts would be sterilized and gradually succumb to leukemia. Livestock would die quickly and survivors would be forced to rely on eating grains potatoes and vegetables. Unfortunately the produce would be seething with radioactive Strontium 90 which seeps into human bone marrow and causes cancer". Linus Pauling credited Evert by name and quoted from his pessimistic report in his Nobel acceptance speech for receiving the 1962 Nobel Peace prize. Despite his knowledge of the horrors of a nuclear war Everett, like most of his fellow cold warrior colleagues in the 50's and 60's, thought the probability of it happening was very high and would probably happen very soon. Byrne speculates in a footnote that Everett may have privately used anthropic reasoning and thought that the fact we live in a world where such a war has not happened (at least not yet) was more confirmation that his Many Worlds idea was right. Incidentally this is one of those rare books where the footnotes are almost as much fun to read as the main text. Hugh's daughter Liz Everett killed herself a few years after her father's death, in her suicide note she said "Funeral requests: I prefer no church stuff. Please burn be and DON'T FILE ME. Please sprinkle me in some nice body of water or the garbage, maybe that way I'll end up in the correct parallel universe to meet up with Daddy". And so she was. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 14:36:31 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 07:36:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:00 AM, "Fred C. Moulton" wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 00:14 +0200, Mirco Romanato wrote: > > snip >> large and good enough to be useful to defend the country from external >> attacks. > > Exactly what entity is going to do this external attack? India would be the obvious choice. Objectively that would be insane, but the Japanese were not sane, one could say downright irrational, to attack the US at Pearl Harbor. But the stone age objective of wars between little tribes was to reduced the population. In that sense the attack was an unmitigated success. Russia does not seem likely to me as an attacker. I don't know that the situation there could be considered a bright future, but they certainly don't have a growing population pressing the resource limits. (Though the bad weather this year seriously reduced the wheat crop.) If you want irrational behavior out of a country (or a tribe), all you have to do is attack them. Consider 9/11 in this light. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Aug 16 16:49:42 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:49:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett In-Reply-To: <6A0FE896-5DC6-40B0-AB23-8CB927A8AE9A@bellsouth.net> References: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> <6A0FE896-5DC6-40B0-AB23-8CB927A8AE9A@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4C696C26.6090004@satx.rr.com> Great review, John! I'd read about this book previously with vague interest, but you make me want to rush off and get my mitts on a copy! Damien Broderick From jebdm at jebdm.net Mon Aug 16 18:39:03 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:39:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> <6E5DC588-035F-40D0-B736-703CB8E2B2A6@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/8/15 John Clark > Then forget about good or bad, is relativism objectively true? > > only that objectivity doesn't exist. > > > But is what you just said really true, objectively? If we can't talk about > good or evil or truth or falsehood then that would rather seriously limit > the scope of philosophy and we'd only have the contemptible "the story of > Adam and Eve and the talking snake is true for me" or "it's true for me that > 2+2=5". Jebadiah, do you really think that is the proper way to figure out > how the world works? > Depends what you mean by "objective". Most people take things which are shown by logic to be "objectively" true, and I agree with this. The problem is, you always have to start with some axioms, or you can't show anything. And because we can't know anything directly--we have to rely on induction through our senses/experiences--we have no truly "known" axioms, and thus can't prove anything is true about our universe. We can prove things about posited universes, though, and we can posit descriptions of a universe which matches our experiences, then test whether our theorems still match our experiences. This is what learning and science and whatnot are all about. So, we can prove things objectively, but we can't prove things about our universe objectively. In fact, we can't prove that there is an objective universe at all, containing anything but our own mind (the "everything is in your head" scenario). (Technically I'd say that even if my mind is the only thing is the universe, that's still an objective universe, but there's really not much difference between "objective" and "subjective" in that case because there's only one subject. In fact, I think I'd argue that there's no such thing as a non-systematic universe at all, because if it ever seems that something is behaving as if it was not caused by anything, the cause probably just lies outside whatever we're calling "the universe" at the moment. But anyways.) But it sure seems like there are other people and a systematic universe, doesn't it? Even if it is all in our heads, since it seems to be a pretty good simulation it'd probably be best to go along with it. Though in that case there may be exploitable edge cases... So, again; objectivity exists, we can't prove things about our universe objectively. We do have a pretty good model, which we can prove things about; it's not technically the same, but it's close enough to work. Repeat your quote: > But is what you just said really true, objectively? If we can't talk about > good or evil or truth or falsehood then that would rather seriously limit > the scope of philosophy and we'd only have the contemptible "the story of > Adam and Eve and the talking snake is true for me" or "it's true for me that > 2+2=5". Jebadiah, do you really think that is the proper way to figure out > how the world works? > What I meant by "only that objectivity doesn't exist" was "only that moral objectivity doesn't exist"; I wasn't clear enough, sorry. And that, I think, is objectively true, given that the world doesn't have a god-like thing and that it doesn't compute on the level of humans. I didn't mean to say you couldn't talk about truth or falsehood, at all. I did mean that it's stupid to talk about good and evil in absolute terms, since they are both always relative to a value system. While it might be useful to omit the description of your value system most of the time, for brevity's sake, you have to keep in mind that it is one of many, and that other people hold different values, and that while "validity" doesn't really make sense, the whole "your system's no better than others" thing hold true in the sense that yours is probably not going to get enforced over others (unless you're in power) and that you'll just be butting heads if you just keep bringing that up. "True for me", I agree, is dumb. There is probably only one truth (as I mentioned, I do believe an objective reality exists), but it is not fully knowable, and the set of true statements contains no absolute moral judgments. > > By the way, does subjectivity exist, does existence exist? > I think I wasn't clear that I only meant that absolute morality didn't exist. I do believe, again, that objective truth exists, and that subjectivity as a concept exists (by which I mean I do believe that people believe different things according to their experiences), and of course that existence exists (but perhaps it's only an axiom). > you almost make it sound like super-generalized concepts are a bad idea. > Nope, I love me some generalized concepts. But the more you generalize something, the more it gets misapplied. Value is judged according to some standard; there isn't a universal standard > of value, obviously, because different entities have different values due to > their different goals, positions, and domains of interaction. > > > If a Muslim says "I think it was a good thing that a religious zealot > through concentrated sulfuric acid into the face of a young schoolgirl for > the crime of wanting an education" then I have learned something new, namely > the persons standards are OBJECTIVELY incompatible with my own standards. We > would disagree about who is right and who is wrong but we would both agree > that are views are not in harmonious agreement. You can decide for yourself > if your views are more similar to the Muslim's or to mine. > I'd say that they are objectively incompatible, sure. But this would be true even if the Muslim (or you) thought somehow that they were compatible, as long as you both didn't. (I'm taking "compatible" to be the function: compatible(a, b) = True if for all x in actions (a believes x is moral) implies (b believes x is moral) AND compatible(b, a), else False.) I agree with you about the specific action you cite. I don't know you well enough to judge otherwise (but it seems we disagree about a lot of things, especially the proper tone with which to conduct conversation with strangers, and the best way to convince the religious to stop being religious), and I certainly can't speak for all Muslims, even all Muslims holding the view you state, as a whole. Absolutely true, but there is something far more important, subjective > morality. I prefer to associate with people who's subjective morality is > closer to mine than the acid thrower. > Hooray! But your belief in universal rights (correct me if you don't believe in them) contradicts your belief in the non-universality of morality. Even if you specifically don't believe in universal rights, many people do despite not believing in universal morality, which is silly though an understandable state of affairs. As is the belief in religions at all. On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 1:00 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > > > in conclusion, there is no objective morality > > . . . is a morally objective statement. Nope, but it is an objective one. Just not *morally* objective statement. It'd be morally objective if I said "belief in objective morality is evil", which I didn't. > It's a philosophical sink-hole. Not to mention a political mine-field, as > objectivists (think Aristotle and slavery) usually end up making moral > assertions that are repugnant to some, and relativists (think Machiavelli > and drowning your enemies) usually (if inadvertently) undermine values that > are important to most. > I agree it's problematic. But I think I explained pretty thoroughly that at least my form of relativism only relies on the non-knowability of the universe to be true, which I think is pretty universally accepted. And really, I don't consider any moral statements to be true except as a statement of belief, perhaps a prediction of others' reaction, etc. Plus, I certainly don't consider all moral statements to be "equally valid" and am perfectly willing to favor my own reactions over others, modulo others' reactions to my reactions. (Which is the kicker that keeps people from all just doing whatever they want.) > Wittengstein noticed this, and said that to discuss such things you need a > language and frame of reference entirely beyond what human beings are > capable of as subjective observers. Perhaps what we are capable of is > agreeing on that which would be acceptable to the largest number of people > as mutually beneficial "universal" morality: a kind of philosophical and > moral utilitarianism. > I agree. I think there is probably a system which maximally satisfies peoples' senses of morality (and value in general) despite their differences, and I believe that that system is probably a variant of utilitarianism. > Or we could step back a few years ( or a couple thousand of 'em) and adopt > tribal territorial morality, which lets you do YOUR thing as long as it > doesn't interfere substantially with MY thing. Either way, it would be > better than what we have now, which is this constant back and forth between > two dominant two world views and the conflict that always results when you > try to impose your preference -- relativist or objectivist -- on others. > Or alternatively, just have one guy take over the world with absolute power, or implement mass-human-programming, or some such thing. Morally repugnant to most, but these types of solutions could theoretically end such conflicts. And if you were able to truly change peoples' minds via reprogramming or just propaganda, would it really matter? Of course, such ideal solutions don't seem to exist, and probably won't for a while. Though perhaps, given a singularity or something. Interesting to think about, and certainly many sci-fi writers have. Though they all seem to come to dystopianism... I wish there were more (or really, any) who didn't assume that such changes were Bad Mojo from the get go (though if that's the invariable conclusion, of course they shouldn't repress it, but I don't think it necessarily is). -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Aug 16 19:04:06 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:04:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Australian Academy of Science on climate change Message-ID: <4C698BA6.7080805@satx.rr.com> http://climatechange2010.realviewdigital.com/ 48pp online "booklet", with scads of refs. From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Aug 16 20:22:43 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:22:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett In-Reply-To: <4C696C26.6090004@satx.rr.com> References: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> <6A0FE896-5DC6-40B0-AB23-8CB927A8AE9A@bellsouth.net> <4C696C26.6090004@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Great review, John! I'd read about this book previously with vague interest, but you make me want to rush off and get my mitts on a copy! Thanks Damien, it really is a good book, they ought to make a movie. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 16 20:33:23 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:33:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: References: , <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net>, , , , <6E5DC588-035F-40D0-B736-703CB8E2B2A6@bellsouth.net>, , , Message-ID: >> in conclusion, there is no objective morality > > . . . is a morally objective statement. > > Nope, but it is an objective one. Just not *morally* objective > statement. It'd be morally objective if I said "belief in objective > morality is evil", which I didn't. Yup. I thought twice about putting "morally" in the above objection, and then decided it was, as well as being objective, also morally objective. Reasoning: if guy A says bananas are good. And guy B says bananas are bad, and?guy C comes along and says that bananas are neither good nor bad, they only seem that way to guy A and B because of their perspectives. But guy D. He says, then bananas are neither good nor bad? They are objectively tasteless? tastlessness is in fact their objective nature? Isn't tastlessness also a taste? A kind of judgement and perspective as well, made from inside a system with an opposite view waiting to be aired from inside another system? This is where things get tricky for relativism. I agree that once you use logic to extricate yourself from the base-level moral system( bananas are good or bad) you can say you're done. Any further discussion about it is just a semantics/logic game. The problem is we keep playing it anyway. When I first joined this group I suggested that any discussion about God's existence --pro or con-- was in fact a huge waste of time. I believe the same thing about relativism vs objectivism. Another way to frame that argument is fundamentalism vs modernism. It's been raging for thousands of years and maybe longer. In practically every intellectual discipline known to man. Everyone keeps refining their arguments based on the last guy's try 'till the original question, the one everyone should be asking, is lost: why in the hell do we care how other people frame their beliefs anyway if it doesn't interfere with my way of life? I still think evolutionary psychology offers some clues: we're still operating in a brand new world with very old survival programming.? > Or alternatively, just have one guy take over the world with absolute > power, Seriously suggested not only as a possibility, but as an inevitability, by U.S. foreign policy thinker Robert Kaplan in his book "The Coming Anarchy." Darren "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer ________________________________ > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:39:03 -0500 > From: jebdm at jebdm.net > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. > > 2010/8/15 John Clark> > Then forget about good or bad, is relativism objectively true? > > only that objectivity doesn't exist. > > But is what you just said really true, objectively? If we can't talk > about good or evil or truth or falsehood then that would rather > seriously limit the scope of philosophy and we'd only have the > contemptible "the story of Adam and Eve and the talking snake is true > for me" or "it's true for me that 2+2=5". Jebadiah, do you really think > that is the proper way to figure out how the world works? > > Depends what you mean by "objective". Most people take things which > are shown by logic to be "objectively" true, and I agree with this. > The problem is, you always have to start with some axioms, or you > can't show anything. And because we can't know anything directly--we > have to rely on induction through our senses/experiences--we have no > truly "known" axioms, and thus can't prove anything is true about our > universe. > > We can prove things about posited universes, though, and we can posit > descriptions of a universe which matches our experiences, then test > whether our theorems still match our experiences. This is what > learning and science and whatnot are all about. > > So, we can prove things objectively, but we can't prove things about > our universe objectively. In fact, we can't prove that there is an > objective universe at all, containing anything but our own mind (the > "everything is in your head" scenario). (Technically I'd say that even > if my mind is the only thing is the universe, that's still an objective > universe, but there's really not much difference between "objective" > and "subjective" in that case because there's only one subject. In > fact, I think I'd argue that there's no such thing as a non-systematic > universe at all, because if it ever seems that something is behaving as > if it was not caused by anything, the cause probably just lies outside > whatever we're calling "the universe" at the moment. But anyways.) > > But it sure seems like there are other people and a systematic > universe, doesn't it? Even if it is all in our heads, since it seems > to be a pretty good simulation it'd probably be best to go along with > it. Though in that case there may be exploitable edge cases... > > So, again; objectivity exists, we can't prove things about our universe > objectively. We do have a pretty good model, which we can prove things > about; it's not technically the same, but it's close enough to work. > > Repeat your quote: > But is what you just said really true, objectively? If we can't talk > about good or evil or truth or falsehood then that would rather > seriously limit the scope of philosophy and we'd only have the > contemptible "the story of Adam and Eve and the talking snake is true > for me" or "it's true for me that 2+2=5". Jebadiah, do you really think > that is the proper way to figure out how the world works? > > What I meant by "only that objectivity doesn't exist" was "only that > moral objectivity doesn't exist"; I wasn't clear enough, sorry. And > that, I think, is objectively true, given that the world doesn't have a > god-like thing and that it doesn't compute on the level of humans. I > didn't mean to say you couldn't talk about truth or falsehood, at all. > I did mean that it's stupid to talk about good and evil in absolute > terms, since they are both always relative to a value system. While it > might be useful to omit the description of your value system most of > the time, for brevity's sake, you have to keep in mind that it is one > of many, and that other people hold different values, and that while > "validity" doesn't really make sense, the whole "your system's no > better than others" thing hold true in the sense that yours is probably > not going to get enforced over others (unless you're in power) and that > you'll just be butting heads if you just keep bringing that up. > > "True for me", I agree, is dumb. There is probably only one truth (as > I mentioned, I do believe an objective reality exists), but it is not > fully knowable, and the set of true statements contains no absolute > moral judgments. > > > > By the way, does subjectivity exist, does existence exist? > > I think I wasn't clear that I only meant that absolute morality didn't > exist. I do believe, again, that objective truth exists, and that > subjectivity as a concept exists (by which I mean I do believe that > people believe different things according to their experiences), and of > course that existence exists (but perhaps it's only an axiom). > > you almost make it sound like super-generalized concepts are a bad idea. > > Nope, I love me some generalized concepts. But the more you generalize > something, the more it gets misapplied. > > Value is judged according to some standard; there isn't a universal > standard of value, obviously, because different entities have different > values due to their different goals, positions, and domains of > interaction. > > If a Muslim says "I think it was a good thing that a religious zealot > through concentrated sulfuric acid into the face of a young schoolgirl > for the crime of wanting an education" then I have learned something > new, namely the persons standards are OBJECTIVELY incompatible with my > own standards. We would disagree about who is right and who is wrong > but we would both agree that are views are not in harmonious agreement. > You can decide for yourself if your views are more similar to the > Muslim's or to mine. > > I'd say that they are objectively incompatible, sure. But this would > be true even if the Muslim (or you) thought somehow that they > were compatible, as long as you both didn't. (I'm taking "compatible" > to be the function: compatible(a, b) = True if for all x in actions (a > believes x is moral) implies (b believes x is moral) AND compatible(b, > a), else False.) > > I agree with you about the specific action you cite. I don't know you > well enough to judge otherwise (but it seems we disagree about a lot of > things, especially the proper tone with which to conduct conversation > with strangers, and the best way to convince the religious to stop > being religious), and I certainly can't speak for all Muslims, even all > Muslims holding the view you state, as a whole. > > Absolutely true, but there is something far more important, subjective > morality. I prefer to associate with people who's subjective morality > is closer to mine than the acid thrower. > > Hooray! But your belief in universal rights (correct me if you don't > believe in them) contradicts your belief in the non-universality of > morality. Even if you specifically don't believe in universal rights, > many people do despite not believing in universal morality, which is > silly though an understandable state of affairs. As is the belief in > religions at all. > > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 1:00 PM, darren shawn > greer> wrote: > >> in conclusion, there is no objective morality > > . . . is a morally objective statement. > > Nope, but it is an objective one. Just not *morally* objective > statement. It'd be morally objective if I said "belief in objective > morality is evil", which I didn't. > > It's a philosophical sink-hole. Not to mention a political mine-field, > as objectivists (think Aristotle and slavery) usually end up making > moral assertions that are repugnant to some, and relativists (think > Machiavelli and drowning your enemies) usually (if inadvertently) > undermine values that are important to most. > > I agree it's problematic. But I think I explained pretty thoroughly > that at least my form of relativism only relies on the non-knowability > of the universe to be true, which I think is pretty universally > accepted. And really, I don't consider any moral statements to be true > except as a statement of belief, perhaps a prediction of others' > reaction, etc. Plus, I certainly don't consider all moral statements > to be "equally valid" and am perfectly willing to favor my own > reactions over others, modulo others' reactions to my reactions. > (Which is the kicker that keeps people from all just doing whatever > they want.) > > Wittengstein noticed this, and said that to discuss such things you > need a language and frame of reference entirely beyond what human > beings are capable of as subjective observers. Perhaps what we are > capable of is agreeing on that which would be acceptable to the largest > number of people as mutually beneficial "universal" morality: a kind of > philosophical and moral utilitarianism. > > I agree. I think there is probably a system which maximally satisfies > peoples' senses of morality (and value in general) despite their > differences, and I believe that that system is probably a variant of > utilitarianism. > > Or we could step back a few years ( or a couple thousand of 'em) and > adopt tribal territorial morality, which lets you do YOUR thing as long > as it doesn't interfere substantially with MY thing. Either way, it > would be better than what we have now, which is this constant back and > forth between two dominant two world views and the conflict that always > results when you try to impose your preference -- relativist or > objectivist -- on others. > > Or alternatively, just have one guy take over the world with absolute > power, or implement mass-human-programming, or some such thing. Morally > repugnant to most, but these types of solutions could theoretically end > such conflicts. And if you were able to truly change peoples' minds > via reprogramming or just propaganda, would it really matter? > > Of course, such ideal solutions don't seem to exist, and probably won't > for a while. Though perhaps, given a singularity or something. > Interesting to think about, and certainly many sci-fi writers have. > Though they all seem to come to dystopianism... I wish there were more > (or really, any) who didn't assume that such changes were Bad Mojo from > the get go (though if that's the invariable conclusion, of course they > shouldn't repress it, but I don't think it necessarily is). > > -- > Jebadiah Moore > http://blog.jebdm.net > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing > list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Aug 16 20:44:29 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:44:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett In-Reply-To: References: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> <6A0FE896-5DC6-40B0-AB23-8CB927A8AE9A@bellsouth.net> <4C696C26.6090004@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4C69A32D.8050203@satx.rr.com> On 8/16/2010 3:22 PM, John Clark wrote: > it really is a good book, they ought to make a movie. or a transfinite number of movies, all slightly different... From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Aug 16 20:36:00 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett In-Reply-To: References: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> <6A0FE896-5DC6-40B0-AB23-8CB927A8AE9A@bellsouth.net> <4C696C26.6090004@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <977417.89308.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> And then a musical! :) Regards, Dan From: John Clark To: ExI chat list Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 4:22:43 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: Great review, John! I'd read about this book previously with vague interest, but you make me want to rush off and get my mitts on a copy! > Thanks Damien, it really is a good book, they ought to make a movie. ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nymphomation at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 21:23:23 2010 From: nymphomation at gmail.com (*Nym*) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:23:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett In-Reply-To: References: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> <6A0FE896-5DC6-40B0-AB23-8CB927A8AE9A@bellsouth.net> <4C696C26.6090004@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/16 John Clark : > On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Great review, John! I'd read about this book previously with vague interest, > but you make me want to rush off and get my mitts on a copy! > > Thanks Damien, it really is a good book, they ought to make a movie. > ?John K Clark There was this one hour short a little while back on BBC Four.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008d2zj#broadcasts HTH Heavy splashings, Thee Nymphomation 'If you cannot afford an executioner, a duty executioner will be appointed to you free of charge by the court' From lubkin at unreasonable.com Mon Aug 16 22:54:13 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:54:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Heinlein biography Message-ID: <201008162333.o7GNXo0F016565@andromeda.ziaspace.com> The first half of a long-awaited two-volume biography of Rear Admiral Robert Anson Heinlein is being released tomorrow. William H. Patterson Jr., Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue With His Century, Volume 1 1907-1948: Learning Curve List $29.99, but Amazon sold me a pre-order for $19.79. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0765319608 It got a rave review in the Washington Post. Among my regrets in life is that by the time it occurred to me to try to arrange a VIP tour of the Livermore lab for Heinlein, it was no longer feasible. I spoke to Jerry Pournelle and others then, who'd all agreed he'd have enjoyed it, but he was simply too infirm for the trip, even by chopper. I suppose meeting the man might have tarnished the legend in my mind, but I'd have taken that risk without hesitation. Likewise, reading the bio might, but I'd rather respect the actual flawed man than a conjure. -- David. From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Aug 17 01:39:59 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:39:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and silliness In-Reply-To: References: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4C69E86F.50801@mac.com> BillK wrote: > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > >> "It is our spiritual duty to preserve these sacred traditions," said irate >> survey respondent Joseph Omicron, 48. "If we let women become >> telepathic-vision clerics, then what's next? Allowing them to grow hair?"> >> >> >> > > > Oh Noooo! If women are allowed to be telepaths we men are in real trouble! > > It's the naughty step for us. :) > Do you really think that we don't know *exactly* what is on you guys' mind most of the time? :) - s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Aug 17 01:50:09 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:50:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Religions and silliness In-Reply-To: <4C69E86F.50801@mac.com> References: <103068.89630.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4C66D97B.1060001@satx.rr.com> <4C69E86F.50801@mac.com> Message-ID: <4C69EAD1.6060404@satx.rr.com> On 8/16/2010 8:39 PM, samantha wrote: >> Oh Noooo! If women are allowed to be telepaths we men are in real trouble! >> It's the naughty step for us. :) > Do you really think that we don't know *exactly* what is on you guys' > mind most of the time? :) Some have an advantage over others. Damien Broderick From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Aug 17 01:50:38 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:50:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <4C6724F5.40603@libero.it> References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> <4C6575DC.5010900@libero.it> <4C6724F5.40603@libero.it> Message-ID: <4C69EAEE.5020708@mac.com> Mirco Romanato wrote: > Il 13/08/2010 19.13, Sen Yamamoto ha scritto: > >> But my point is, people go to war for reasons other than religion. >> > > Often. > > >> Why can't these people want to attack and THEN justify it through >> their religion? >> > > Surely. But the justification is real or invented? > > >> I think that this happens a lot. >> > > Usually justifications can be invented. > Even with a "Just war" theory, I can claim the there is a "Clear and > present danger" of this or that. > A claim of clear and present danger does not in any way justify the initiation of force. There is a clear and present danger that many people I know will invent something quite dangerous that will get lose. Does that mean they should be locked up, shot, or otherwise forcibly prevented just on the chance? No. Any other entity with enough power to do you damage is in principle a clear and present danger. > Intelligent people usually look at the justifications and make their > mind if they are believable or not, founded on facts or not. > Strangely, even here, where intelligent people abound, some react with a > knee-jerk reflex and not with reason and facts. > > If a woman fire to and kill a man and claim self-defense, because he was > trying to rape her, one could look at the facts at hand to decide if > believe her or not: > 1) the man was shot 20 m away, in the back, he was full dressed and the > women is without a mark or an hair out of order > 2) the man was shot in front, point blank, was naked and the woman is > wounded and bleeding > > After I am wounded and bleeding is rather late to shoot an assailant. The idea of a gun is that you shoot them before they get close enough to do such bodily harm. Most rapist do not get fully naked as all they need to do is unzip their fly. And if someone closes on me with obvious to me intent to harm or rape me I will pull the gun and tell him to back off or die IF he is far enough away. Note that a young guy in good shape can close 20 ft or so distance in not much more than my reaction time. So there may not be much point in warning if the assailant is much closer than that. > Both could have invented the rape to justify the killing. > But what is more coherent with the facts at hand? > The first scenario or the second? > Or it don't matter, as women kill men for reasons other than self defense? > > > Islam (or Islamic Law - they are one and the same) is full of > justification to kill, make war, enslave, rob, torture and so on against > not Muslims. > > So is Christianity. Check out the first 5 books of the Old Testament. > It is not difficult to find a justification. > > For example, Islamic Law call for sparing the life of the conquered > people, apart for a few exception. Then, if you look at the exceptions, > there are so many and so large, that the Muslims could kill anyone in > the conquered land with an excuse or another. And, even some Muslim > killed a Kuffar without an excuse, they are barren from punishing him > for this. > > Do you ever tried to talk with some Muslim is a forum about these > topics? Every time you will try to nail them to obtain a clear answer, > they avoid to reply, change topics or ask for time to ask some "expert". > > Try to go to a forum for Muslism, where they talk between them in > English, and read what they say to each other. It is enlightening. > > It is not just Muslims or just religious people. In general most people all too easily justify initiating force against individuals and entire groups of people. Whipping oneself up into worry about Muslims is one such danger signal. What you really should be worried about is what your own government does to your and yours every single day and in broad daylight. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Aug 17 01:53:58 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:53:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and silliness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C69EBB6.3000608@mac.com> darren shawn greer wrote: > > John Grigg wrote: > > >> But seriously, I think when humanity encounters aliens, it will help >> us to take a step back and notice how silly we are, ironically by >> viewing how goofy the other race may act at times. >> > > > I saw Bill Clinton speak in South Africa in 2000. He said the same thing. He suggested that an advanced civilization of aliens coming to earth would probably not understand our refusal to help millions of fellow denizens on our planet who were dying of curable or controllable diseases such as AIDS and TB simply because they could not afford the drugs. > > Drugs grow on trees? Since when is mere need a license to take from others? Yes, drugs are overpriced. But are you sure you want to live in a world where whatever you produce by your own effort at non-zero cost can be demanded whenever anyone anywhere needs it without compensation? Think about it. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Aug 17 01:59:42 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:59:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> <6E5DC588-035F-40D0-B736-703CB8E2B2A6@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4C69ED0E.4070403@mac.com> John Clark wrote: > On Aug 14, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Jebadiah Moore wrote: >> >> There is a form of relativism that doesn't posit that relativism >> itself is objectively good, > Relativism - relative to what exactly? What objective facts are used to judge the relative merits of one course of action as opposed to another in a particular situation? > Then forget about good or bad, is relativism objectively true? > >> only that objectivity doesn't exist. > That is as an objective a claim as I have seen. > But is what you just said really true, objectively? If we can't talk > about good or evil or truth or falsehood then that would rather > seriously limit the scope of philosophy and we'd only have the > contemptible "the story of Adam and Eve and the talking snake is true > for me" or "it's true for me that 2+2=5". Jebadiah, do you really > think that is the proper way to figure out how the world works? > > By the way, does subjectivity exist, does existence exist? >> Good questions. >> Similarly, "good" and "bad" are super-generalized terms of value, >> with "good" and "bad" usually being relative to some value of >> "normal" and with "better" and "worse" being used comparatively. [...] > Really? What is your definition of "value" then? On what basis do you determine what is "better" or "worse"? > Yes but you almost make it sound like super-generalized concepts are a > bad idea. > >> Value is judged according to some standard; there isn't a universal >> standard of value, obviously, because different entities have >> different values due to their different goals, positions, and domains >> of interaction. > I am not concerned with universal. I am concerned with rational ethical standards in the realm of human beings first and foremost. So you are saying their are no commonalities based on the nature of human beings to root values in? > If a Muslim says "I think it was a good thing that a religious zealot > through concentrated sulfuric acid into the face of a young schoolgirl > for the crime of wanting an education" then I have learned something > new, namely the persons standards are OBJECTIVELY incompatible with my > own standards. We would disagree about who is right and who is wrong > but we would both agree that are views are not in harmonious > agreement. You can decide for yourself if your views are more similar > to the Muslim's or to mine. >> >> in conclusion, there is no objective morality > > Absolutely true, but there is something far more important, subjective > morality. I prefer to associate with people who's subjective morality > is closer to mine than the acid thrower. False. In the context of beings with an objective set of characteristics there is an objective basis for what is the "good" regarding the behavior of those beings toward one another. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Aug 17 02:29:08 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:29:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> <6E5DC588-035F-40D0-B736-703CB8E2B2A6@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4C69F3F4.2040900@mac.com> Jebadiah Moore wrote: > 2010/8/15 John Clark > > > Then forget about good or bad, is relativism objectively true? > > >> only that objectivity doesn't exist. > > But is what you just said really true, objectively? If we can't > talk about good or evil or truth or falsehood then that would > rather seriously limit the scope of philosophy and we'd only have > the contemptible "the story of Adam and Eve and the talking snake > is true for me" or "it's true for me that 2+2=5". Jebadiah, do you > really think that is the proper way to figure out how the world works? > > > Depends what you mean by "objective". Most people take things which > are shown by logic to be "objectively" true, and I agree with this. > The problem is, you always have to start with some axioms, or you > can't show anything. And because we can't know anything directly--we > have to rely on induction through our senses/experiences--we have no > truly "known" axioms, and thus can't prove anything is true about our > universe. > There is no other way of knowing possible except through some form of sensory apparatus processed by some form of processing and pattern extraction unit like a brain. If anyone believes that there is I would be very keen to learn exactly how you think that would work or could come to be. We only have what is as congruent with what we perceive and non-contradictory processing of that and the patterns derived from it and as scrupulously checked as we are able and willing. But to say that isn't "objective" makes no sense. It is as objective as it is possible in reality for any intelligence to be. There is nothing better to compare it to in a seemingly denigrating manner. > We can prove things about posited universes, though, and we can posit > descriptions of a universe which matches our experiences, then test > whether our theorems still match our experiences. This is what > learning and science and whatnot are all about. And sound epistemology in general. > > So, we can prove things objectively, but we can't prove things about > our universe objectively. That does not compute. You are claiming that only pure logic based on axioms is "objective"? > In fact, we can't prove that there is an objective universe at all, > containing anything but our own mind (the "everything is in your head" > scenario). That is a very limited definition of "objective" as it requires some godlike absolute knowledge that is impossible for any actual mind to ever ever have in order to have any objective knowledge about anything much beyond maths. That is an absurd position. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 17 03:34:51 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:34:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and silliness Message-ID: >Drugs grow on trees? Yes, some of them do, in fact. And some come from insects. And elsewhere in the natural world.> Since when is mere need a license to take from others? Perhaps when the scale of loss, death and destruction is so great that to not give it de-stabilizes the entire planet? Our own governments give 25 billion in aid to Africa a year. We also fund the development of drugs that some companies turn around and sell back to them (as many of us can't afford them) at ridiculous prices. Does this make sense?> . . . are you sure you want to live in a world where whatever you produce by your own effort at non-zero cost can be demanded whenever anyone anywhere needs it without compensation? Think about it. I don't think I said this. I don't even think Clinton said this. Yet there seems to be a pervading posthuman/transhuman ideal for improving the lives of humans through technology. Or is there only an ideal that can improve it for those who can afford it? Read Donna Harroway or Rosi Bridotti's essay on Theory, Culture and Society. http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/23/7-8/197.full.pdf+html. They don't refer explicitly to the free market, but they do discuss indviduation in a posthuman context. If the renaissance-inspired ideas of human ontology are being questioned by posthuman thinkers, then so is the idea of the individual. And so by extension is the free-market economy.Darren 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die.-Alfred Lord Tennyson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Tue Aug 17 04:33:54 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:33:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <4C69EAEE.5020708@mac.com> References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> <4C6575DC.5010900@libero.it> <4C6724F5.40603@libero.it> <4C69EAEE.5020708@mac.com> Message-ID: Your two claims contradict each other: 2010/8/16 samantha > A claim of clear and present danger does not in any way justify the > initiation of force. There is a clear and present danger that many people I > know will invent something quite dangerous that will get lose. Does that > mean they should be locked up, shot, or otherwise forcibly prevented just on > the chance? No. Any other entity with enough power to do you damage is in > principle a clear and present danger. > > After I am wounded and bleeding is rather late to shoot an assailant. The > idea of a gun is that you shoot them before they get close enough to do such > bodily harm. Most rapist do not get fully naked as all they need to do is > unzip their fly. And if someone closes on me with obvious to me intent to > harm or rape me I will pull the gun and tell him to back off or die IF he is > far enough away. Note that a young guy in good shape can close 20 ft or so > distance in not much more than my reaction time. So there may not be much > point in warning if the assailant is much closer than that. > Perhaps by the first you meant that "a claim of clear and present danger does not always justify the initiation of force". Which is certainly true, because it's easy to cook up a claim, even one that seems relatively plausible. But surely it's "justifiable" to kill a guy who's got a bomb strapped to his chest, even if there's the possibility that he might be just kidding. Really, it's a function of the probability of a negative event, and the degree of negativity of the event; if it's highly probable that someone will kill you if you don't take action, then I'd say you're justified; if it's 60% probable that someone will blow up an entire city, it's probably justified. But it's not a simple question of utility, I don't think, because there are people who'd say you're not justified in killing a burglar, or that you're not justified in killing someone who's got a 1% of destroying everyone (even though that's a weighted utility of 70,000,000 lives). And of course, there are always varying assessments to keep in mind--even if you think a guy's gonna kill you with 90% probability, other people might disagree. (I'm assuming here that by "justified"/"justifiable", you mean "justifiable to your conscience and to other people", not "righteous", which is another matter entirely.) -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Tue Aug 17 04:47:03 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:47:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> <6E5DC588-035F-40D0-B736-703CB8E2B2A6@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:33 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > > > >> in conclusion, there is no objective morality > > > > . . . is a morally objective statement. > > > > Nope, but it is an objective one. Just not *morally* objective > > statement. It'd be morally objective if I said "belief in objective > > morality is evil", which I didn't. > > Yup. I thought twice about putting "morally" in the above objection, and > then decided it was, as well as being objective, also morally objective. > Reasoning: if guy A says bananas are good. And guy B says bananas are bad, > and guy C comes along and says that bananas are neither good nor bad, they > only seem that way to guy A and B because of their perspectives. > But guy D. He says, then bananas are neither good nor bad? They are > objectively tasteless? tastlessness is in fact their objective nature? > Isn't tastlessness also a taste? A kind of judgement and perspective as > well, made from inside a system with an opposite view waiting to be aired > from inside another system? Not really. It's a judgement, but one of a different type. If you ask me what color chairs are, and I say that chairs don't have an intrinsic color, I'm not "actually" saying that they have a color and that color is colorlessness. Person D isn't saying (or shouldn't be, given that it seems you're saying that I am to him as morality is to bananas) that they are tasteless (and I'm not saying acts don't have a morality), just that acts aren't good or bad objectively and that the assignment of a value depends on your perspective. Just like in relativistic physics, where objects don't have a velocity absolutely, only relative to a certain perspective. > This is where things get tricky for relativism. I agree that once you use > logic to extricate yourself from the base-level moral system( bananas are > good or bad) you can say you're done. Any further discussion about it is > just a semantics/logic game. > The problem is we keep playing it anyway. > Even once you've said that there isn't a universal moral system, there are plenty of interesting things left to do. You can examine correlations between systems and backgrounds, you can convince people to convert to your system, you can relate your system of morality to your system of values in general, you can devise new moral systems with maximal acceptance for a group or even humanity as a whole, etc. Flawed as they are (I sometimes wish we could circumvent morality entirely and just use our "true" values directly to make judgments), a sense of morality seems to be built-in by evolution, so I say we figure out the best way to use it. Just like any other tool. > When I first joined this group I suggested that any discussion about God's > existence --pro or con-- was in fact a huge waste of time. I believe the > same thing about relativism vs objectivism. Another way to frame that > argument is fundamentalism vs modernism. It's been raging for thousands of > years and maybe longer. I think I've answered most of the questions with regard to my form of relativism pretty convincingly. Convincingly to me, at least, as well as to other people around me. And I've been able to convince others to believe it. And I don't think it's a matter of stubbornness; I came from a very absolutist Christian background, and have changed my view many times in response to other peoples' logic, as well as my own. But perhaps I've become stubborn in my old age and not realized it. > In practically every intellectual discipline known to man. > Everyone keeps refining their arguments based on the last guy's try 'till > the original question, the one everyone should be asking, is lost: why in > the hell do we care how other people frame their beliefs anyway if it > doesn't interfere with my way of life? I still think evolutionary psychology > offers some clues: we're still operating in a brand new world with very old > survival programming. > It's a pretty interesting question. A related one is, "why do we fight so hard to prove other people on the internet wrong"? > > Or alternatively, just have one guy take over the world with absolute > > power, > Seriously suggested not only as a possibility, but as an inevitability, by > U.S. foreign policy thinker Robert Kaplan in his book "The Coming Anarchy." > I definitely think it's a possibility, perhaps an inevitability. And I believe it could, at least potentially, be a good thing. I'll have to read the book. -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Tue Aug 17 05:11:34 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:11:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: <4C69ED0E.4070403@mac.com> References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> <6E5DC588-035F-40D0-B736-703CB8E2B2A6@bellsouth.net> <4C69ED0E.4070403@mac.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/16 samantha > John Clark wrote: > > On Aug 14, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > > There is a form of relativism that doesn't posit that relativism itself is > objectively good, > > > Relativism - relative to what exactly? What objective facts are used to > judge the relative merits of one course of action as opposed to another in a > particular situation? > "Morality" seems to mean not only judging the value of a course of action, but the "goodness", which seems to be some sort of evolved mechanism designed to make us cooperate. And in my formulation thereof (and most others), the judgement is made relative to your background, so that people vary in their judgements, but none of the judgments are "correct", because they are statements of value. > Then forget about good or bad, is relativism objectively true? > > only that objectivity doesn't exist. > > > > That is as an objective a claim as I have seen. > Again, I apologize for not-being sufficiently clear; I only meant that moral objectivity (a.k.a, moral absolutism, a.k.a the belief that acts are objectively and absolutely right or wrong) doesn't exist if some sort of supernatural something doesn't exist (because otherwise there is no source of judgment, and because physical laws don't exist at the level of humans, and because if there was a physical law it'd have to manifest itself in some observable way). Similarly, "good" and "bad" are super-generalized terms of value, with > "good" and "bad" usually being relative to some value of "normal" and with > "better" and "worse" being used comparatively. [...] > > > Really? What is your definition of "value" then? On what basis do you > determine what is "better" or "worse"? > I'm not going to go into detail with my own personal value system, since it is detailed and boring and I don't explicitly know most of it ;) But "value" is different from "moral". Values are quite general; you "value" anything which you have a preference for, be it sex or chocolate pudding. They are determined by genetic and social evolution, but they are arbitrary in the sense that your particular set of values very well could be completely different from what they actually are, and they'd still be values. Morals are a specific type of values, which (as I mentioned above) seem to be mainly oriented toward making our monkey brains work together instead of killing each other. "This ice cream is good because it is vanilla" is a value judgment; "this person is bad because he killed my mom" is a moral judgment AND a value judgment (since a moral judgment IS A type of value judgment). > Value is judged according to some standard; there isn't a universal > standard of value, obviously, because different entities have different > values due to their different goals, positions, and domains of interaction. > > > I am not concerned with universal. I am concerned with rational ethical > standards in the realm of human beings first and foremost. So you are > saying their are no commonalities based on the nature of human beings to > root values in? > Of course there are commonalities. But not as many as people seem to think, particularly when it comes to edge cases. "Ethical dilemmas" are enlightening in this department. I do have hope that someone will design an ethical standard optimized in a sort of utilitarian way, so as to please the most people. This would at least be interesting. Though I am afraid of this, since a claim to "optimization" might spurn acceptance, and since a lot of people seem to think that atheists/agnostics are evil. The problem is, that because there isn't a universal ethical standard, and because there are many different standards held by many different people/groups which are often conflicting, any particular standard is going to be either incomplete or will judge some things to be bad that many think are not and visa versa. If it's incomplete, it will be rather like our common law (though of course you could probably improve it). If it's complete, then there are Big Problems, since there's no good way to decide which people to favor. Even utilitarianism doesn't cut it for me at least, since (for instance) it'd be rather probable for something like atheism to be considered evil. And I'd be willing to bet if you actually made a utilitarian judgment, almost everyone would disagree with the system you came up with in some way, and people don't like to follow systems they disagree with even if they agree with a lot of it. False. In the context of beings with an objective set of characteristics > there is an objective basis for what is the "good" regarding the behavior of > those beings toward one another. > Simple counterexample: the prisoner's dilemma. And that's with both parties sharing an objective value system. And, like I think I pretty clearly explained, people seem to have lots of conflicting points of view on what is good and evil (as well as good and bad in general). If there isn't an outside universal, and half the people believe thing A is good but B is evil, and half the people believe thing B is good but A is evil, and you can only have A or B... what's the objective good? Instead of merely asserting your thesis, argue it out. Or point out a flaw in the opposite argument (in this case, mine). -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 05:29:44 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 01:29:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and silliness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/8/16 darren shawn greer : > I don't think I said this. I don't even think Clinton said this. Yet there > seems to be a pervading posthuman/transhuman ideal for improving the lives > of humans through technology. Or is there only an ideal that can improve it > for those who can afford it? Read Donna Harroway or Rosi Bridotti's essay on > Theory, Culture and > Society.?http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/23/7-8/197.full.pdf+html. ?They > don't refer explicitly to the free market, but they do discuss indviduation > in a posthuman context. ?If the renaissance-inspired ideas of human ontology > are being questioned by posthuman thinkers, then so is the idea of the > individual. And so by extension is the free-market economy. Might it be economics with a long view? Dirt-poor people have no money to spend. If we uplift them to the point they have surplus capital then they'll want to buy consumer goods like iPads and Lexus-es (Lexii?). The more people on the consumerism treadmill the more wealth can be created when they mortgage their futures to get increasingly expensive stuff... And those magnanimous few who make the humanitarian choice today collect the benefit of being atop a pyramid with a now-larger base. Maybe that's what you just said though? From jebdm at jebdm.net Tue Aug 17 05:34:13 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:34:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: <4C69F3F4.2040900@mac.com> References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> <6E5DC588-035F-40D0-B736-703CB8E2B2A6@bellsouth.net> <4C69F3F4.2040900@mac.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/16 samantha > Jebadiah Moore wrote: > > 2010/8/15 John Clark > >> Then forget about good or bad, is relativism objectively true? >> > >> only that objectivity doesn't exist. >> >> >> But is what you just said really true, objectively? If we can't talk >> about good or evil or truth or falsehood then that would rather seriously >> limit the scope of philosophy and we'd only have the contemptible "the story >> of Adam and Eve and the talking snake is true for me" or "it's true for me >> that 2+2=5". Jebadiah, do you really think that is the proper way to figure >> out how the world works? >> > > Depends what you mean by "objective". Most people take things which are > shown by logic to be "objectively" true, and I agree with this. The problem > is, you always have to start with some axioms, or you can't show anything. > And because we can't know anything directly--we have to rely on induction > through our senses/experiences--we have no truly "known" axioms, and thus > can't prove anything is true about our universe. > > There is no other way of knowing possible except through some form of > sensory apparatus processed by some form of processing and pattern > extraction unit like a brain. If anyone believes that there is I would be > very keen to learn exactly how you think that would work or could come to > be. We only have what is as congruent with what we perceive and > non-contradictory processing of that and the patterns derived from it and as > scrupulously checked as we are able and willing. > Agreed. > But to say that isn't "objective" makes no sense. It is as objective as it > is possible in reality for any intelligence to be. There is nothing better > to compare it to in a seemingly denigrating manner. > This is where I disagree. "Objective" means "absolutely known and true, independent of the observer". There are objective facts, but we can't know them objectively since--like you say--we have only one way of knowing, "through some form of sensory apparatus processed by some form of processing and pattern extraction unit like a brain". What I'm saying is that there are no things known within our universe about our universe objectively, even though there are objective facts about our universe. On the other hand, we can know logical facts given a set of axioms, and we can posit axioms that seem to model our universe. Yes, this is a really awesome thing. Much more so, in fact, than if we could somehow observe facts about the universe directly and know that these were not somehow biased. Nonetheless, our observations our show us objective truths about the universe, other than that we remember that we observed them, and so of course logic based on axioms based on our possibly flawed observations cannot be objective either. I did not mean to state anything in a "denigrating manner". Perhaps this sheds some light on your own value system (and therefore probably biases), that you assume "not objectively known facts" are bad? An admiral sentiment, but rather like saying that "non-steel food is bad". > > So, we can prove things objectively, but we can't prove things about our > universe objectively. > > That does not compute. You are claiming that only pure logic based on > axioms is "objective"? > > Yup. Everything else is subject to bias, without us knowing if there is bias. The axioms we choose are non-objective as well, but if the axioms are true then we do then know that are conclusions are true as well (presuming we follow logic correctly). Of course, my argument is rather by definition. You could posit other forms of "objective" (such as consensus), and then this whole discussion would be different. But I think that most people now, when they say objective, mean what I've said it means. Feel free to contest this. Also, my claim that logically generated statements based on true axioms meet my criteria of objectivity is itself not objective. Nonetheless, I believe it to be true, and I think you'll find few who contest it. (Although some might say that there are other ways of being objective; apparently you think so. I'd love to hear it.) > In fact, we can't prove that there is an objective universe at all, > containing anything but our own mind (the "everything is in your head" > scenario). > > That is a very limited definition of "objective" as it requires some > godlike absolute knowledge that is impossible for any actual mind to ever > ever have in order to have any objective knowledge about anything much > beyond maths. That is an absurd position. > Annoying, but not absurd. What you're saying is that the definition of immortal, "incapable of dying; existing forever" is absurd, because it is a very limited and requires godlike absolute power that is impossible for any actual mind to ever ever have. The definition is what it is; if it yields the empty set, it doesn't mean that the definition is wrong, just that it's not much fun to talk about. Of course you can have variants--such as the sometimes transhumanist goal of immortality modulo destruction ("everything dies when you blow it to bits"). (Perhaps immortality is a bad example and there is actually some way to build an information processing yet indestructible substance. But I doubt it.) I'm picking up the vibe that you are defining "objective" in a way that I am not. What's your definition? -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Tue Aug 17 06:23:45 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 01:23:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Religions and silliness In-Reply-To: <4C69EBB6.3000608@mac.com> References: <4C69EBB6.3000608@mac.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/16 samantha > Drugs grow on trees? Since when is mere need a license to take from > others? Yes, drugs are overpriced. But are you sure you want to live in a > world where whatever you produce by your own effort at non-zero cost can be > demanded whenever anyone anywhere needs it without compensation? Think > about it. > The point was that an alien civilization might not think it's weird of us. Even if it's not desirable for us to live in such a world (I'm still undecided), it might be for aliens. Imagine that they have evolved to be perfect communists (seems feasible; social insects are part-way there) with a strong sense of compassion. Then, since they live in an advanced society, they will hold the rational belief that no matter what anyone takes from them they'll still have whatever they need. Because they're compassionate, they'd be perfectly willing to give shit away even if it cost them to make it. To answer your original question: Imagine that you live in a world where there are enough people and resources to cover everyones' needs, plus basic comforts, as long as everyone between, say, 20 and 60 works a modest amount--say, 10 or 20 hours a week. People can generally work in their chosen profession, especially people with skills. Furthermore, there are enough resources that, if people are willing to work a bit extra, they can earn more, have an even more comfortable lifestyle, etc. Some extra resources are devoted towards incentivizing people to sign up for the least favorable jobs. This is the idea behind socialism. We really do have the resources to provide for everyones' basic needs with moderate ease. Perhaps it won't be done at maximum efficiency, but most people don't care so long as there aren't millions of people dying yearly from easily preventable causes, plus the millions of people (some potentially geniuses) stuck in crappy situations because they have to work extremely hard just to scrape by. To counter your idea of people "taking from you": first off, by many peoples' sense of morality it'd be pretty evil to deny medicine out of your cabinet to a dying person (especially a child) if you didn't absolutely need it yourself. Secondly, these aren't cases of people stealing from other peoples' homes; it'd be more like people "stealing" crates of medicine from a big company for a dying village. There is an argument that perhaps you're doing more damage by reducing the company owners' livelihood, but most likely the owners are much more well off than the people doing the stealing. You could then say that the companies, by virtue of their capital show their aptitude at creating wealth more efficiently, so perhaps they could do more good by not getting stolen from, then increasing their capital super-linearly and then giving the medicine out at a later date. But in practice, companies often don't have that great of a growth rate, and they don't end up giving out the medicine (or enough), and certainly they might not be able to achieve and sustain a rate of growth which would allow them to distribute enough medicine later in order to make up for the lost lives early on. If your only objection to redistribution of wealth is "OH NOEZ STEALING", then you're just greedy, or at least that you and I (as well as much of the giant poor population) hold conflicting values. There are other more legitimate arguments to make, though. One is that it inevitably leads to corruption (possibly, but capitalist systems seem to be the same). One is that it is inefficient due to a lack/reduction of price signals, which I think I agree with, but as I mentioned above, I'm pretty sure you could build a system that despite inefficiency might be at least efficient enough to cover everyones' basic needs plus some. (Participatory economics or AI-based organization or some other such scheme might do the trick.) Another is that development would stagnate due to reduced economic incentive to stagnate, but do you really think that all the geeks out there would cease to invent stuff just because they couldn't make as much profit for it? Hell, half the stuff invented out there already comes from people who have no real profit incentive to invent it or not. I agree that there could easily be some slowdown in the sorts of things that are big and tedious but useful, but I'm sure that the stuff would still get though up, and then you could let engineer types build it instead of doing manual labor. Plus, if you organize the thing properly (think technostructure, c.f. Galbraith) you could probably even speed up development by providing long-term research ability in riskier ventures than capitalism would generally be willing to pay for. As for reduced incentives--make it a mixed system, providing extra-basic needs to everyone, basic comforts to everyone who performed to standards, then provide extra cash or perhaps social incentives (hell, even "points") to people who perform well. Allow for job mobility. Make sure that you can't become manager of a factory by appointment from a Communist party official. That sort of thing. Really, the costs of basics needs for everyone wouldn't be making much of a dent compared to, for instance, military spending, so you could make this thing happen without really changing the system up very much. Still, I'm on the fence. Perhaps there really isn't a way to do socialism with humans that turns out better than capitalism. I blame my doubt on my middle class white Texan Christian upbringing (the source of the instinct instilled in me, which regularly rears its head contrary to my logic and causes me annoying levels of dissonance, but which proves to me that people really can overcome their gut values and beliefs, in my case by merely having a stronger belief in logic and science). -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 08:57:33 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:57:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Probability Processor Message-ID: The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency financed the basic research necessary to create a processor that thinks in terms of probabilities instead of the certainties of ones and zeros. And now Lyric Semiconductor, the spin-off from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where the work was done, is going to spend the next couple of years building a commercial probability processor called the GP5. >From 2009 through 2013, Lyric is doing basic research to create a programmable probability processor, including a high-level programming language. DARPA has first dibs on the GP5 processors and this programming language, which is called Probability Synthesis to Bayesian Logic, or PSBL for short. ----------------------- Great! So we can look forward to our pcs saying that 2 + 2 probably equals 4 and have entertaining arguments with it. 'I'm sorry, Bill, I can't do that'. 'Yes, you can. Just do it!' 'Well, I'm not sure......... BillK From scerir at libero.it Tue Aug 17 10:12:10 2010 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:12:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Probability Processor Message-ID: <26081788.537001282039930933.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> BTW, it is also interesting to point out there are some vague ideas about radically different processors: 1) How to exploit the apparent "timelessness" of the quantum domain, in other words it would be a sort of computation "on closed timelike curves - CTC", usually called hypercomputation. 2) Another vague idea seems to consist in efforts to "bypass" the uncertainty principle via quantum cloning, or via quantum memories .... ...... Of course, given the peculiar structure & formalism of QM, it is possible to keep a sort "chronology protection principle", that is to say that the "grandfather paradox" is impossible (see paper below by Greenberger and Svozil). Some materials here below ..... s. The quantum mechanics of time travel through post-selected teleportation http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2615 Seth Lloyd, Lorenzo Maccone, Raul Garcia-Patron, Vittorio Giovannetti, Yutaka Shikano Closed timelike curves via post-selection: theory and experimental demonstration http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2219 Seth Lloyd, Lorenzo Maccone, Raul Garcia-Patron, Vittorio Giovannetti, Yutaka Shikano, Stefano Pirandola, Lee A. Rozema, Ardavan Darabi, Yasaman Soudagar, Lynden K. Shalm, Aephraim M. Steinberg see also popular pages like .... http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25494/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/07/time-travel/ http://www.santafe.edu/news/item/time-travel-testing-grandfather-paradox- Lloyd/ http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/61301/title/Taming_time_travel http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=13568 Any quantum state can be cloned in the presence of closed timelike curves D. Ahn, T. C. Ralph, R. B. Mann http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.0221 Abstract: The possible existence of closed timelike curves (CTCs) draws attention to fundamental questions about what is physically possible and what is not. An example is the "no cloning theorem" in quantum mechanics, which states that no physical means exists by which an unknown arbitrary quantum state can be reproduced or copied perfectly. We show here that this theorem can be circumvented in the presence of closed timelike curves, allowing the cloning of an unknown arbitrary quantum state. Since the "no cloning theorem" has played a central role in the development of quantum information science, it is clear that the existence of CTCs would radically change the rules for quantum information technology. Nevertheless we show that this type of cloning does not violate no-signalling criteria. The Uncertainty Principle in the Presence of Quantum Memory Mario Berta, Matthias Christandl, Roger Colbeck, Joseph M. Renes, Renato Renner http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.0950 http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/100726_Heisenberg_su/index_EN Abstract: The uncertainty principle lies at the heart of quantum theory, illuminating a dramatic difference with classical mechanics. The principle bounds the uncertainties of the outcomes of any two observables on a system in terms of the expectation value of their commutator. It implies that an observer cannot predict the outcomes of two incompatible measurements to arbitrary precision. However, this implication is only valid if the observer does not possess a quantum memory, an unrealistic assumption in light of recent technological advances. In this work we strengthen the uncertainty principle to one that applies even if the observer has a quantum memory. We provide a lower bound on the uncertainty of the outcomes of two measurements which depends on the entanglement between the system and the quantum memory. We expect our uncertainty principle to have widespread use in quantum information theory, and describe in detail its application to quantum cryptography. Anton Zeilinger et al had a different idea, years ago http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0109/0109022v2.pdf Quantum Theory Looks at Time Travel Daniel M. Greenberger, Karl Svozil http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506027 they make good points, to show the inconsistency of paradoxes, at least from the quantum p.o.v. See also the so called "inverse EPR" that is the entanglement due to an "ex post" measurement, or interaction, or whatever, that is to say that (more or less) you can entangle something in the past, from the future, with all those weird effects ..... (might be interesting, having in mind hypercomputations!) 'Time-Reversed EPR and the Choice of Histories in Quantum Mechanics' Avshalom C. Elitzur, Shahar Dolev, Anton Zeilinger http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205182 Abstract: When a single photon is split by a beam splitter, its two `halves' can entangle two distant atoms into an EPR pair. We discuss a time-reversed analogue of this experiment where two distant sources cooperate so as to emit a single photon. The two `half photons,' having interacted with two atoms, can entangle these atoms into an EPR pair once they are detected as a single photon. Entanglement occurs by creating indistinguishabilility between the two mutually exclusive histories of the photon. This indistinguishabilility can be created either at the end of the two histories (by `erasing' the single photon's path) or at their beginning (by `erasing' the two atoms' positions). From algaenymph at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 09:47:38 2010 From: algaenymph at gmail.com (AlgaeNymph) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:47:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Tricycle on Transhumanism Message-ID: <4C6A5ABA.6030603@gmail.com> Since there's so much hubbub about religion here, I thought you'd be interested in what a Buddhist magazine has to say about transhumanism. http://www.tricycle.com/blog/?p=2190 From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 17 13:10:53 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:10:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. Message-ID: > Not really. It's a judgement, but one of a different type. If you ask > me what color chairs are, and I say that chairs don't have an intrinsic > color, I'm not "actually" saying that they have a color and that color > is colorlessness. I agree with you. Just trying to point out that it does get tricky. I've been reading a lot of posthumaist critical theory--Harroway, Bridotti, Nickols -- and questions of whether things are subjective or objective is an argument that they don't seem to wish to have. I have been less influenced by them than believing it myself for a number of years and having their assertions fit with mine. I even read the Unibomber Manifesto, which is, in my opinion, a posthumnist document, despite its paranoid denigration of technological-industrial society. After 9/11, the editor of Vanity Fair magazine pronounced it the "end of the age of irony." I remember thinking what a silly thing that was to say. What he was referring to too, I think, was F. Scott's Fitzgerald's assertion that modernism was the " age of the holy ghost of irony." But as Donna Harroway says (about pop science writers and not Vanity Fair editors, I'll grant you), He got it wrong. But he was on the right subject. 9/11 may have been the final nail in the coffin not of modernism but of post-modernism, which deconstructed grand narrative and the idea of universal belief, as a reaction to such atrocities as the holocaust and Stalinism, which relied on sweeping world narrative to suck people in (and as Fred Moulton pointed out last week, the Muslim Brotherhood is still doing vis-a-vis Islam and the West.) It is my opinion that 9/11 illustrated the dangers of the apathy that results from relativism and rampant individualism. 9/11, in addition to being a failure of security, was also a failure of community. My father once played me the song The Night Chicago Died. I was a kid and he explained to me the events that inspired the song. I ask him--I was only eleven or twelve at the time-- how a few men with guns could over-power a large crowd. "Couldn't they just jump them?" I asked. "They were too worried about getting killed themselves," he told me. This stuck with me. I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Perhaps just that if the traditional ontology or chain of being (the idea of God, arch-angels, angels, spirits, kings, nobels, gentry,) has been abolished, the one next in line is the actual idea of human. Instead of social order we sink back into a kind of natural disorder while maintaining intellectual rigor and arming ourselves with the knowledge of the power and influence of evolutionary psychology on human behavior and accepting technology as an evolutionary and inevitable outgrowth of the development of the species. This also makes room for the much-contested idea of a singularity, though I recently read a few writers who believe we will never get there, as it is a "horizon" event. We will either pass through a number of critical times that appear to be singularities, or that we will never notice the true singularity as it will require an objective view of human development as a whole, which is not possible when you're caught in the swift current of that development. Of course, post humanist critical thinkers also reject scientism and the scientific method as inadequate tools of the enlightenment. About that I am not so keen. The argument seems to be that since neither disorder nor order are fundamental properties of the universe, only perspectives, then logic is only a property of human subjectivity and it too is extremely limited. Any model that attempts to use logic to know the universe will be flawed, because it is subjective. They suggest no alternative, other than to accept this dubious assertion. It seems that for many of them situational objectivity is enough, and in fact no more is possible or ever will be possible, given the limitations of the observer. I'm not saying I believe this. But it is fun to think about. > It's a pretty interesting question. A related one is, "why do we fight > so hard to prove other people on the internet wrong"? I had exactly the same thought while writing my last response to you. Perhaps because the ideological wars are now being fought on the Internet as well as in the "real" world. They are much more fun here, because we have access to more information and we can talk back. It's not very effective, or much fun, to argue with your TV. You can get high blood pressure. Darren 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die. -Alfred Lord Tennyson ________________________________ > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:47:03 -0500 > From: jebdm at jebdm.net > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:33 PM, darren shawn greer >> wrote: > > >>> in conclusion, there is no objective morality >> >> . . . is a morally objective statement. >> >> Nope, but it is an objective one. Just not *morally* objective >> statement. It'd be morally objective if I said "belief in objective >> morality is evil", which I didn't. > > Yup. I thought twice about putting "morally" in the above objection, > and then decided it was, as well as being objective, also morally > objective. Reasoning: if guy A says bananas are good. And guy B says > bananas are bad, and guy C comes along and says that bananas are > neither good nor bad, they only seem that way to guy A and B because of > their perspectives. > But guy D. He says, then bananas are neither good nor bad? They are > objectively tasteless? tastlessness is in fact their objective nature? > Isn't tastlessness also a taste? A kind of judgement and perspective as > well, made from inside a system with an opposite view waiting to be > aired from inside another system? > > Not really. It's a judgement, but one of a different type. If you ask > me what color chairs are, and I say that chairs don't have an intrinsic > color, I'm not "actually" saying that they have a color and that color > is colorlessness. Person D isn't saying (or shouldn't be, given that > it seems you're saying that I am to him as morality is to bananas) that > they are tasteless (and I'm not saying acts don't have a morality), > just that acts aren't good or bad objectively and that the assignment > of a value depends on your perspective. Just like in relativistic > physics, where objects don't have a velocity absolutely, only relative > to a certain perspective. > > This is where things get tricky for relativism. I agree that once you > use logic to extricate yourself from the base-level moral system( > bananas are good or bad) you can say you're done. Any further > discussion about it is just a semantics/logic game. > The problem is we keep playing it anyway. > > Even once you've said that there isn't a universal moral system, there > are plenty of interesting things left to do. You can examine > correlations between systems and backgrounds, you can convince people > to convert to your system, you can relate your system of morality to > your system of values in general, you can devise new moral systems with > maximal acceptance for a group or even humanity as a whole, etc. > Flawed as they are (I sometimes wish we could circumvent morality > entirely and just use our "true" values directly to make judgments), a > sense of morality seems to be built-in by evolution, so I say we figure > out the best way to use it. Just like any other tool. > > When I first joined this group I suggested that any discussion about > God's existence --pro or con-- was in fact a huge waste of time. I > believe the same thing about relativism vs objectivism. Another way to > frame that argument is fundamentalism vs modernism. It's been raging > for thousands of years and maybe longer. > > I think I've answered most of the questions with regard to my form of > relativism pretty convincingly. Convincingly to me, at least, as well > as to other people around me. And I've been able to convince others to > believe it. > > And I don't think it's a matter of stubbornness; I came from a very > absolutist Christian background, and have changed my view many times in > response to other peoples' logic, as well as my own. But perhaps I've > become stubborn in my old age and not realized it. > > In practically every intellectual discipline known to man. > Everyone keeps refining their arguments based on the last guy's try > 'till the original question, the one everyone should be asking, is > lost: why in the hell do we care how other people frame their beliefs > anyway if it doesn't interfere with my way of life? I still think > evolutionary psychology offers some clues: we're still operating in a > brand new world with very old survival programming. > > It's a pretty interesting question. A related one is, "why do we fight > so hard to prove other people on the internet wrong"? > > >> Or alternatively, just have one guy take over the world with absolute >> power, > Seriously suggested not only as a possibility, but as an inevitability, > by U.S. foreign policy thinker Robert Kaplan in his book "The Coming > Anarchy." > > I definitely think it's a possibility, perhaps an inevitability. And I > believe it could, at least potentially, be a good thing. I'll have to > read the book. > > -- > Jebadiah Moore > http://blog.jebdm.net > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing > list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 17 14:03:13 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:03:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Tricycle on Transhumanism Message-ID: > Since there's so much hubbub about religion here, I thought you'd be > interested in what a Buddhist magazine has to say about transhumanism. > > http://www.tricycle.com/blog/?p=2190 Thanks. The comments were much more interesting than the article, especially the one calling transhumanists "quaint." I got a laugh over that. The interesting thing for me is that the discussion was less about the practice of meditation and mindfulness than it was about defending the tenets of organized religion. Siddartha couldn't have given a rat's ass about technological advance. He never mentioned it, just as he refused to answer when one of his disciples asked him whether there was an after-life. The goal for him was mindfulness in the moment, not the future -- either his or the future of mankind. Life was suffering for Siddartha. That's all that mattered. He wasn't trying to save the world. Only himself. If you wanted to tag along, great, if life was tough going for you too. They should ask what Taoists think about transhumanism. Now THAT would be an interesting discussion. Lao Tzu objected to the invention of the water-wheel because it isolated people from nature and put the water-wallah out of work. He would likely have a heart attack if he knew about the Internet. Darren 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die. -Alfred Lord Tennyson ---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:47:38 -0700 > From: algaenymph at gmail.com > To: wta-talk at transhumanism.org; extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [ExI] Tricycle on Transhumanism > > Since there's so much hubbub about religion here, I thought you'd be > interested in what a Buddhist magazine has to say about transhumanism. > > http://www.tricycle.com/blog/?p=2190 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 17 15:16:29 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:16:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and silliness Message-ID: > Might it be economics with a long view? Dirt-poor people have no > money to spend. If we uplift them to the point they have surplus > capital then they'll want to buy consumer goods like iPads and > Lexus-es (Lexii?). The more people on the consumerism treadmill the > more wealth can be created when they mortgage their futures to get > increasingly expensive stuff... And those magnanimous few who make > the humanitarian choice today collect the benefit of being atop a > pyramid with a now-larger base. > > Maybe that's what you just said though? Naw. I hadn't actually thought it through that much. I believe I was thinking along the lines of linear vs non-linear economics. Capitalism is a very linear idea, and since it is the dominant organizing principle of many developed nations, it would be natural to think that it will continue to march along in semi-linear fashion -- buying and selling goods and amassing wealth and drawing the whole caravan of humanity into some technological utopia where robotics do all the work and we are free to fulfill what Ted Kaczynski called secondary power urges -- prestige via distinguished intellectual achievement. But what if ideas become as or more valuable than technological augmentation as a result of this? What if information becomes the most valuable commodity, and, if you concede it's extremely hard to package and sell given the viral nature of its replication and dissemination, classical economics goes out the window? I got this idea, in part, from Robert Metzger's novel C.U.S.P. Money didn't seem to be very important in that particular speculative future. But power, control, technological advancement, information, and the future of humanity or post-humanity did. Right now wealth is an effective and respectable means to achieve these ends. As long as material wealth is valued above all else. If our value system changes intellectually however, it might change materially. Meanwhile, it might not hurt to keep people alive if we have the means, as for every one or two million people that die this year of AIDS there might be an Einstein or Edison among them. Of course, we could let "nature"--which is usually a corporate synonym for individual greed these days-- take its course and reduce the world population to a manageable size. In which case AIDS, the wars in the middle east and events like 9/11 and earthquakes in Haiti have a certain base utility. That idea is particularly repugnant to me, however. But I know people to whom it is not. I tend not to invite them to dinner parties. Darren 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die. -Alfred Lord Tennyson From jebdm at jebdm.net Tue Aug 17 16:26:39 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:26:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:10 AM, darren shawn greer wrote: > I agree with you. Just trying to point out that it does get tricky. I've > been reading a lot of posthumaist critical theory--Harroway, Bridotti, > Nickols -- and questions of whether things are subjective or objective is an > argument that they don't seem to wish to have. I have been less influenced > by them than believing it myself for a number of years and having their > assertions fit with mine. I even read the Unibomber Manifesto, which is, in > my opinion, a posthumnist document, despite its paranoid denigration of > technological-industrial society. > Yeah, certainly tricky in places. That does't usually stop me, though ;) And importantly, for a large portion of the time relativism vs absolutism doesn't actually matter to our decisions. But sometimes it does. I also read the Unibomber Manifesto (albeit a while back, so I don't remember it that well), and came to the same sort of conclusion--parts were clearly crazy, but parts made quite a lot of sense. 9/11 may have been the final nail in the coffin not of modernism but of > post-modernism, which deconstructed grand narrative and the idea of > universal belief, as a reaction to such atrocities as the holocaust and > Stalinism, which relied on sweeping world narrative to suck people in (and > as Fred Moulton pointed out last week, the Muslim Brotherhood is still doing > vis-a-vis Islam and the West.) It is my opinion that 9/11 illustrated the > dangers of the apathy that results from relativism and rampant > individualism. 9/11, in addition to being a failure of security, was also a > failure of community. I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that "relativism and rampant individualism" had a causative role in 9/11. I assume you mean the US's general non-preparedness, or perhaps you mean they helped create the kind of culture that the militant Muslims opposed? If it's the first, it seems like it wouldn't matter much, except perhaps in the aftermath. Then, of course, the US was shocked into a sort of collective mode, which lead to a variety of things which some people might consider bad, and which might not have happened as much had the US already been in collective mode and so would not have been shocked to such an extreme? If it's the second... then I agree, but I don't really think that the US should have been different to avoid it. But you probably meant something else entirely. > My father once played me the song The Night Chicago Died. I was a kid and > he explained to me the events that inspired the song. I ask him--I was only > eleven or twelve at the time-- how a few men with guns could over-power a > large crowd. "Couldn't they just jump them?" I asked. > > "They were too worried about getting killed themselves," he told me. > > This stuck with me. I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Good story, I'll have to remember it. > Perhaps just that if the traditional ontology or chain of being (the idea > of God, arch-angels, angels, spirits, kings, nobels, gentry,) has been > abolished, the one next in line is the actual idea of human. Well, clearly we're next in line, but I don't know that the idea of human will be abolished like the others so much as mutated heavily. Well, I suppose it depends what you mean by "human". > Instead of social order we sink back into a kind of natural disorder while > maintaining intellectual rigor and arming ourselves with the knowledge of > the power and influence of evolutionary psychology on human behavior and > accepting technology as an evolutionary and inevitable outgrowth of the > development of the species. Perhaps we'll "sink" into natural disorder, but i don't think so, especially if we maintain our technology. it makes it much easier to create empires and maintain a large, ordered society than ever before, and does so without needing nearly as much unifying mythology. It seems more likely that we'll just evolve as a society to homogenize, and to respect an order that has humans at both the top and bottom, albeit with titles. And I bet things will (continue to) tend towards bureaucratic, which certainly makes people view government as a thing made of people. > This also makes room for the much-contested idea of a singularity, though I > recently read a few writers who believe we will never get there, as it is a > "horizon" event. We will either pass through a number of critical times that > appear to be singularities, or that we will never notice the true > singularity as it will require an objective view of human development as a > whole, which is not possible when you're caught in the swift current of > that development. What works are you talking about? I don't see how the singularity prediction (in the form "at some point AI might become smarter than humans; at that point it will rapidly improve itself to become super-intelligent, and will likely drive the development of other technology; because the AI is smarter than us, we cannot predict what technology will be like after it has hit this level") is an unattainable horizon event. Unless perhaps they are contesting the posited intelligence continuum? Or perhaps you're referring to a different version of the singularity. Of course, post humanist critical thinkers also reject scientism and the > scientific method as inadequate tools of the enlightenment. About that I am > not so keen. The argument seems to be that since neither disorder nor order > are fundamental properties of the universe, only perspectives, then logic is > only a property of human subjectivity and it too is extremely limited. Any > model that attempts to use logic to know the universe will be flawed, > because it is subjective. They suggest no alternative, other than to accept > this dubious assertion. > I'd argue that a sort of order probably does underly the universe, since it seems like nearly all phenomena can now be explained via logical physical models and since it seems that logic works everywhere it is applied correctly. And I can't think of anything less subjective than logic (or other mechanical symbol-shunting systems). I think perhaps "critical thinkers" (if you're referring to the sort I think you are) spend too much time in literature and art and the fuzzier end of social science. (So I agree with you.) > It seems that for many of them situational objectivity is enough, and in > fact no more is possible or ever will be possible, given the limitations of > the observer. > What is situational objectivity? > > It's a pretty interesting question. A related one is, "why do we fight > > so hard to prove other people on the internet wrong"? > > I had exactly the same thought while writing my last response to you. > Perhaps because the ideological wars are now being fought on the Internet as > well as in the "real" world. They are much more fun here, because we have > access to more information and we can talk back. It's not very effective, or > much fun, to argue with your TV. You can get high blood pressure. > Haha, well, definitely partly. But people will fight over things which are rather non-ideological, such as why the sky is blue or whether 2+2=4. Perhaps it's in our genes, which would make sense evolutionarily in the sense that having a drive to prove yourself right leads to spreading your knowledge and hopefully causing better ideas to gain more acceptance in the long run. -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 16:42:30 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:42:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Seth Woodworth Date: Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts To: bodyhacking at lists.caughq.org Cc: Bryan Bishop Um, no? > Here?s how that math works, Kurzweil explains: The design of the brain is in the genome. The human genome has three billion base pairs or six billion bits, which is about 800 million bytes before compression, he says. Eliminating redundancies and applying loss-less compression, that information can be compressed into about 50 million bytes, according to Kurzweil. > > About half of that is the brain, which comes down to 25 million bytes, or a million lines of code. How does the genome explain protein folding? Just because a million lines of code describe the genesis of the brain's biological systems, doesn't mean that we understand the interactions of the subsequent structures. On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:07 AM, I)ruid wrote: > > "Reverse-engineering the human brain so we can simulate it using > > computers may be just two decades away, says Ray Kurzweil, artificial > > intelligence expert and author of the best-selling book The Singularity > > is Near. > > Henry Markram thinks he can do it by 2018. He's probably right. > > - Bryan > http://heybryan.org/ > 1 512 203 0507 -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 17 17:24:21 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:24:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: > But people will fight over things which are rather non-ideological, such as why the sky is blue That question has always killed me. It's blue 'cause dust particles in the atmosphere scatter shorter visible light wavelengths and ta da: we see color! A friend and I were watching a particularly colorful sunset in Ottawa one summer. He turns to me and says, "Isn't it beautiful?" "If you're into viewing light as it glides diagonally through thicker atmospheric conditions along the earth's surface so that only the longer wave lengths get through, then yeah, I guess so." "Science sucks," he said. If nothing else, it's great to bug your friends with. Darren 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die.-Alfred Lord Tennyson Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:26:39 -0500 From: jebdm at jebdm.net To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:10 AM, darren shawn greer wrote: I agree with you. Just trying to point out that it does get tricky. I've been reading a lot of posthumaist critical theory--Harroway, Bridotti, Nickols -- and questions of whether things are subjective or objective is an argument that they don't seem to wish to have. I have been less influenced by them than believing it myself for a number of years and having their assertions fit with mine. I even read the Unibomber Manifesto, which is, in my opinion, a posthumnist document, despite its paranoid denigration of technological-industrial society. Yeah, certainly tricky in places. That does't usually stop me, though ;) And importantly, for a large portion of the time relativism vs absolutism doesn't actually matter to our decisions. But sometimes it does. I also read the Unibomber Manifesto (albeit a while back, so I don't remember it that well), and came to the same sort of conclusion--parts were clearly crazy, but parts made quite a lot of sense. 9/11 may have been the final nail in the coffin not of modernism but of post-modernism, which deconstructed grand narrative and the idea of universal belief, as a reaction to such atrocities as the holocaust and Stalinism, which relied on sweeping world narrative to suck people in (and as Fred Moulton pointed out last week, the Muslim Brotherhood is still doing vis-a-vis Islam and the West.) It is my opinion that 9/11 illustrated the dangers of the apathy that results from relativism and rampant individualism. 9/11, in addition to being a failure of security, was also a failure of community. I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that "relativism and rampant individualism" had a causative role in 9/11. I assume you mean the US's general non-preparedness, or perhaps you mean they helped create the kind of culture that the militant Muslims opposed? If it's the first, it seems like it wouldn't matter much, except perhaps in the aftermath. Then, of course, the US was shocked into a sort of collective mode, which lead to a variety of things which some people might consider bad, and which might not have happened as much had the US already been in collective mode and so would not have been shocked to such an extreme? If it's the second... then I agree, but I don't really think that the US should have been different to avoid it. But you probably meant something else entirely. My father once played me the song The Night Chicago Died. I was a kid and he explained to me the events that inspired the song. I ask him--I was only eleven or twelve at the time-- how a few men with guns could over-power a large crowd. "Couldn't they just jump them?" I asked. "They were too worried about getting killed themselves," he told me. This stuck with me. I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Good story, I'll have to remember it. Perhaps just that if the traditional ontology or chain of being (the idea of God, arch-angels, angels, spirits, kings, nobels, gentry,) has been abolished, the one next in line is the actual idea of human. Well, clearly we're next in line, but I don't know that the idea of human will be abolished like the others so much as mutated heavily. Well, I suppose it depends what you mean by "human". Instead of social order we sink back into a kind of natural disorder while maintaining intellectual rigor and arming ourselves with the knowledge of the power and influence of evolutionary psychology on human behavior and accepting technology as an evolutionary and inevitable outgrowth of the development of the species. Perhaps we'll "sink" into natural disorder, but i don't think so, especially if we maintain our technology. it makes it much easier to create empires and maintain a large, ordered society than ever before, and does so without needing nearly as much unifying mythology. It seems more likely that we'll just evolve as a society to homogenize, and to respect an order that has humans at both the top and bottom, albeit with titles. And I bet things will (continue to) tend towards bureaucratic, which certainly makes people view government as a thing made of people. This also makes room for the much-contested idea of a singularity, though I recently read a few writers who believe we will never get there, as it is a "horizon" event. We will either pass through a number of critical times that appear to be singularities, or that we will never notice the true singularity as it will require an objective view of human development as a whole, which is not possible when you're caught in the swift current of that development. What works are you talking about? I don't see how the singularity prediction (in the form "at some point AI might become smarter than humans; at that point it will rapidly improve itself to become super-intelligent, and will likely drive the development of other technology; because the AI is smarter than us, we cannot predict what technology will be like after it has hit this level") is an unattainable horizon event. Unless perhaps they are contesting the posited intelligence continuum? Or perhaps you're referring to a different version of the singularity. Of course, post humanist critical thinkers also reject scientism and the scientific method as inadequate tools of the enlightenment. About that I am not so keen. The argument seems to be that since neither disorder nor order are fundamental properties of the universe, only perspectives, then logic is only a property of human subjectivity and it too is extremely limited. Any model that attempts to use logic to know the universe will be flawed, because it is subjective. They suggest no alternative, other than to accept this dubious assertion. I'd argue that a sort of order probably does underly the universe, since it seems like nearly all phenomena can now be explained via logical physical models and since it seems that logic works everywhere it is applied correctly. And I can't think of anything less subjective than logic (or other mechanical symbol-shunting systems). I think perhaps "critical thinkers" (if you're referring to the sort I think you are) spend too much time in literature and art and the fuzzier end of social science. (So I agree with you.) It seems that for many of them situational objectivity is enough, and in fact no more is possible or ever will be possible, given the limitations of the observer. What is situational objectivity? > It's a pretty interesting question. A related one is, "why do we fight > so hard to prove other people on the internet wrong"? I had exactly the same thought while writing my last response to you. Perhaps because the ideological wars are now being fought on the Internet as well as in the "real" world. They are much more fun here, because we have access to more information and we can talk back. It's not very effective, or much fun, to argue with your TV. You can get high blood pressure. Haha, well, definitely partly. But people will fight over things which are rather non-ideological, such as why the sky is blue or whether 2+2=4. Perhaps it's in our genes, which would make sense evolutionarily in the sense that having a drive to prove yourself right leads to spreading your knowledge and hopefully causing better ideas to gain more acceptance in the long run. -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Tue Aug 17 17:26:17 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:26:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > > Here?s how that math works, Kurzweil explains: The design of the brain is > in the genome. The human genome has three billion base pairs or six billion > bits, which is about 800 million bytes before compression, he says. > Eliminating redundancies and applying loss-less compression, that > information can be compressed into about 50 million bytes, according to > Kurzweil. > > > > About half of that is the brain, which comes down to 25 million bytes, or > a million lines of code. > > How does the genome explain protein folding? > > Just because a million lines of code describe the genesis of the > brain's biological systems, doesn't mean that we understand the > interactions of the subsequent structures. > > Yeah, Kurzweil's way off mark. See here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/ray_kurzweil_does_not_understa.php. Of course, presumably we don't have to understanding the interactions, so long as we can simulate whatever causes the interactions. But we can't do that yet, either. Which i think was Kurzweil's point, even though he got the details (very) wrong. -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Tue Aug 17 17:34:55 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:34:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/8/17 darren shawn greer > > But people will fight over things which are rather non-ideological, > such as why the sky is blue > > That question has always killed me. It's blue 'cause dust particles in the > atmosphere scatter shorter visible light wavelengths and ta da: we see > color! > Your belief that this is true is just evidence of your sciento-chauvinist upbringing. The sky is blue for the same reason that love exists and that I prefer vanilla over chocolate. > A friend and I were watching a particularly colorful sunset in Ottawa one > summer. He turns to me and says, "Isn't it beautiful?" > > "If you're into viewing light as it glides diagonally through thicker > atmospheric conditions along the earth's surface so that only the longer > wave lengths get through, then yeah, I guess so." > > "Science sucks," he said. > > If nothing else, it's great to bug your friends with. > I love doing this. But I never really saw the "science sucks" side. It's like the whole free-will vs determinism thing; people say that they don't believe in determinism because it sucks (or at least that they wish it wasn't true), but I'd rather the world be deterministic since that means we can study it better. And it doesn't make the world any less beautiful to me, or make our choices any less meaningful (since we don't have perfect information and meaning is created by us anyways). -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 17:39:50 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:39:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: <7C26345C-015C-40B1-8740-B7692B5547FF@gmail.com> References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> <7C26345C-015C-40B1-8740-B7692B5547FF@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Mike Treder wrote: > P.Z. Myers, who is an actual scientist, explains the problems behind all the > excitement about reverse-engineering the human brain -- > http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/ray_kurzweil_does_not_understa.php One of the comments says: "Kurzweil does not believe technological progress happens in leaps and bounds. He believes technological progress zooms down a wormhole and comes out in a different universe." :-) - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 17 19:04:12 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:04:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost>, , , , Message-ID: > Yeah, Kurzweil's way off mark. See here: > http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/ray_kurzweil_does_not_understa.php Awesome article. My favorite is when he calls him a pseudo-scientific dingbat. Not that I'm qualified to judge, but I like the mix of confidence and alliteration.? Darren 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die. -Alfred Lord Tennyson ________________________________ > Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:26:17 -0500 > From: jebdm at jebdm.net > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human > Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Bryan Bishop >> wrote: >> Here?s how that math works, Kurzweil explains: The design of the > brain is in the genome. The human genome has three billion base pairs > or six billion bits, which is about 800 million bytes before > compression, he says. Eliminating redundancies and applying loss-less > compression, that information can be compressed into about 50 million > bytes, according to Kurzweil. >> >> About half of that is the brain, which comes down to 25 million > bytes, or a million lines of code. > > How does the genome explain protein folding? > > Just because a million lines of code describe the genesis of the > brain's biological systems, doesn't mean that we understand the > interactions of the subsequent structures. > > > Yeah, Kurzweil's way off mark. See here: > http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/ray_kurzweil_does_not_understa.php > . > > Of course, presumably we don't have to understanding the interactions, > so long as we can simulate whatever causes the interactions. But we > can't do that yet, either. Which i think was Kurzweil's point, even > though he got the details (very) wrong. > > > -- > Jebadiah Moore > http://blog.jebdm.net > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing > list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jebdm at jebdm.net Tue Aug 17 19:20:36 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:20:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > Awesome article. My favorite is when he calls him a pseudo-scientific > dingbat. Not that I'm qualified to judge, but I like the mix of confidence > and alliteration. > Yeah, love me some insults. Actually I didn't like the article very much, but his points about Kurzweil's estimations are valid and saved me the trouble of typing it out again (since I had already seen the article on another list). -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From olga.bourlin at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 20:19:51 2010 From: olga.bourlin at gmail.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:19:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:04 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > >> Yeah, Kurzweil's way off mark. See here: >> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/ray_kurzweil_does_not_understa.php > > Awesome article. My favorite is when he calls him a pseudo-scientific dingbat. Not that I'm qualified to judge, but I like the mix of confidence and alliteration. PZ Myers is prone to sophomoric ad hominems. But what really turns me off about PZ's pieces is that he employs a kind of narcissistic, supercilious writing style when - judging from his writing - he would do well to consider being more humble. ;)) Olga From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 21:06:42 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:06:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > Awesome article. My favorite is when he calls him a pseudo-scientific dingbat. Not that I'm qualified to judge, but I like the mix of confidence and alliteration. On a related note.. http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/08/17/1536233/Ray-Kurzweil-Does-Not-Understand-the-Brain I bet readers are going to conflate the two issues (the dubious quality of Ray's understanding of the brain with the issue of whether or not we'll have whole brain emulation in 10 years). Then, in 10 years from now when we have some interesting whole brain emulations running, they will then use that to claim that Ray was right all along (even though he isn't). Oh well. The date predictions and concepts are separate, in case anyone is wondering. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 17 21:12:17 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:12:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost>, , , , , , Message-ID: > PZ Myers is prone to sophomoric ad hominems. But what really turns me> off about PZ's pieces is that he employs a kind of narcissistic,> supercilious writing style when - judging from his writing - he would> do well to consider being more humble. ;))> > OlgaLike Mark Twain, who didn't really need the humility but used it to his advantage. Humility combined with subtle sarcasm can be a devastating critical tool. Especially when, if used properly, one can't always distinguish readily between the two.Darren 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die.-Alfred Lord Tennyson > Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:19:51 -0700 > From: olga.bourlin at gmail.com > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:04 PM, darren shawn greer > wrote: > > > >> Yeah, Kurzweil's way off mark. See here: > >> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/ray_kurzweil_does_not_understa.php > > > > Awesome article. My favorite is when he calls him a pseudo-scientific dingbat. Not that I'm qualified to judge, but I like the mix of confidence and alliteration. > > PZ Myers is prone to sophomoric ad hominems. But what really turns me > off about PZ's pieces is that he employs a kind of narcissistic, > supercilious writing style when - judging from his writing - he would > do well to consider being more humble. ;)) > > Olga > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 17 21:49:01 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:49:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost>, , , , , , Message-ID: > On a related note..> > http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/08/17/1536233/Ray-Kurzweil-Does-Not-Understand-the-Brain Some interesting comments. But once, again, my mood is such today that the rhetoric is entertaining me more than science. Such as Fuzzyfuzzyfungus's comment that "The singularity is to nerds what the rapture is to fundamentalist protestant wackjobs." Or the bbtom's comment: "Kurzweil hasn't just staked his reputation on this barmy timeline, but his life too. I mean, seriously, the guy is popping vitamin pills like crazy thinking that if he can just extend his life a decade or so, the nerd rapture will finally happen and he'll get to be absorbed into the giant galactic Googlebrain." Has anyone ever published a book, or a website, collecting the best of Internet flames? I mean, the Earl of Sandwich had nothing on some of these guys. Someone once told me that my comments (I think it was in a Charles Bukowski newsgroup) were the equivelent of taking a leak in an already piss-stained corner of the internet. Brilliant! Bukowski himself couldn't have said it better. Darren 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die.-Alfred Lord Tennyson > Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:06:42 -0500 > From: kanzure at gmail.com > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org; wta-talk at transhumanism.org; kanzure at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > > Awesome article. My favorite is when he calls him a pseudo-scientific dingbat. Not that I'm qualified to judge, but I like the mix of confidence and alliteration. > > On a related note.. > > http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/08/17/1536233/Ray-Kurzweil-Does-Not-Understand-the-Brain > > I bet readers are going to conflate the two issues (the dubious > quality of Ray's understanding of the brain with the issue of whether > or not we'll have whole brain emulation in 10 years). Then, in 10 > years from now when we have some interesting whole brain emulations > running, they will then use that to claim that Ray was right all along > (even though he isn't). Oh well. The date predictions and concepts are > separate, in case anyone is wondering. > > - Bryan > http://heybryan.org/ > 1 512 203 0507 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Aug 17 22:24:29 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:24:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost>, , , , , , Message-ID: <4C6B0C1D.5070300@satx.rr.com> On 8/17/2010 4:49 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > the rhetoric is entertaining me more than science. > Such as Fuzzyfuzzyfungus's comment that "The singularity is to nerds > what the rapture is to fundamentalist protestant wackjobs." You need to stay in more. "Rapture of the nerds" is a very old canard. It makes about as much sense, and contains about as much truth, as Surgery and antibiotics are to medicine what the rapture is to fundamentalist protestant wackjobs Literacy is to geeks what the rapture is to fundamentalist protestant wackjobs Fire and stone knapping are to Cro-Magnons what the rapture is to fundamentalist protestant wackjobs Spelling "whack jobs" correctly is to literate geeks what the rapture is to fundamentalist protestant whack jobs You can have hours of fun discovering these great insights! Damien Broderick From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 22:15:05 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:15:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A million lines of code Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Seth Woodworth > Date: Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:37 AM > Subject: Re: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely > by 2030, Expert Predicts > To: bodyhacking at lists.caughq.org > Cc: Bryan Bishop > > > Um, no? > >> Here?s how that math works, Kurzweil explains: The design of the brain is in the genome. The human genome has three billion base pairs or six billion bits, which is about 800 million bytes before compression, he says. Eliminating redundancies and applying loss-less compression, that information can be compressed into about 50 million bytes, according to Kurzweil. >> >> About half of that is the brain, which comes down to 25 million bytes, or a million lines of code. > > How does the genome explain protein folding? > > Just because a million lines of code describe the genesis of the > brain's biological systems, doesn't mean that we understand the > interactions of the subsequent structures. There is an interesting analogy here. People do understand microprocessors which are up in this class of complexity (it takes a million lines of code to describe one). Sort of. Anyone can grasp the functional level of how a microprocessor works, but as you get deeper into the modules (pipelines circuits for example) the understanding fades out for all but a small number of experts on that particular section--and they don't understand the next section over. *Nobody* understands a modern microprocessor from the highest levels down through the modules to the transistors. Incidentally, you have no need I can think of to invoke protein folding as a problem for specifying brain development. In fact, you probably don't even need to know what they are, diffuseable attractor proteins A-Z is probably detail enough. In any case, modeling the brain is going to be a big enough problem that the simulation hardware/software that results may be "understandable" only in the same sense that people "understand" microprocessors. Keith Henson PS apologies to anyone who speaks up and says they understand a modern microprocessor from the top level all the way down to the transistor level. From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 22:50:48 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:50:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A million lines of code In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > PS apologies to anyone who speaks up and says they understand a modern > microprocessor from the top level all the way down to the transistor > level. I guess I should raise my hand. I used to do microprocessor design, all the way from high level design (verilog, vhdl) down to /some/ transistor modeling. One transistor, two transistor, they get the same. Granted, they were simple 4-bit systems, not the 64 bit monoliths we have today. Granted, they weren't multi-core, and I haven't been keeping up to date on how multicore works in the scheme of things.. but yeah. Anyway, nothing of substance to add to the discussion. Carry on. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From dgreer_68 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 18 00:31:27 2010 From: dgreer_68 at hotmail.com (darren shawn greer) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:31:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: <4C6B0C1D.5070300@satx.rr.com> References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost>, , , , , , , , , , , , , , <4C6B0C1D.5070300@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: > You need to stay in more. "Rapture of the nerds" is a very old canard. Yeah, it's all pretty new to me. Difficult to give a believable reason why I missed all this stuff, but it's a good one. Just too personal to share in a public group.But the great thing about being new to something is the excitement and passion of discovery is fresh. Everyday I unearth some new idea, some new writer, some new opinion, some new advancement. And the group has really shown me that ideas developed in isolation are not incompatible with what is happening in the larger world. There really is an air of radical change about the planet now, and a shift in the way that humans think about themselves and the universe. In my early youth I always lamented that I never lived in a time like that. I was a Miniver Cheevy in reverse. Thanks to the ideas of transhumanism, posthumanism, a whole bunch of writers, and this list, I no longer feel that way. I'd rather be a nerd waiting for a singularity (even if that is not exactly what I'm doing) than a Cheevy waiting for a time machine.Darren 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die.-Alfred Lord Tennyson > Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:24:29 -0500 > From: thespike at satx.rr.com > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts > > On 8/17/2010 4:49 PM, darren shawn greer wrote: > > > the rhetoric is entertaining me more than science. > > > Such as Fuzzyfuzzyfungus's comment that "The singularity is to nerds > > what the rapture is to fundamentalist protestant wackjobs." > > You need to stay in more. "Rapture of the nerds" is a very old canard. > It makes about as much sense, and contains about as much truth, as > > Surgery and antibiotics are to medicine what the rapture is to > fundamentalist protestant wackjobs > > Literacy is to geeks what the rapture is to fundamentalist protestant > wackjobs > > Fire and stone knapping are to Cro-Magnons what the rapture is to > fundamentalist protestant wackjobs > > Spelling "whack jobs" correctly is to literate geeks what the rapture is > to fundamentalist protestant whack jobs > > You can have hours of fun discovering these great insights! > > Damien Broderick > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Aug 18 03:05:06 2010 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:05:06 +0700 (GMT+07:00) Subject: [ExI] Fw: RE: Wishful thinking? //AI and the Singularity// Message-ID: <8626573.1282100707242.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Forwarded Message----- >From: "Salvatore, Bill >Sent: Aug 18, 2010 12:57 AM >To: "'skeptic at lists.johnshopkins.edu'" >Subject: RE: Wishful thinking? > >In the long run, AI research is much more significant than >exactly how computers shake hands, so i think your brother >chose wisely in deciding where to contribute his talents. > >At the following meeting, i finally got tired of all the tossing >around of jargon that attenders had heard at cocktail parties, >said that my comment would be limited to whether machine thought >was the same as human thought, and argued that eventually, if not >soon, the human brain would be emulated in neural-net hardware -- >that it's just connections and weightings. That's not true (as >no one pointed out in response): there are chemical inputs, there's >the growing of new synapses and maybe even new neurons, and there >is some level of processing that goes on outside the brain; but i >was tired of the vacuity of the discussion. > >Announcement of meeting: 'The first August meeting of Caf? Philo DC > will take place next Sunday, August 8, 2010 from 1 PM to 3 PM at > Reiter's Books, 1900 G St., NW, Washington, DC. The topic will be: > "What Is the Difference Between Man and a Machine?" I will announce > the moderator and send out some background readings for general > information apropos the topic in a subsequent e-mail. > As usual, please check out our Caf? Philo DC Dialogue website at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cafephilodcdialogue where possible > discussion of this topic can be found. > Best regards, Ken Feldman Founder, Caf? Philo DC KenFphilo at aol.com' > >Some background readings suggested by KenF: '...a two-part article by > William Egginton that appeared recently in the "The Stone", the New > York Times's new philosophy commentary series. (Egginton marshals a > bold and cogent defense of the essence of human being -- human > freedom, subjectivity, reasoning, imagination, and what he terms > 'minimal opacity' -- against both religious and scientific > reductiveness that regards humans as machine-like and/or decipherable/ > predictable, whether by gene-driven or God-ordained codes): > The Limits of the Coded World, NYT, 7/25/10 > http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/the-end-of-knowing/ > and the follow-up piece: > Freedom and Reality: A Response, NYT, 8/4/10 > http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/freedom-and-reality-a-response/ > > Scientists: Humans and machines will merge in future, CNN, 2002 > http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/15/bio.tech/index.html > > Will Computers Become Super-Human? > Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society > http://www.i-sis.org.uk/computersvshumans.php > > An Interview/Dialogue with Albert Borgmann and > N. Katherine Hayles on Humans and Machines, 1999 > http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/borghayl.html > > Eliza's World, by Nicholas Carr, The Edge > http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/carr08/carr08_index.html > > Is the Brain's Mind a Computer Program?, John Searle > http://www.scribd.com/doc/26814112/Is-the-Brain-s-Mind-a-Computer-Program-Searle > > Qualitative Experience in Machines, William G. Lycan > http://onthehuman.org/2009/10/qualitative-experience-in-machines/ > > Mind and Brain: Only the Right Connections, Review of What Makes Us Think? > Jean-Pierre Changeux and Paul Ricoeur, by Howard Gardner > http://www.pz.harvard.edu/pis/HG_Changeux.htm > > Philosophy of artificial intelligence, Wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_artificial_intelligence > > Man Versus Machine, Thomas B. Edsall, Huffington Post, 2008 > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/02/man-versus-machine_n_140115.html > > Computers Versus Humans, Theo Pavlidis > http://theopavlidis.com/comphumans/comphuman.htm > > Machine consciousness, Igor Aleksander, Scholarpedia (2008) > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Machine_consciousness > > Neurorobotics, Jeff Krichmar, Scholarpedia (2008) > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Neurorobotics > > Computation of emotions in man and machines, > Peter Robinson and Rana el Kaliouby, > Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 2009 > http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1535/3441.full > > Humans, machines, and the structure of knowledge, Harry M. Collins > http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/4-2/text/collins.html > > For more extensive background reading apropos the differences between > humans and machines, our moderator recommends Leibniz's Monadology, as > well as The Blue Book and Philosophical Investigations by Ludwig Wittgenstein.' > >See also my next message, "the singularity". > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dave >> > SANTA CLARA, Calif. - Proof of extraterrestrial intelligence could >> > come within 25 years, an astronomer who works on the search said Sunday. > >Yeah, but they've been saying that for at least 40 years. That and >how fusion reactors are just 10 years away. > >And this: > >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/ray_kurzweil_does_not_understa.php > >>There he goes again, making up nonsense and making ridiculous claims >>that have no relationship to reality. Ray Kurzweil must be able to >>spin out a good line of bafflegab, because he seems to have the tech >>media convinced that he's a genius, when he's actually just another >>Deepak Chopra for the computer science cognoscenti. >> >>His latest claim is that we'll be able to reverse engineer the human >>brain within a decade. By reverse engineer, he means that we'll be >>able to write software that simulates all the functions of the human >>brain. He's not just speculating optimistically, though: he's >>building his case on such awfully bad logic that I'm surprised >>anyone still pays attention to that kook. > >My brother passed on a chance to help develop TCP/IP with Vint Cerf >because he thought AI was a much hotter topic. Terry W. Colvin Ladphrao (Bangkok), Thailand Pran Buri (Hua Hin), Thailand http://terrycolvin.freewebsites.com/ [Terry's Fortean & "Work" itty-bitty site] From ryanobjc at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 00:56:11 2010 From: ryanobjc at gmail.com (Ryan Rawson) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:56:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A million lines of code In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Unlike most of the blog writers I actually attended Kurzweil's talk on Saturday (sadly though it was by videoconference)... He didn't really say anything new there, and he was just pointing out that if you use information theoretical analysis of the unique available information (ie: dna) you can get an estimate of how much _information_ goes to constructing the brain. He was NOT saying "1 million lines of code = adult human", and I don't think anyone there got that sense. What he said is with a million lines of code you can have a program that _builds_ a brain, and then you have to go forth and teach it from that point. You know, what we do to develop a neural network in all new humans. Oh yes and his argument was we'll see this full reverse engineering thing come to fruition in 2030 (not 2020). I used to be a sceptic, and when you are caught up in the daily struggles of making silicon nanolithography work it can be easy to be pessimistic. But even so, the data looks good - every time a previous generation of computing architecture hits it's limit, a new one comes on the scene. We might as well be talking about the limits of vacuum tube computing and the upcoming computation disaster/crunch. And Kurzweil's prediction is based on solid projections of an exponential growth in computing technology. Exponential trends are powerful and difficult to spot sometimes. On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM, ? Bryan Bishop wrote: >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Seth Woodworth >> Date: Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:37 AM >> Subject: Re: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely >> by 2030, Expert Predicts >> To: bodyhacking at lists.caughq.org >> Cc: Bryan Bishop >> >> >> Um, no? >> >>> Here?s how that math works, Kurzweil explains: The design of the brain is in the genome. The human genome has three billion base pairs or six billion bits, which is about 800 million bytes before compression, he says. Eliminating redundancies and applying loss-less compression, that information can be compressed into about 50 million bytes, according to Kurzweil. >>> >>> About half of that is the brain, which comes down to 25 million bytes, or a million lines of code. >> >> How does the genome explain protein folding? >> >> Just because a million lines of code describe the genesis of the >> brain's biological systems, doesn't mean that we understand the >> interactions of the subsequent structures. > > There is an interesting analogy here. ?People do understand > microprocessors which are up in this class of complexity (it takes a > million lines of code to describe one). > > Sort of. > > Anyone can grasp the functional level of how a microprocessor works, > but as you get deeper into the modules (pipelines circuits for > example) the understanding fades out for all but a small number of > experts on that particular section--and they don't understand the next > section over. ?*Nobody* understands a modern microprocessor from the > highest levels down through the modules to the transistors. > > Incidentally, you have no need I can think of to invoke protein > folding as a problem for specifying brain development. ?In fact, you > probably don't even need to know what they are, diffuseable attractor > proteins A-Z is probably detail enough. > > In any case, modeling the brain is going to be a big enough problem > that the simulation hardware/software that results may be > "understandable" only in the same sense that people "understand" > microprocessors. > > Keith Henson > > PS apologies to anyone who speaks up and says they understand a modern > microprocessor from the top level all the way down to the transistor > level. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Aug 18 04:31:26 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:31:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> Message-ID: On Aug 17, 2010, at 12:42 PM somebody, not clear who, wrote: >> Here?s how that math works, Kurzweil explains: The design of the brain is in the genome. The human genome has three billion base pairs or six billion bits, which is about 800 million bytes before compression, he says. Eliminating redundancies and applying loss-less compression, that information can be compressed into about 50 million bytes, according to Kurzweil. >> About half of that is the brain, which comes down to 25 million bytes, or a million lines of code. Somebody else wrote: > How does the genome explain protein folding? It doesn't. So what? > Just because a million lines of code describe the genesis of the > brain's biological systems, doesn't mean that we understand the > interactions of the subsequent structures. When I was a kid I built some electronic devices from kits, I just followed the instructions. When I was soldering in a capacitor I didn't understand how it interacted with all the other capacitors coils resistors and transistors in the device much less the integrated circuits, nevertheless when I was finished the thing worked because I followed instructions. Understanding is for philosophers not assembly line workers. The great advantage of reverse engineering is that understanding is not necessary. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Aug 18 06:15:48 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 02:15:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <56108113-6F58-49C7-ACF7-D883D19E73AA@bellsouth.net> As I said understanding how a brain works is not necessary to build one with reverse engineering, however if you do want to understand how it works I suggest you watch this short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQjgsQ5G8ug&feature=related John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From test at ssec.wisc.edu Wed Aug 18 11:30:49 2010 From: test at ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:30:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ExI] Dolphin Bubbles Message-ID: http://wimp.com/dolphinbubbles/ From painlord2k at libero.it Wed Aug 18 11:48:57 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:48:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <4C6BC8A9.2090801@libero.it> Il 31/07/2010 20.27, Tomasz Rola ha scritto: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, darren shawn greer wrote: > >> In China, well, I have a problem to >> >>> say. They had been very advanced >> already before Christ and were doing >> >> Peter Watson in "A Terrible Beauty" >> suggests it has something to do with the decline of Confucianism as the central >> organizing principle of their society. > > I've never linked those two things, but this sounds very likable. In the same time, China Empire was strengthening its bureaucracy and its control on the provinces. During the 1.000 they had a large mineral excavation industry with merchant and artisans becoming seriously rich (and powerful). The central authority simply imposed heavy taxes and controls to these merchants and artisans and miners so the industrial development was killed before it could take roots. What differentiate Europe from Asia is the lack of large empires able to impose controls on the subjects. This gave power to the merchants and the producers. The Fell of the Western Roman Empire caused an upsurge of population in the provinces because there no one to impose heavy taxes, so the people worked more and eat better. The other point differentiating Europe from Asia is the willingness to adopt and use any innovation available. Spectacles could be invented in China, but they didn't become a flourish industry there. But in few decades from their introduction in Europe there was a large industry producing spectacles. This, in turn, raised the productive life of the artisans and the utility of writing/reading and do maths. At 40 years old could be too weak for working the field but, with spectacles, he could manage to keep records, accountability, check the threads of a cloth, etc. The same is true for the paper industry and for many other innovations. With smaller kingdoms, the nobles and the kings were forced to consider the bourgeois a resource for and not a menace to their power. The spirit of innovation (enhanced by Christianity) empowered and was empowered by the entrepreneurial freedom. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3079 - Data di rilascio: 08/18/10 08:35:00 From painlord2k at libero.it Wed Aug 18 11:54:51 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:54:51 +0200 Subject: [ExI] What is Rational? (BillK) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6BCA0B.2020109@libero.it> Il 11/08/2010 20.06, Keith Henson ha scritto: > For example, this theory states that the Chinese will not go to war > (unless attacked) as long as the future looks better than the present > for the bulk of the population. This is in strong contrast to the > expectations of the "excess males" theory of why we have wars. The excess of males could be lesser than expected from official charts. It appear that a large number of Chinese families simply kept hidden the birth of females until they were growth enough to go to school. It would be interesting to understand what this pressure has selected for or against. Sheep following the orders and not bothering to do differently, would have less children or none. Unruly sheep and sheep willing to have many children and not willing to kill the females will have more children. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3079 - Data di rilascio: 08/18/10 08:35:00 From painlord2k at libero.it Wed Aug 18 12:17:04 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:17:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] What is Rational? (BillK) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6BCF40.7080505@libero.it> Il 11/08/2010 21.24, BillK ha scritto: > Behaving irrationally is what makes people 'human'. > (As opposed to being cold emotionless calculating machines). > > The whole travesty of the 'Efficient Market Theory' collapsed because > people didn't behave rationally. I am really surprised that you don't > seem to know about the many studies in psychology, marketing, > philosophy, etc. showing that human decision-making is based on > emotions, likes, dislikes, herd instinct, peer pressure, status, etc. > and not on logical analysis. Good reasons to support a reduction of the size of the governments. Who want this type of people wield so large power on their fellows citizens? > Humans are notorious for making bad decisions that damage their lives, > friends and family. You know- It seemed like a good idea at the time. Obama!!! They are talking about you. > Some googling found many references to human irrational behaviour, but > this is too big a subject to be solved by quoting a couple of links. > We'll have to just view humanity from opposite poles. You show that your understanding of economics is very lacking; this is usually the problem of people sure to know and understand. >From a Austrian perspective, "action" is what is done with a purpose in mind. It is what make intelligent beings different from animals and plants or machines. If there is not a conscious purpose, there is not action but a reflex or an effect. Austrians don't postulate that the course of action taken from an individual or a group is the best or the most "efficient" to obtain a goal. Only that the action is taken with a clear goal and people believe these actions will cause, in the future, to obtain (or raise the chance to) the goal. Often, given the lacking of perfect informations and perfect ability to analyze them and fast enough ability to analyze the informations people choose an not optimal course of action (who have perfect informations, analyzing skill and analyzing speed anyway?). People don't behave rationally (in your eyes) because large part of the time they are reacting and not acting, behaving reflexively and not thinking the course of action. In a word, they are with the autopilot on. Would You throw away the Newton Law's on account that attrition exist always? Or that at low levels there is the brownian motion or the Quantum Mechanics? Efficient market theory is sound, from what I understand. It explain many things happening. And when the results are different, you can look for "noise" or different conditions that caused a different outcome. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3079 - Data di rilascio: 08/18/10 08:35:00 From painlord2k at libero.it Wed Aug 18 12:53:01 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:53:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence [Was Re: Sarah Palin] In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <20100721161058.ku3wqeoypgcckgsg@webmail.maxmore.com> Message-ID: <4C6BD7AD.5000509@libero.it> Il 22/07/2010 0.16, Tomasz Rola ha scritto: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, max at maxmore.com wrote: > >> Gosh, I?m glad we?re discussing the fine details of Catholic >> theology here. :-) >> > [...] >> The main point is: Do you agree with the Muslims who claim that >> their highest religious authorities and texts do *not* tell them to >> fight the infidel? >> >> Max > > I think it's a bit hard to agree or disagree, unless one reads "the > text" in original, i.e. in Arabic language. Old Arabic language. This is an old point made by Islamists and Islam apologists. But this also imply that 99.99% of the Muslims have nothing to say about their religion. Not much apart their life experience. I remember a blog of a young girl in Iraq (few months after the toppling of Saddam) where she complained about how difficult were the lessons of Arabic. I suppose she was talking about the "international" version used to communicate between different people from Morocco to Pakistan and Malaysia. > From what I've heard so far, reading a translation "does not count", > whatever this really means (not sure yet). It mean that Allah spoke in the Quran in Arabic (classic). So all other are "interpretation of the meaning". The few that know the Arabic Classic are the only that can interpret the Quran; so, if you are a native arabic speaker you are more able to understand the Quran that, for example, a Malay or a Pakistani. > As of authorities, I guess > it is same as the case with Catholic religious authorities, they tend > to disagree (more or less) even with their previous manifestations. The problem Islam have not a central authority able to settle and bind all to a "official" position. Then, Catholic Authorities consider the understanding mutable as knowledge know. Islam is not interested in "Theology" (to study and understand God) like Christianity. This because Allah is not understandable by definition and is not interested in be understood; what concern Islam is Theopraxy, to do as God order and wish, no need to understand what one do. God (Christian's), in the reverse, want be know and understood, so studying it is a good deed. In this, what one do is important as much as the reason one do it. > Maybe I am not clear enough, so we can reverse the situation and > question. I know there are "doves" and "hawks" in US, both have their > "sacred texts" (some shared) and authorities - now, question is, do > American "texts" and "authorities" tell their citizens to go to war > or the other way? And the answer is a bit complicated, isn't it? The "sacred texts" don't order their followers to "go in war" against someone; they, at best, give some reasons to go in war and some reasons to don't. In Christianity people is expected to choose between good and evil. Is this course of action good? Will it cause good in the long time? And in the short? In Islam people is expected to do as the "sacred text" command; no one can prohibit what is allowed and allow what is prohibit; and you can broke any (sacred or profane) law if enhance Islam power. The concepts of "good" and "evil" in Islam are very different from the same concept in Christianity. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3079 - Data di rilascio: 08/18/10 08:35:00 From pharos at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 13:14:17 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:14:17 +0100 Subject: [ExI] What is Rational? (BillK) In-Reply-To: <4C6BCF40.7080505@libero.it> References: <4C6BCF40.7080505@libero.it> Message-ID: On 8/18/10, Mirco Romanato wrote: > Efficient market theory is sound, from what I understand. > It explain many things happening. And when the results are different, > you can look for "noise" or different conditions that caused a different > outcome. > > The good news is that you don't have to stop believing in the efficient market theory just because you know it doesn't work. It's an act of faith. If believing helps you to profit from the wild swings in market prices then go for it! Every boom and bust in markets or individual share prices can be rationalised to fit in with the theory if you try hard enough. Just believe hard enough and you can ignore all that emotional herd instinct stuff. BillK From painlord2k at libero.it Wed Aug 18 13:24:02 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:24:02 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <7F5488A1-3273-4C3B-ADF9-8C0003D00AD1@bellsouth.net> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C574252.5070705@mac.com> <7F5488A1-3273-4C3B-ADF9-8C0003D00AD1@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4C6BDEF2.8070906@libero.it> Il 07/08/2010 19.34, John Clark ha scritto: > On Aug 7, 2010, at 3:58 AM, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > >> After all, they [natural ethics] are clearly an intellectual >> product of religion > That is not true, not if natural ethics means things most people > feel are right. Feel and religion are not the source of Natural Law. Natural Law date back to Romans (and probably before of them). Wikipedia Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two. Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[4] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Su?rez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law. > The Bible is full of horror, if you obeyed all its repulsive dictates > you would very soon find yourself on death row or at a warcrimes > tribunal at the Hague. Instead when a believer reads his bible he > picks and chooses, when it says don't kill they embrace it, but when > it orders you to murder your disobedient children as it does in > Deuteronomy 21:18-21 they just pretend its not there. So something > other than religion is telling them that one thing is a pretty good > idea and the other one not so much. The Laws in the Bible, usually, give the maximum penalty that can be given. Not the penalty that MUST be given. How many recorded fathers killed their disobedient sons in Israel in the biblical times? If I remember, the fathers needed to bring their son in from of a tribunal of elders to be allowed to kill them. Given my experience with "extreme cases" I can understand the need a law like this to be in the book at the time, given the material conditions of the time (do psychiatric drugs to keep psychotic calm and not many jail to keep the psychopath in). Then, by an evolutionary prospective, fathers that killed their offspring for the wrong reasons would disappear from the gene pool, like father allowing the wrong type of disobedient sons to live (like the too gentle father of a psychopath that menace the rest of the family members). The law would allow the in-between fathers to have their genes to prosper, without favoring the law-breakers. If I remember correctly, the Old Testament say that a tribunal giving out a death penalty more than a time every 70 years is cruel. So, I suppose, there were not so many death sentences or there were many cruel tribunals. >> People will tend to favor moral systems which benefit the >> majority Nope. People tend to favor moral systems that favor them. They prefer moral systems that favor the individuals when they recognize the possibility to be at the receiving end of someone else moral system. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3079 - Data di rilascio: 08/18/10 08:35:00 From pharos at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 13:47:31 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:47:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 8/17/10, darren shawn greer wrote: > Of course, post humanist critical thinkers also reject scientism and the scientific > method as inadequate tools of the enlightenment. About that I am not so keen. > The argument seems to be that since neither disorder nor order are fundamental > properties of the universe, only perspectives, then logic is only a property of human > subjectivity and it too is extremely limited. Any model that attempts to use logic to > know the universe will be flawed, because it is subjective. > They suggest no alternative, other than to accept this dubious assertion. > > It seems that for many of them situational objectivity is enough, and in fact no more > is possible or ever will be possible, given the limitations of the observer. > > I think you need to read: BillK From painlord2k at libero.it Wed Aug 18 18:03:40 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:03:40 +0200 Subject: [ExI] anorexic geniuses, was Re: Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <301837.44005.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <301837.44005.qm@web81508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C6C207C.6030705@libero.it> Il 03/08/2010 22.53, Gregory Jones ha scritto: > My favorite Godel story: He didn't realize fully the danger from the > Nazis, being as Godel wasn't always on exactly the same planet with the > rest of us, so the scientific community managed to get him to the US. > Einstein and others were trying to get him US citizenship. At the US > consulate, he was given a copy of the US constitution, which he read > carefully. An embassy worker asked "Dr. Godel, what do you think of our > constitution?" Godel: "According to this document, the US could legally > become a dictatorship." > That sure doesn't sound crazy to me. We need a thousand like him, a > million. Godel, for what I understood of his psyche, was a schizophrenic. A very intelligent and productive schizophrenic. This account for much of his odd behavior, for his detachment from the reality of day-by-day life. This also sit well with his ability to follow logic and rationality to the ultimate end in abstract thinking. Some psychiatrist have argued that schizophrenic are hyper-rationalists. Their problems arise from the inability to exit from the abstract thinking and use other skills to manage day-to-day matters. A post-human could have the ability to think ultra-logically without losing himself. His condition is not so abnormal for people with high abstract thinking skills. A large number of the most preeminent logics of the last century was sometimes hospitalized in some psychiatric ward or asylum or anyway had/have psychiatric problems. Look Fisher, for example. This article, beyond a pay-wall, appear interesting: http://www.springerlink.com/content/w121v88j0771r0x2/ This article focuses on John Nash, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1994, and subject of the Award winning 2001 film A Beautiful Mind, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 1958 at the age of 29. After presenting an account of the emergence, course, and eventual remission of his illness, the article argues for the relevance of his contribution to game theory, known as the Nash equilibrium, for which he received the Nobel Prize, to research studies of the schizophrenic brain and how it deviates from the normal brain. The case is made that the Nash equilibrium is descriptive of the normal brain, whereas the game theory formulated by John van Neumann, which Nash?s theory challenges, is descriptive of the schizophrenic brain. The fact that Nash and his colleagues in mathematics did not make the association between his contributions to mathematics and his mental breakdown and that his later recovery exemplified the validity of this contribution are noted and discussed. Religious themes in his delusional system, including his view of himself as a secret messianic figure and the biblical Esau, are interpreted in light of these competing game theories and the dysfunctions of the schizophrenic brain. His recognition that his return to normalcy came at the price of his sense of being in relation to the cosmos is also noted. Another citation here: The disease began to evaporate in the early 1970s and Nash began to gradually to return to his work in mathematics. However, Nash himself associated his madness with his living on an "ultralogical" plane, "breathing air too rare" for most mortals, and if being "cured" meant he could no longer do any original work at that level, then, Nash argued, a remission might not be worthwhile in the end. As John Dryden once put it: Great wits are sure to madness near allied, And thin partitions do their bounds divide. (John Dryden, Absalom and Achitophel, 1681) -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3079 - Data di rilascio: 08/18/10 08:35:00 From giulio at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 18:49:00 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:49:00 +0200 Subject: [ExI] ASIM 2010 Conference, Advancing Substrate-Independent Minds - writeups and video coverage Message-ID: http://giulioprisco.blogspot.com/2010/08/asim-2010-conference-advancing.html http://telexlr8.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/asim-2010-conference-advancing-substrate-independent-minds-day-1/ http://telexlr8.wordpress.com/2010/08/18/asim-2010-conference-advancing-substrate-independent-minds-day-2/ ASIM (Advancing Substrate-Independent Minds) is a new series of workshops and activities that will cover the current state of the art in the fields of whole brain emulation, mind transfer, digital personalities, gradual replacement techniques, and brain preservation. The sessions of the ASIM workshop ran after the Singularity Summit workshop on Monday and Tuesday, as a satellite event to the main Singularity Summit (August 14-15). See http://www.carboncopies.org/workshop2 I am halfway through uploading the videos. have attended ASIM 2010 via Teleplace from the middle of nowhere in Central Europe, with a 3G phone link to the Internet and a very weak signal (in other words, my current Internet connection is VERY slow), and I cannot upload the video fast. Full video coverage online in a couple of days. From algaenymph at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 20:01:29 2010 From: algaenymph at gmail.com (AlgaeNymph) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:01:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Tricycle on Transhumanism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6C3C19.30902@gmail.com> darren shawn greer wrote: > Lao Tzu objected to the invention of the water-wheel because it > isolated people from nature and put the water-wallah out of work. He'd go far working for White Wolf games, or any Liberal Studies department. Anyway, do you have the reference? Google isn't getting me anything. From jebdm at jebdm.net Wed Aug 18 21:12:40 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:12:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C6BDEF2.8070906@libero.it> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20100721194356.GC23426@ofb.net> <4135667C-A61C-44E5-8477-04E6BA1FDC3A@bellsouth.net> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C574252.5070705@mac.com> <7F5488A1-3273-4C3B-ADF9-8C0003D00AD1@bellsouth.net> <4C6BDEF2.8070906@libero.it> Message-ID: 2010/8/18 Mirco Romanato > > Feel and religion are not the source of Natural Law. > If you believe in natural law, you believe that natural law comes from nature (and thus if you're religious probably from God). But if you don't believe in natural law, which I don't, you can still try to figure out where the belief in natural law comes from. I think that the belief in natural law is sourced primarily in the belief in religions. >> People will tend to favor moral systems which benefit the > >> majority > > Nope. > People tend to favor moral systems that favor them. > They prefer moral systems that favor the individuals when they recognize > the possibility to be at the receiving end of someone else moral system. I didn't say it was the primary drive. Obviously if a moral system favors an individual, that individual will tend to favor the moral system. But this won't hold true if favoring that moral system is practically dangerous (i.e., people believe you're evil because of it). So on average, people will favor systems that don't cause them to be scorned. Based on the principle that people go for moral systems that favor themselves, finding a system that doesn't get you scorned will tend to look like finding a system that favors others. Because you want the majority not to scorn you (or at least a majority of the power, which might be held by a minority), you'll find a moral system that favors the majority of the others, and therefore the majority. It's not the only factor, though. If you can get away with a moral system which favors yourself, you probably will (this is called "corruption"). If for whatever reason you believe very strongly in some particular moral system, you'll probably favor it even if it works against you, at least up to a point (people turning themselves in, submitting to systems in which they are subservient, etc.). And I'm sure there are many more factors at play. -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nymphomation at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 00:44:13 2010 From: nymphomation at gmail.com (*Nym*) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:44:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Humour: Bio-conservatism challenged on BBC's 'That Mitchell & Webb Look' Message-ID: One sketch stood out a little on this week's show.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt6nwvGJiN8 >From BBC's 'That Mitchell & Webb Look' A mostly disappointing series otherwise, with irritating canned laughter as usual. Perhaps I just need to REMAIN INDOORS and be voltage-calmed? HTH Thee Nymphomation http://twitter.com/nymphomation From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Aug 19 03:17:57 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:17:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C574252.5070705@mac.com> <7F5488A1-3273-4C3B-ADF9-8C0003D00AD1@bellsouth.net> <4C6BDEF2.8070906@libero.it> Message-ID: <4C6CA265.30103@mac.com> Jebadiah Moore wrote: > 2010/8/18 Mirco Romanato > > > Feel and religion are not the source of Natural Law. > > > If you believe in natural law, you believe that natural law comes from > nature (and thus if you're religious probably from God). But if you > don't believe in natural law, which I don't, you can still try to > figure out where the belief in natural law comes from. I think that > the belief in natural law is sourced primarily in the belief in religions. To be more precise, naturals come from the actual nature of the beings involved. In other words they are based in reality. I don't think reality requires God. If in reality human beings have certain critical characteristics dictating that they best interact with one another (the only domain of rights) in certain ways and not others then these are rights inherent to their nature. It will be difficult to claim that human beings have no particular nature in reality that is relevant to the proper way for them to act towards one another. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Aug 19 03:21:31 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:21:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A million lines of code In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6CA33B.9050006@mac.com> Ryan Rawson wrote: > Unlike most of the blog writers I actually attended Kurzweil's talk on > Saturday (sadly though it was by videoconference)... He didn't really > say anything new there, and he was just pointing out that if you use > information theoretical analysis of the unique available information > (ie: dna) you can get an estimate of how much _information_ goes to > constructing the brain. He was NOT saying "1 million lines of code = > adult human", and I don't think anyone there got that sense. What he > said is with a million lines of code you can have a program that > _builds_ a brain, and then you have to go forth and teach it from that > point. You know, what we do to develop a neural network in all new > humans. Oh yes and his argument was we'll see this full reverse > engineering thing come to fruition in 2030 (not 2020). > He said you could model the brain as a bunch of Lisp! This made my day. :) - s From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Aug 19 03:25:54 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:25:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <4C6CA442.3050601@mac.com> darren shawn greer wrote: >> Yeah, Kurzweil's way off mark. See here: >> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/ray_kurzweil_does_not_understa.php >> > > > Awesome article. My favorite is when he calls him a pseudo-scientific dingbat. Not that I'm qualified to judge, but I like the mix of confidence and alliteration. > I respect Ray a lot. But I could definitely do without sitting through his list of credentials yet again or seeing yet another set of his exponential curves on the screen. There was some new material in the talk at SS 2010 but it seemed fairly ad lib. The majority of the talk was a rehash of his Citizen Scientist presentation. - s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 04:45:26 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:45:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts To: bodyhacking at lists.caughq.org On Aug 17, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote: "Reverse-engineering the human brain so we can simulate it using >> computers may be just two decades away, says Ray Kurzweil, artificial >> intelligence expert and author of the best-selling book The Singularity >> is Near. >> > > Henry Markram thinks he can do it by 2018. He's probably right. > If he gets the funding. Funny thing, life. I just spent the weekend in Reno with my sweetie Shelly, who's considering moving there to do her doctorate with him working on the Blue Brain project. The catch? He's so desperately underfunded that he can't even afford to fund her (or any of his other grad students, for that matter). And now that he's alienated IBM by calling them on what he describes as a false and misleading claim to have modeled a cat's brain, he doesn't have access to their funding or use of their Blue Gene supercomputer any more. This is the field that Shelly's been working in for the past few years, and she says it's not even a matter of time 'til we can simulate a human brain in a computer; at this point, it's merely a matter of money. Of course, she also has a beef with Ray Kurzweil. This is something we were talking about on the ten-hour drive from Portland to Reno. In a recent blog post talking about brain modeling, Kurzweil claimed that computational brain modeling problem that hundreds of thousands of scientists are working. In reality, the number is more like seven, all of them desperately underfunded, and all of them scraping and struggling to get together as much money as a typical university spends in a month on its football program. Franklin http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 04:23:01 2010 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:23:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] What is Rational? (BillK) In-Reply-To: References: <4C6BCF40.7080505@libero.it> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:14 AM, BillK wrote: > On 8/18/10, Mirco Romanato wrote: > > > Efficient market theory is sound, from what I understand. > > It explain many things happening. And when the results are different, > > you can look for "noise" or different conditions that caused a different > > outcome. > > > > > > > The good news is that you don't have to stop believing in the > efficient market theory just because you know it doesn't work. It's > an act of faith. ### The bad news is, you can't argue reasonably against a theory if you have no idea of what it actually postulates. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Thu Aug 19 06:29:08 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 02:29:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: <4C6CA265.30103@mac.com> References: <201007211513.o6LFDcxv019859@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <14164DAE-A3A7-4D57-A060-7B815B09FD12@bellsouth.net> <1F3511E8-AFFE-4771-809E-AB423A6593B3@bellsouth.net> <2F494D7A-F98F-48AB-933C-A5734440A3B1@bellsouth.net> <4C565D71.6060606@mac.com> <4C574252.5070705@mac.com> <7F5488A1-3273-4C3B-ADF9-8C0003D00AD1@bellsouth.net> <4C6BDEF2.8070906@libero.it> <4C6CA265.30103@mac.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/18 samantha > To be more precise, naturals come from the actual nature of the beings > involved. In other words they are based in reality. I don't think reality > requires God. If in reality human beings have certain critical > characteristics dictating that they best interact with one another (the only > domain of rights) in certain ways and not others then these are rights > inherent to their nature. It will be difficult to claim that human beings > have no particular nature in reality that is relevant to the proper way for > them to act towards one another. > I don't think the term "natural law" can be applied to the system you're proposing; it has (as far as I can tell) always been invoked as referring to a natural law that is not derived from the nature of human beings, but existing separately from them. In any case, you still haven't rebutted my points from before regarding the statement you just proposed, or backed yourself up with some logic or evidence. I'll argue my point again, though, specifically in response to your claim here. The first problem with your formulation of natural law (I'll call this... derived universal morality, or DUM... heh, no pun intended) is that you're looking for a way to prescribe the "best" way for humans to interact. But where does this standard come from? We're assuming that there is no God prescribing it, nor any physical law of the universe directly saying "humans should do X". If humans were uniform in their goals, then perhaps you could derive a standard based on maximizing utility toward this goal, like you can try to design the "best" algorithm for some purpose (e.g. sorting or spam filtering) or the "best" machine for moving humans around or making pencils. But humans are not uniform in their goals, nor are their goals unitary or simple. Instead, there are a wide variety of complex goal sets, varying from "raise a family in the country while learning to play the piano and raise a garden" to "make as much money as possible and have lots of random sex". (If you can think of something besides goals from which to derived a DUM, let me know. For it to exist as you specify--not based on an arbitrarily given rule, but based on the characteristics of humans--and also govern all human behavior--so it can't just be things like "the most productive way to hold a conversation is to avoid interrupting each other"--it must be based in some characteristic of humans which applies to all their behavior (or at least all voluntary behavior). Voluntary [in the sense of "somatic nervous system"] behavior in humans seems to be basically directed by a combination of conscious goals and subconscious drives/programmed behavior. [Of course, you might dispute this, but I don't see how you can do something more productive using a lower-level model. If you do, do tell; it would probably be quite interesting.] Altering the drives themselves is one route to behavior control, but I don't think it's what you're looking for in a moral system. Even if it is, altering them is only good if it's done toward some purpose [whether fully understood or not], so I think it's safe to say that goals are the only thing we have to base a DUM on.) So, obviously you cannot design a code of morality which satisfies all human goals at once (especially since some of them are mutually conflicting). The next idea is to simply derive a set of goals which everyone has. This seems plausible at first glance, due to our common gene pool, but alas, even the obvious genetic goals are not universal in our species--surviving and having kids. So I think this is a dead end. At this point, I think it's safe to say that it's not possible to derive a universally acceptable and applicable code of morality based on shared human characteristics. In other words, you can't have a true DUM. And without universality, you don't have anything even remotely like natural law. So, what's left? You might relax the requirements and say the goals don't have to be universal, but they should pertain to a vast majority. This is the first really feasible possibility, because there are a lot of traits/goals that, while not universal, are extremely widespread. I'll call this solution "derived majoritarian morality". In fact, a DMM is roughly what we have now; it is what a long history of common law produces, and it is what democracy produces, modulo the skew towards the ruling class. DMMs can still produce the concept of rights. In fact, I would expect that most would produce some sort of similar mechanism, at least, based on the principle that most people are non-majority in some way, and as they find that their views clash with the common morality, they would want some way to protect their ability to choose. Plus, people seem to like to choose things rather a lot, and would probably value that intrinsically, so would assert in their code of morality that taking away choices is, in general, bad. You do have to be careful with DMMs, though, because the majority sometimes believes and values some crazy things. Of course, these things only seem crazy to people that don't believe them, so perhaps that doesn't matter and we "ought" to let the majority have its way anyways. But I am wary of directly assembling a DMM based on opinion polls, etc., because it is not too unlikely for atheists/non-heterosexuals/other minorities to be condemned. The point is, you're not going to get something perfect or universal if you try to derive it from human nature. And whatever you do get you'll be asserting/imposing, rather than "discovering", if you frame it as a moral system. But you can get something pretty close to what you describe (not a system giving the best rules for all people, but a system giving good rules for most people), and posit that as a moral system/as law. That'd probably be better than what we currently have (although what we have is an informal approximation to what you're looking for), especially since you could try to minimize conflicts with peoples' views based on poll data or some such thing. But it'd still be an instance of "positive law", not "natural law", and it should be treated as such. -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 09:43:53 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 02:43:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Global competition for nanotechnology dominance... Message-ID: And I remember when nanotechnology was either very theoretical or even seen as a joke. But now a big nanotech snowball is rolling down a global hill... http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=heady-days-of-nanotech-funding-behi-2010-08-18 John From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 10:52:37 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 03:52:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] fatherhood and neuroscience Message-ID: http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/archives/2010/08/in-defense-of-fatherhood-a-neuroscience-perspective.html "A father's brain is significantly and beautifully intertwined with his offspring's. For whatever reasons, be they biological, evolutional, or societal, the onus of human parenthood has traditionally fallen on the mother. But the evidence is showing that a father has direct influence on his child's neurodevelopment ? and indeed, his brain can benefit as well." I think I will call up my father today! It has been awhile. John : ) From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 11:09:19 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:09:19 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Unusual Tribute to a SF Writer Message-ID: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1IxOS4VzKM From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 14:06:54 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 07:06:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Unusual Tribute to a SF Writer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I wonder if Damien has had "problems" like this during the course of his writing career... John ; ) On 8/19/10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1IxOS4VzKM > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From ryanobjc at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 05:29:12 2010 From: ryanobjc at gmail.com (Ryan Rawson) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:29:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: <4C6CA442.3050601@mac.com> References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> <4C6CA442.3050601@mac.com> Message-ID: My friend with me asked if I thought Kurzweil was sick... I couldn't say. The thing about Kurzweil is he is filling the role of the visionary. And we need a whole lot of positive vision right about now. He gives the same lecture a lot because it needs to be repeated a lot. People have been living with exponentially faster computers yet don't seem to realize or embrace the potential. The latest intel chipset computers have really blown the old ones away, and this is not just server technology but desktop tech. But you find people who still seem to think this is very normal and things will just "slowly" get better. Look at the smartphone space, in 3 years we have gone from 'texting' to 'i want apps and a rich web/multimedia experience in my pocket now damnit'. June 2007 - July 2010, the introduction of the iPhone (i stood in that line) to the iPhone 4 and the plethora of Android devices. What will happen in the next 3 years? -ryan 2010/8/18 samantha : > darren shawn greer wrote: > > Yeah, Kurzweil's way off mark. See here: > http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/ray_kurzweil_does_not_understa.php > > > Awesome article. My favorite is when he calls him a pseudo-scientific > dingbat. Not that I'm qualified to judge, but I like the mix of confidence > and alliteration. > > > I respect Ray a lot. But I could definitely do without sitting through his > list of credentials yet again or seeing yet another set of his exponential > curves on the screen.? There was some new material in the talk at SS 2010 > but it seemed fairly ad lib.? The majority of the talk was a rehash of his > Citizen Scientist presentation. > > - s > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 14:58:36 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:58:36 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <4C69EAEE.5020708@mac.com> References: <807134.2672.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C62F9F9.8060005@libero.it> <4C6328F2.2070300@libero.it> <4C6575DC.5010900@libero.it> <4C6724F5.40603@libero.it> <4C69EAEE.5020708@mac.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/17 samantha > A claim of clear and present danger does not in any way justify the > initiation of force. There is a clear and present danger that many people I > know will invent something quite dangerous that will get lose. Does that > mean they should be locked up, shot, or otherwise forcibly prevented just on > the chance? No. Any other entity with enough power to do you damage is in > principle a clear and present danger. > I agree. Even though the concept of "initiation of force" IMHO is much less clear-cut than traditional libertarian thought would admit. In fact, I think innumerable ways to compel violence without resorting to violence oneself first can be concocted, thus obtaining perhaps a propaganda dividend, but certainly not a "moral" one. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 14:42:23 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:42:23 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China In-Reply-To: <4C6866C0.1050408@libero.it> References: <4C6866C0.1050408@libero.it> Message-ID: 2010/8/16 Mirco Romanato > For what I remember, the US military forces are here and stay here > because the government approve it. > This is a matter of perspective. I'd rather say that the government is here and stays because the US military forces approve it... :-) No left- or right-wing Italian government lasts for long unless it is approved or at least tolerated by the administration in place, let alone no possible political regime (see the abrupt end of the so-called First Republic in the early nineties out of CIA's dossiers). One may approve or disapprove such semi-colonial status, which has historical reasons, but I dare say it is a fact. An eloquent confirmation thereof is the jurisdictional exemption enjoyed by US military in the country, and in practical terms by intelligence people as well. You are unable to find the 15 Mandarin teachers because you look for > qualifications that are superfluous. You want "professors"; italian > people with a piece of paper telling they know Mandarin and are able to > teach it. > > I suggest you go in Via Paolo Sarpi in Milan: You will find as many > Mandarin speaking individuals as you could wish and more. > Yes, you are right on that, even though being mother tongue or bilingual does not automatically qualify someone to teach the language concerned... I realise for instance that I am very bad at teaching Italian, since I am a natural in speaking it... ;-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 14:45:21 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:45:21 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16 August 2010 16:36, Keith Henson wrote: > India would be the obvious choice. > But for the fact that Italy is more or less on a par with Iceland or Costarica as an obvious target for possible Indian territorial ambitions... :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 15:13:14 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:13:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> <4C6CA442.3050601@mac.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Ryan Rawson wrote: > But you find people who still seem to think this is very normal and > things will just "slowly" get better. Look at the smartphone space, > in 3 years we have gone from 'texting' to 'i want apps and a rich > web/multimedia experience in my pocket now damnit'. June 2007 - July > 2010, the introduction of the iPhone (i stood in that line) to the > iPhone 4 and the plethora of Android devices. > > What will happen in the next 3 years? > To be accurate, SMS was first commercially released in the early 90s - about the same time as the Web became available for public use. While adoption was much slower than the Web and than smartphones, I'd call that transition more like 10-15 years to reach the same level of public use. That's still a lot faster than most people appear to think change is happening, though. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 16:52:09 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:52:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> <4C6CA442.3050601@mac.com> Message-ID: 2010/8/19 Adrian Tymes wrote: > That's still a lot faster than most people appear to think change is > happening, though. > > Have you seen this year's Beloit College Mindset List for college freshmen -- a group mostly born in 1992? They can't do joined-up writing, think email is too slow, that Beethoven's a dog and Michelangelo a computer virus. For them Czechoslovakia has never existed, Fergie is a pop singer, not a duchess; Clint Eastwood is a sensitive movie director, not Dirty Harry; and John McEnroe stars in TV ads, not on the tennis court. They've never had a cord on their phone and they don't wear a watch. BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Aug 19 16:54:31 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:54:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Unusual Tribute to a SF Writer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6D61C7.1020600@satx.rr.com> On 8/19/2010 9:06 AM, John Grigg wrote: > I wonder if Damien has had "problems" like this during the course of > his writing career... I've had my share, yes, but not my fair share, because I rarely go to sf conventions. Damien Broderick From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 20:11:52 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:11:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Unusual Tribute to a SF Writer In-Reply-To: <4C6D61C7.1020600@satx.rr.com> References: <4C6D61C7.1020600@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Damien Broderick wrote: >I've had my share, yes, but not my fair share, because I rarely go to sf conventions. Well..., whose fault was that? lol John On 8/19/10, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 8/19/2010 9:06 AM, John Grigg wrote: > >> I wonder if Damien has had "problems" like this during the course of >> his writing career... > > I've had my share, yes, but not my fair share, because I rarely go to sf > conventions. > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Aug 19 20:45:31 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:45:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] a book (with a cute cover) Message-ID: <4C6D97EB.80700@satx.rr.com> Here's my latest edited critical book, SKIFFY AND MIMESIS: More Best of Australian SF Review: with a delicious cover rendered by Anders Sandberg. Hit "larger image" for a better look--but really it glows on the glossy cover of the book. Damien Broderick From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 20:52:25 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:52:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] a book (with a cute cover) In-Reply-To: <4C6D97EB.80700@satx.rr.com> References: <4C6D97EB.80700@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Anders artistic skills with rendering have really grown. I am impressed! John On 8/19/10, Damien Broderick wrote: > Here's my latest edited critical book, SKIFFY AND MIMESIS: More Best of > Australian SF Review: > > > > with a delicious cover rendered by Anders Sandberg. Hit "larger image" > for a better look--but really it glows on the glossy cover of the book. > > Damien Broderick > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From ryanobjc at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 22:37:29 2010 From: ryanobjc at gmail.com (Ryan Rawson) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:37:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> <4C6CA442.3050601@mac.com> Message-ID: I'm not sure how true that was, my friend had a cell phone circa 2000 that did not support SMS... I think the nokia 5000 series was the first cell that people did real texting. I started texting a bit in 2003 picked up in 2004 and now I've switched to gtalk via data in the last year thanks to Androids. It's going to be pretty amazing. > To be accurate, SMS was first commercially released in the early 90s - about > the same > time as the Web became available for public use.? While adoption was much > slower than > the Web and than smartphones, I'd call that transition more like 10-15 years > to reach the > same level of public use. > > That's still a lot faster than most people appear to think change is > happening, though. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 23:15:52 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:15:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Natural law was Religions and violence. Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:29 PM, wrote: > To be more precise, naturals come from the actual nature of the beings > involved. ?In other words they are based in reality. ?I don't think > reality requires God. ? If in reality human beings have certain critical > characteristics dictating that they best interact with one another (the > only domain of rights) in certain ways and not others then these are > rights inherent to their nature. ?It will be difficult to claim that > human beings have no particular nature in reality that is relevant to > the proper way for them to act towards one another. Humans certainly have species wide "human nature" and the only way I know of that they could have obtained the collective characteristics that make up human nature is natural selection. (If you think otherwise, you probably should not be reading this list.) So you can predict that the elements of human nature were (over evolutionary time in the EEA) good for gene survival. The same follows for derived matters such as "natural law." Now in looking into these you need to keep in mind that most of our EEA was hunter gatherer bands with the relation spectrum that implies. (Though see Gregory Clark for arguments about recent intense family based selection in stable agrarian societies.) And you need to keep in mind that what's good for genes varies with the conditions. A well fed tribe might adopt a stranger, one on the edge of starvation may kill them out of hand. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Aug 20 02:14:22 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:14:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Dealing with the IRS Message-ID: <4C6DE4FE.5000507@satx.rr.com> Be warned: This is a Blatant Advertisement as well as a public announcement--but it concerns a book by a long-time extrope (my wife, Barbara Lamar), on a topic of some urgency to many people in these financially critical times. I hope it's not spam, but if moderators regard it as such, I'll understand if it's removed. Anyone confronted by horrid tax demands from the IRS might wish to buy a new guide just released by Barbara, who's an MBA and holds a JD in tax law. It's available as a download here: Feel encouraged to pass this information along to anyone who is in trouble with their taxes. Damien Broderick From rtomek at ceti.pl Fri Aug 20 03:11:08 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 05:11:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> <4C6CA442.3050601@mac.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, BillK wrote: > 2010/8/19 Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > That's still a lot faster than most people appear to think change is > > happening, though. > > > > > > Have you seen this year's Beloit College Mindset List for college > freshmen -- a group mostly born in 1992? > > They can't do joined-up writing, think email is too slow, that > Beethoven's a dog and Michelangelo a computer virus. For them > Czechoslovakia has never existed, Fergie is a pop singer, not a > duchess; Clint Eastwood is a sensitive movie director, not Dirty > Harry; and John McEnroe stars in TV ads, not on the tennis court. > They've never had a cord on their phone and they don't wear a watch. > > > Truly interesting read, as it gives some insights (at least to me). However, as soon as I get over the first shock (Beethoven-the-dog? well, I prefer Mozart, Bach and Haydn but this old deaf musician had good kick, too) I mostly think that nothing really changes so much. Of course, we all get older and so on, but on the other hand... Think, email is too slow? Not so. I have once read about the problem of delivering terabytes of data to the cloud - there is so much of it that internet is close to useless and it's more practical to load tapes or disks on the truck and drive the whole shebang down the road. So, slow truck is more proper mean of data transfer sometimes, it just depends on size. Guys don't email - well, maybe they don't have anything worth an email? This reminds me, in every generation the majority has not so much interesting to say. I don't mean offense, they may be great pals but, well... myself I find not so many people from whom I could learn (even thou I can learn at least one thing from anybody). So, in some very inoffensive way, I perceive many people as being kind of crippled. They never heard of Michelangelo-the-artist, so they lost not just a good name for a turtle. On the other hand, I can probably be perceived similarly by older folks, who had proper linguistic training in Latin and Greek and can think of themselves as rooted in very interesting culture, which from time to time can give them advantage over me. At least very often when I hear them talking on the radio (radio, you know, the box with knobs and antenna) I find them to have a lot of interesting thoughts. Every time this happens, I wonder how much of it is related to the way they had been brought up. So, I could also put things the other way. I grow wiser (hopefully) and technology gives me even more opportunities to do things... (here comes Dirty Harry). Whatever youngster can do, I can learn to do, too (maybe except some dances and strange street language). But I don't have to do everything - this mail is worth few kilos of text, how many tweets would that be? Fifty? Do I have to tell the world that it's raining outside? And that it just stopped? I would rather read a book (a paper book, whooa!). But, as I have just guesstimated, my recently bought cpu+mobo would quite easily qualify among the best of 1993 "top 500" supercomputers. And it would have probably stayed on this list until end of 1998. However, I need to verify all those claims - maybe running linpack would do the job. And it was budget upgrade, so nothing extreme. Now, that's kind of change that I like to think about. Yet it seems, this way of thinking isn't very popular in the media. Strange. Too optimistic or what. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From giulio at gmail.com Fri Aug 20 10:05:18 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:05:18 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Full video coverage, ASIM 2010 Conference, Advancing Substrate-Independent Minds Message-ID: About 30 persons attended the ASIM 2010 Conference, Advancing Substrate-Independent Minds, satellite to the Singularity Summit 2010, San Francisco, August 16-17th. Besides the participants in San Francisco, about 25 remote participants attended online in Teleplace. The videos of ASIM 2010 talks and discussions have been posted to blip.tv, see: ASIM 2010 Conference, Advancing Substrate-Independent Minds, Day 1 http://telexlr8.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/asim-2010-conference-advancing-substrate-independent-minds-day-1/ ASIM 2010 Conference, Advancing Substrate-Independent Minds, Day 2 http://telexlr8.wordpress.com/2010/08/18/asim-2010-conference-advancing-substrate-independent-minds-day-2/ This is a full video coverage of the 2-day conference, more than 6 hours in total. Some talks appear on more than one video, and video recorded by different participants have different quality standards. Thanks to Jonas Bluth, Phillip Galinsky and Antoine Van de Ven for recording the videos. From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Aug 20 10:57:43 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 03:57:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Natural law was Religions and violence. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6E5FA7.90802@mac.com> Keith Henson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:29 PM, wrote: > > >> To be more precise, naturals come from the actual nature of the beings >> involved. In other words they are based in reality. I don't think >> reality requires God. If in reality human beings have certain critical >> characteristics dictating that they best interact with one another (the >> only domain of rights) in certain ways and not others then these are >> rights inherent to their nature. It will be difficult to claim that >> human beings have no particular nature in reality that is relevant to >> the proper way for them to act towards one another. >> > > Humans certainly have species wide "human nature" and the only way I > know of that they could have obtained the collective characteristics > that make up human nature is natural selection. (If you think > otherwise, you probably should not be reading this list.) > > So you can predict that the elements of human nature were (over > evolutionary time in the EEA) good for gene survival. The same > follows for derived matters such as "natural law." > Do you think you are addressing the same subject? - s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Aug 20 17:52:00 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:52:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Message-ID: Ray's comments: http://www.kurzweilai.net/ray-kurzweil-responds-to-ray-kurzweil-does-not-understand-the-brain?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter+Plain+Text&utm_campaign=69f3257dc0-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email Keith From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Aug 20 18:37:58 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Natural law Message-ID: <558579.59903.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I definitely see a difference and most natural law types would too. Let me try to explicate this. It's one thing to say X has a nature and quite another to explain how particular aspects of X's nature came about. One could say a lot about X without ever figuring out how X came to be. (Were this not so, then one must believe nothing can be known about anything because one would always start with no knowledge -- since, presumably, one does not start with any starting knowledge of the nature of originating processes. In fact, it seems knowledge works exactly the other way: we start with what is here and now and discover the past, including causal processes like evolution, through looking at things as they are now, no?) Regards, Dan From: samantha To: ExI chat list Sent: Fri, August 20, 2010 6:57:43 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Natural law was Religions and violence. Keith Henson wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:29 PM, wrote: >To be more precise, naturals come from the actual nature of the beings involved. >?In other words they are based in reality. ?I don't think reality requires God. >? If in reality human beings have certain critical characteristics dictating >that they best interact with one another (the only domain of rights) in certain >ways and not others then these are rights inherent to their nature. ?It will be >difficult to claim that human beings have no particular nature in reality that >is relevant to the proper way for them to act towards one another. > Humans certainly have species wide "human nature" and the only way I know of that they could have obtained the collective characteristics that make up human nature is natural selection. (If you think otherwise, you probably should not be reading this list.) So you can predict that the elements of human nature were (over evolutionary time in the EEA) good for gene survival. The same follows for derived matters such as "natural law." Do you? think you are addressing the same subject? - s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Aug 21 04:05:58 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 23:05:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [GRG] fundraising for mitochondrial uncoupling research In-Reply-To: <002d01cb40e3$aec549b0$0c4fdd10$@org> References: <002d01cb40e3$aec549b0$0c4fdd10$@org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Reason Date: Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:48 PM Subject: [GRG] fundraising for mitochondrial uncoupling research To: Gerontology Research Group I see that the Immortality Institute is fundraising for a mitochondrial uncoupling project to take place in a Singaporean lab: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/08/fundraising-for-mitochondrial-unc oupling-research.php Project proposal: http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?app=custompages&module=view§ion=d isplay&do=show&pageId=2 This sort of low-cost crowdsourced fundraising - combined with two-way dialog between researchers and donors, plus a great deal more incremental transparency in reporting on the research than is usually the case - is something that should be encouraged. It is the future of research, just as diverse and distributed open source software development was the future of coding back in the 1960s. When the cost of modest research projects is comparable to the cost of self-publishing an illustrated book, as is getting to be the case, you will see all of the business models currently used in the art-publishing industry migrate into life science research. e.g. ransom, straight donation, multi-patronage, etc. This is an important trend and sea change, and one that bears watching. Those of you who run labs and ride herd on postgrads will, I predict, be seeing an increasing fraction of your funding arriving this way as time goes on and costs fall. (Though it will, I think, require a round of successful startups for coordinating science funding that operate something like the Kiva model for the very control-oriented universities to start paying attention to what's going on here). Reason _______________________________________________ GRG mailing list GRG at lists.ucla.edu http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grg -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From pharos at gmail.com Sat Aug 21 15:48:13 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:48:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> <4C6CA442.3050601@mac.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:11 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > Truly interesting read, as it gives some insights (at least to me). > Read??? How quaint. ;) BillK From painlord2k at libero.it Sat Aug 21 17:36:48 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 19:36:48 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China In-Reply-To: <1281939558.3851.392.camel@desktop-linux> References: <4C6866C0.1050408@libero.it> <1281939558.3851.392.camel@desktop-linux> Message-ID: <4C700EB0.50906@libero.it> Il 16/08/2010 8.19, Fred C. Moulton ha scritto: > On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 00:14 +0200, Mirco Romanato wrote: > > snip >> large and good enough to be useful to defend the country from external >> attacks. > > Exactly what entity is going to do this external attack? Si vis pacem, para bellum. Many of the same governments that now are friendly could become unfriendly or hostiles in a short amount of time. For example, Libya, in the past attacked Italy with two missiles (that fallen short a few hundred of meters in the sea of Lampedusa). You could ignore that, in the past, the North Africa coast was the bases of many pirates, raiders and assorted jihadists that raided the coasts of Europe. They would do it again, if there was not a strong military to prevent them. Do you think Ghaddafi would have moral problems to help them? If tomorrow, when Mubarak of Egypt will die, the Muslim Brotherhood take power in Egypt. Do you think they would not attack Italy or any other infidel land, if they could do so with impunity? Do you trust so much the Russian to have forgotten their past imperialism? -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3085 - Data di rilascio: 08/21/10 08:35:00 From painlord2k at libero.it Sat Aug 21 17:48:54 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 19:48:54 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China In-Reply-To: References: <4C6866C0.1050408@libero.it> Message-ID: <4C701186.9030506@libero.it> Il 19/08/2010 16.42, Stefano Vaj ha scritto: > 2010/8/16 Mirco Romanato > > One may approve or disapprove such semi-colonial status, which has > historical reasons, but I dare say it is a fact. An eloquent > confirmation thereof is the jurisdictional exemption enjoyed by US > military in the country, and in practical terms by intelligence people > as well. Well, you know as a lawyer that this sort of privilege is the normality for all military forces. Italy's included. The soldier of the military expedition in Somalia, in the '90, were accused of torture and other, but the only tribunal that were allowed to try them was a military tribunal in Italy. And obviously they were acquitted. Anyone allowing a foreign tribunal to have jurisdiction over his military is better to disband his military. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3085 - Data di rilascio: 08/21/10 08:35:00 From max at maxmore.com Sun Aug 22 06:02:26 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:02:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Perils of Precaution -- critique of the precautionary principle now appearing on my blog Message-ID: <201008220629.o7M6TFR6029075@andromeda.ziaspace.com> As some of you know, I've been working on a book, The Proactionary Principle. This is on hold for a little while, while I work with Natasha Vita-More to get The Transhumanist Reader out to publishers. In the meantime, a number of people have urged me to release some of the ideas in the book. So, I've decided to publish via my blog, chapters 2 and 4 of the book. I will post a new section of chapter 2 "The Perils of Precaution", every day or two. Following that will be sections from chapter 4, The Proactionary Principle (my alternative to the precautionary principle). The first in a series of entries of chapter 2 is now available: http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/08/perils-of-precaution.html Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader The Proactionary Project Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From rtomek at ceti.pl Sun Aug 22 17:24:42 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:24:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> <4C6CA442.3050601@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Aug 2010, BillK wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:11 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > Truly interesting read, as it gives some insights (at least to me). > > > > > Read??? How quaint. ;) Huh :-) ? Whatever quaint I did, while I would be delighted to take credits for it, but the true origin is, more likely, my so-so command of English ;). > Ah, I wanted to tell it in public that I really _know_ how to flip pages in paper books. But I was afraid all this boasting of my person would end with me being less popular (I care a lot about it), so I hesitated. But I think we will live long enough to hear about people who think paper books are broken ("I press here and there and everywhere and this friggin book doesn't flip a single page"), especially that they can't deliver neither animations, nor music. When they learn how to flip pages, they will find it too distracting to concentrate on reading. At first, they will be politely ridiculed in the news, until they become majority at which point jokes will stop. We don't offend majority of "normals", do we?. And, everybody should know this by now, the books are for watching films on youtube and buying 'zic from some-shop-I-forgot-the-name. Especially that on future y-tube, there will be tons of 5-minutes long animated abstracts for every book worth reading (abstracts for unworthy books are ok). And some of the abstracts will include strippers! Yep! Imagine Feynman autobiography (or some popular book on quantum gravitation) spelled in 4:43 by a stripper. Pole dancing stripper, maybe - am I too demanding? Is it doable to declaime some nice poetry at the same time?. Would the future teenagers enthusiastically engage in tutoring-n-beer parties? Now I can see some sense in this whole rejuvenating business. Yes, I know. Problem is, I am optimist by nature. Strippers declaiming William Butler Yeats, Thomas Stearns Eliot, Robert Frost? Who would pay for this. Chances are, in the future they will think "Poetry" is a new office suite by MS. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Aug 22 19:31:14 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:31:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> <4C6CA442.3050601@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > Yes, I know. Problem is, I am optimist by nature. Strippers declaiming > William Butler Yeats, Thomas Stearns Eliot, Robert Frost? Who would pay > for this. Chances are, in the future they will think "Poetry" is a new > office suite by MS. Do you hold a patent yet on this "interactive learning system"? To hold the interest of kids today, you'll probably have to find some way to get a dozen more distractions into the scene. Multimodal learning demands that every one of what we used to call a distraction is actually another stream of content to reinforce all the others. It's really pretty basic if you imagine how we probably learned not to get killed in a primordial 3D environment. Why anyone ever thought a single teacher broadcasting a single thought to an audience of deskbound children would be effective is beyond me (they probably never had children). From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sun Aug 22 19:57:00 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <348871.18904.qm@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> >From http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100822/tts-uk-usa-mosque-ca02f96.html: > A supporter, [of the proposal to build the centre] said: > "This has become a political tool to preach hatred. The peace-loving > Muslims did not attack us." Leaving aside the question of whether 'peace-loving Muslims' is an oxymoron or not, who actually thinks it's peace-loving Muslims that want to build this centre? After all, nobody can deny that it's extremely provocative (to say the least), and in accordance with the traditional practice of building a 'victory mosque' on conquered ground. Is this the act of a peace-loving group of people? To effectively thumb their noses at the victims of a terrorist attack? I'll go straight to Godwin's Law, and say it's like a group of peace-loving neo-national-socialists proposing to erect a monument at Auschwitz carved with "To the glory of the Aryan race", while (honestly) claiming "but we didn't have anything to do with the Final Solution". I don't think that opponents of this centre are contradicting the principle of separation of religion and state. They are simply responding to an outrageous provocation, which is trying to hide under this principle. Ben Zaiboc From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Aug 22 20:30:16 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:30:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <348871.18904.qm@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <348871.18904.qm@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C7188D8.6050802@satx.rr.com> On 8/22/2010 2:57 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Leaving aside the question of whether 'peace-loving Muslims' is an oxymoron or not, who actually thinks it's peace-loving Muslims that want to build this centre? Anyone who knows that the Imam behind the proposal is a Sufi. Damien Broderick From seculartranshumanist at gmail.com Sun Aug 22 20:37:47 2010 From: seculartranshumanist at gmail.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:37:47 -0400 Subject: [ExI] PBS on human enhancement Message-ID: Just a heads-up; this week's episode of the PBS series "Religion and Ethics Newsweekly" has a segment on the ethics of human enhancement, with lots from Ray Kurzweil. The segment is also available on the PBS website: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/august-20-2010/ethics-of-human-enhancement/6823/ Joseph From olga.bourlin at gmail.com Sun Aug 22 20:31:01 2010 From: olga.bourlin at gmail.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:31:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <348871.18904.qm@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <348871.18904.qm@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > >From http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100822/tts-uk-usa-mosque-ca02f96.html: > > I'll go straight to Godwin's Law, and say it's like a group of peace-loving neo-national-socialists proposing to erect a monument at Auschwitz carved with "To the glory of the Aryan race", while (honestly) claiming "but we didn't have anything to do with the Final Solution". Aryan race or Christianity? (one cannot wholly discount the historical Christian bigotry against Jews) With all the news around this issue lately, I was thinking about my visit to the Dachau Concentration Camp Memorial in 1989. There are several Christian structures surrounding Dachau: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dachauscrapbook/MemorialSite/Catholic.html http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dachauscrapbook/MemorialSite/Convent.html http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dachauscrapbook/MemorialSite/RussianOrthodox.html http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dachauscrapbook/MemorialSite/Protestant01.html http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dachauscrapbook/MemorialSite/Convent.html > I don't think that opponents of this centre are contradicting the principle of separation of religion and state. ?They are simply responding to an outrageous provocation, which is trying to hide under this principle. Even if that were true, where's the inherent danger? (i.e., that "they" are trying to hide under this principle). Separation of religion and state aside, the USA is primarily a Christian-privilege nation. And the Bill of Rights protects minority viewpoints. Do you have a better solution? Olga From rtomek at ceti.pl Sun Aug 22 21:43:14 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:43:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> <4C6CA442.3050601@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > Yes, I know. Problem is, I am optimist by nature. Strippers declaiming > > William Butler Yeats, Thomas Stearns Eliot, Robert Frost? Who would pay > > for this. Chances are, in the future they will think "Poetry" is a new > > office suite by MS. > > Do you hold a patent yet on this "interactive learning system"? Jezus, this kind of things is patentable!? I am engineer, mister, I am unfit to thinking about patents. BTW, I feel my life is going to be screwed now. Every time I joke in my usual untamed manner (as I do about once per hour) I will have to stop and meditate on commercial applications of whatever my perverted mind would produce. What's even worse, stupid patent lawyers will approach me, demanding me to stop joking as it endangers the hell of patents already registered... maybe even executing me just in case (well, lawyers can do anything they want, because _they_ are law and their brothers in law will cover them in a brotherly way). Fuck, man, I was so innocent and now I will be civilised... in the worst way I can think of... Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Aug 22 23:25:20 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:25:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> <4C6CA442.3050601@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > BTW, I feel my life is going to be screwed now. Every time I joke in my > usual untamed manner (as I do about once per hour) I will have to stop and > meditate on commercial applications of whatever my perverted mind would > produce. What's even worse, stupid patent lawyers will approach me, > demanding me to stop joking as it endangers the hell of patents already > registered... maybe even executing me just in case (well, lawyers can do > anything they want, because _they_ are law and their brothers in law > will cover them in a brotherly way). > > Fuck, man, I was so innocent and now I will be civilised... in the worst > way I can think of... I like your use of "civilised" as a verb implying that it is something that will be done TO you. In that sense, you have my condolences. From rtomek at ceti.pl Mon Aug 23 01:02:23 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:02:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] Reverse-Engineering of Human Brain Likely by 2030, Expert Predicts In-Reply-To: References: <1282061276.3554.2195.camel@localhost> <4C6CA442.3050601@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > > Fuck, man, I was so innocent and now I will be civilised... in the worst > > way I can think of... > > I like your use of "civilised" as a verb implying that it is something > that will be done TO you. In that sense, you have my condolences. Heh, thanks for your kind condolences, but it's ok actually. True, we are all sitting on this Island of Dr Moron, but since I'm an optimist, I believe there are a lot of animals capable of outcivilising the civilisators. So cheers up! Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From max at maxmore.com Mon Aug 23 02:02:48 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 21:02:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Parts 1 to 3 of The Perils of Precaution now online Message-ID: <201008230349.o7N3ncNm009542@andromeda.ziaspace.com> http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/ The sections so far: http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/08/perils-of-precaution.html http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/08/perils-of-precaution-part-2-pervasive.html http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/08/perils-of-precaution-part-3-paradox-of.html Last two sections to follow on Monday. Comments welcome. Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader The Proactionary Project Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From atymes at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 04:19:50 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 21:19:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Parts 1 to 3 of The Perils of Precaution now online In-Reply-To: <201008230349.o7N3ncNm009542@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201008230349.o7N3ncNm009542@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Good stuff, Max, but a few parts strike me odd. In part 1 you say, "Most of us want to do two things at the same time: Protect our freedom to innovate technologically, and protect ourselves and our environment from excessive collateral damage." Problem is, many of the people to whom this piece is or should be addressed, don't really want to innovate technologically. If they are consciously aware of it being a good thing at all, they place it far less in priority than protection - to the point that they say they're willing to do away with innovation entirely. ("If it would lessen damage to the environment" is one of the justifications given, but not the only one. Not having to deal with technology's dislocation, and wanting to be familiar with the world their children are growing up to inherit, are among the others..) Replacing "Protect our freedom to innovate technologically" with something like "Find ways to fix the problems - ours and the world's - that we care about" might be better In part 2, you're going on extensively about the breadth the precautionary principle has spread. Again, consider your audience: people who may view this as well and good, and take your words to simply reinforce their position. I think you would be better served to either shorten the demonstration, or to point out the harm that each example you bring up does, as you touched on with the FDA example. At the very least, point out examples where the application of the precautionary principle added costs that proved to be completely unnecessary, and which a more balanced regulatory regime would have identified as such in advance. In part 3, the small (2,000-4,000) number of increased highway deaths attributable to the Kyoto protocol can be easily assumed as outweighed by the reduced number of deaths to complications brought on by polluted air. You may wish to drop that example. -Adrian On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Max More wrote: > http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/ > > The sections so far: > > http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/08/perils-of-precaution.html > > > http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/08/perils-of-precaution-part-2-pervasive.html > > > http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/08/perils-of-precaution-part-3-paradox-of.html > > Last two sections to follow on Monday. > > Comments welcome. > > Max > > > ------------------------------------- > Max More, Ph.D. > Strategic Philosopher > Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader > The Proactionary Project > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moulton at moulton.com Mon Aug 23 07:50:57 2010 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:50:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <348871.18904.qm@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <348871.18904.qm@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1282549857.3851.749.camel@desktop-linux> On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 12:57 -0700, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > Leaving aside the question of whether 'peace-loving Muslims' is an > oxymoron or not, who actually thinks it's peace-loving Muslims that > want to build this centre? After all, nobody can deny that it's > extremely provocative (to say the least), Actually I can deny that it is extremely provocative based on everything that we know now. I will say this very clearly. There has been no evidence presented that shows that the people who want to build the center were involved with attack of Sept 11; therefore building the center is NOT PROVOCATIVE. Let me repeat: NO EVIDENCE; NOT PROVOCATIVE. Some people may claim that it is provocative but in this situation that is a reflection on them and their problems not with the building in question. What has been presented in this list by some list members is wild speculation, guilt by association, misrepresentation and a shocking lack of intellectual honesty. This is supposed to the Extropian list for enlightened conversation and analysis; unfortunately there are those who seem to be lowering the standard of discourse. So either provide the evidence or run the risk of being labeled a bigot. Fred From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 10:04:38 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:04:38 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <4C6BC8A9.2090801@libero.it> References: <4C6BC8A9.2090801@libero.it> Message-ID: 2010/8/18 Mirco Romanato > The Fell of the Western Roman Empire caused an upsurge of > population in the provinces because there no one to impose heavy taxes, > so the people worked more and eat better. > Really? I believe to remember that to go back to empire-time agricultural productivity we had to wait until the end of the XVII century. For other techs, I believe that the Renaissance was, not by chance, the end of the recovery. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 13:42:43 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:42:43 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <348871.18904.qm@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <348871.18904.qm@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 23 August 2010 05:57, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Leaving aside the question of whether 'peace-loving Muslims' is an oxymoron or not... Do you know any Muslims? Are they warlike? -- Stathis Papaioannou From max at maxmore.com Mon Aug 23 16:07:39 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:07:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Perils of Precaution -- all sections now online Message-ID: <201008231608.o7NG84DS024756@andromeda.ziaspace.com> The full critique of the precautionary principle, in six parts, is now online: http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/ "The Paradox of the Precautionary Principle", which I posted as Part 3 on Sunday, is actually part 4. Part 3 is actually "The Tyranny of Safety". That mistake has been corrected. My apologies to anyone who was confused by the missing piece. As previously noted, "The Perils of Precaution" is chapter 2 of my book. I will post a summary of chapter 3 soon, followed by sections of chapter 4: "The Proactionary Principle". Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader The Proactionary Project Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From bbenzai at yahoo.com Mon Aug 23 16:02:30 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <356870.52969.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> "Fred C. Moulton" wrote: "I will say this very clearly. There has been no evidence presented that shows that the people who want to build the center were involved with attack of Sept 11; therefore building the center is NOT PROVOCATIVE." So your definition of 'provocative' has nothing to do with actual provocation, but instead with the history of the people concerned? The Neo-Nazis in my example are not in fact being provocative? You don't think proposing to erect a plaque extolling the virtues of gun ownership at Columbine High School would be provocative and objectionable? Of course, it would be a plaque that emphasised /responsible/ gun ownership, and the proposers wouldn't be related to the murderers, so that would be ok? (Actually, a better example would be not a plaque, but a gun club, in a new building on or very near to the spot where the killings took place) I wasn't aware that the guy behind the Cultural Centre plan was a Sufi, thanks to Damien for pointing that out. I do think that he either hasn't thought things through, or just doesn't care, though. If someone wanted to build something to try to build bridges between the different cultures here, to foster understanding and tolerance, why on earth would they specifically call it an ISLAMIC cultural centre? Why would they place it on the spot that a piece of wreckage from the attack fell? Why would the inauguration date be on the 10-year anniversary of the attack? (that last is unverified, so may be wrong). You'd think that anyone behind a proposal like this would realise that it was doing more harm than good to the public perception of Islam, and suggest relocating it, and maybe making it a multi-faith centre instead of exclusively Islamic? You know, in the spirit of reaching out to non-muslims, and teaching people that Islam isn't just about terrorism. Just a thought. Anyway, it doesn't matter whether or not the people who want to build this Islamic Cultural Centre were or were not involved with the 11 Sept. attack. The proposal is still provoking a reaction. Actions or words that, regardless of their intent (and of the history of the people producing them), produce anger and consternation, are by definition, provocative. Ben Zaiboc From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Aug 23 20:12:46 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:12:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China In-Reply-To: <4C701186.9030506@libero.it> References: <4C6866C0.1050408@libero.it> <4C701186.9030506@libero.it> Message-ID: <4C72D63E.6090309@mac.com> Mirco Romanato wrote: > Il 19/08/2010 16.42, Stefano Vaj ha scritto: > >> 2010/8/16 Mirco Romanato > > >> > > >> One may approve or disapprove such semi-colonial status, which has >> historical reasons, but I dare say it is a fact. An eloquent >> confirmation thereof is the jurisdictional exemption enjoyed by US >> military in the country, and in practical terms by intelligence people >> as well. >> > > Well, you know as a lawyer that this sort of privilege is the normality > for all military forces. Italy's included. > The soldier of the military expedition in Somalia, in the '90, were > accused of torture and other, but the only tribunal that were allowed to > try them was a military tribunal in Italy. And obviously they were > acquitted. > > Anyone allowing a foreign tribunal to have jurisdiction over his > military is better to disband his military. > > Even in matters of international law such as the Geneva Convention? I don't think so. Torture should be banned by international law and all arms, intelligence agencies, police forces etc should be made to stand charges in as unbiased a court as possible when there is evidence of torture. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Aug 23 20:25:40 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:25:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Parts 1 to 3 of The Perils of Precaution now online In-Reply-To: References: <201008230349.o7N3ncNm009542@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <4C72D944.50007@mac.com> Adrian Tymes wrote: > Good stuff, Max, but a few parts strike me odd. > > In part 1 you say, "Most of us want to do two things at the same time: > Protect our > freedom to innovate technologically, and protect ourselves and our > environment from > excessive collateral damage." Problem is, many of the people to whom > this piece is > or should be addressed, don't really want to innovate > technologically. If they are > consciously aware of it being a good thing at all, they place it far > less in priority than > protection - to the point that they say they're willing to do away > with innovation entirely. > ("If it would lessen damage to the environment" is one of the > justifications given, but not > the only one. Not having to deal with technology's dislocation, and > wanting to be > familiar with the world their children are growing up to inherit, are > among the others..) > Replacing "Protect our freedom to innovate technologically" with > something like "Find > ways to fix the problems - ours and the world's - that we care about" > might be better I think that this is part of the point of the book, that protection does not trump innovation. If it is unclear in the rest of the book why innovation is so crucially important then that lack would need addressing. But I doubt very much Max would miss that. And the objections above need some examination, for instance when someone makes the environmental claim. At the least questions of what aspects of the environment are important to maintain and to what degree and in the context of which other values very important and even crucial to human wellbeing. Protect the environment as an out of context meme can do and has done a lot of damage. As far as your children having a future that looks a lot like your own, well what exactly do you want them to have and not have? Do you want them to suffer the same diseases as you? Do you want it to be as hard to improve things in the real world as it is now? Do you want them to have as much difficulty mastering new things? Do you want them to be under an automatic death sentence just from the accumulation of years and to suffer more and more as they get older? No? Then exactly what is being talked about when people want to keep things more or less the same? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Aug 23 20:31:02 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:31:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Islamic culture (current) was Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <4C6BC8A9.2090801@libero.it> Message-ID: <4C72DA86.1050708@mac.com> Stefano Vaj wrote: > 2010/8/18 Mirco Romanato > > > The Fell of the Western Roman Empire caused an upsurge of > population in the provinces because there no one to impose heavy > taxes, > so the people worked more and eat better. > > > Really? I believe to remember that to go back to empire-time > agricultural productivity we had to wait until the end of the XVII > century. For other techs, I believe that the Renaissance was, not by > chance, the end of the recovery. > Yep. While money and commerce flowed reasonably well the roads, common laws, physical and cultural infrastructure were in place for a relatively high level of civilization. When Rome overshot and ran out of lands to pillage and became more corrupt all this infrastructure slowly went to ruin. Soldiers weren't paid and deserted their post. With no protection delivered towns and villages didn't bother to pay any tribute to Rome as they got nothing in return and couldn't be punished in any case. Generally the locals did not know enough to keep up the infrastructure by Roman design. So it fell apart quickly. A virulent anti-reason religious meme didn't help. - s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Aug 23 20:34:07 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:34:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: References: <348871.18904.qm@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C72DB3F.5080507@mac.com> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 23 August 2010 05:57, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > >> Leaving aside the question of whether 'peace-loving Muslims' is an oxymoron or not... >> > > Do you know any Muslims? Are they warlike? > > > There are many many predominantly Muslim countries that are not warlike. A lot of them are in Asia. One litmus test seems to be whether a separation of religion and state is largely in place. There are secular countries whose populations are predominantly Muslim and who have no intention whatsoever of instituting sharia or jihad. Just as Christianity got past (mostly) its convert them or kill them phase so Islam is doing. Just not as throughly yet. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Aug 23 20:38:08 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:38:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <356870.52969.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <356870.52969.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C72DC30.3070509@mac.com> Ben Zaiboc wrote: > "Fred C. Moulton" wrote: > > "I will say this very clearly. There has been no evidence presented that > shows that the people who want to build the center were involved with > attack of Sept 11; therefore building the center is NOT PROVOCATIVE." > > > So your definition of 'provocative' has nothing to do with actual provocation, but instead with the history of the people concerned? > > The Neo-Nazis in my example are not in fact being provocative? > > You don't think proposing to erect a plaque extolling the virtues of gun ownership at Columbine High School would be provocative and objectionable? Of course, it would be a plaque that emphasised /responsible/ gun ownership, and the proposers wouldn't be related to the murderers, so that would be ok? > Yes, I think it would be ok and very appropriate. If responsible non-psychotic people had been armed that day the result would have been much different. > (Actually, a better example would be not a plaque, but a gun club, in a new building on or very near to the spot where the killings took place) > Hell yes. Bring it on. That would be great. > I wasn't aware that the guy behind the Cultural Centre plan was a Sufi, thanks to Damien for pointing that out. I do think that he either hasn't thought things through, or just doesn't care, though. If someone wanted to build something to try to build bridges between the different cultures here, to foster understanding and tolerance, why on earth would they specifically call it an ISLAMIC cultural centre? Why would they place it on the spot that a piece of wreckage from the attack fell? Why would the inauguration date be on the 10-year anniversary of the attack? (that last is unverified, so may be wrong). > > Actually perhaps it will defuse a bit of the rabid attack dog mentality toward an entire religion and anyone that calls it their own that followed 911. About time in my book. - samantha From atymes at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 21:06:32 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:06:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Parts 1 to 3 of The Perils of Precaution now online In-Reply-To: <4C72D944.50007@mac.com> References: <201008230349.o7N3ncNm009542@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4C72D944.50007@mac.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 1:25 PM, samantha wrote: > If it is unclear in the rest of the book why innovation is so crucially > important then that lack would need addressing. But I doubt very much Max > would miss that. He got it in the later parts. It's just, that specific phrasing - the claim that all of us want to protect our freedom to innovate technologically - sounded like something a reader could easily take to dismiss the rest of the book unread. "Seeking out information that confirms one's biases" and all that. (Yes, we all want things that logically result from technological innovation. Many people simultaneously want those fruits and claim to not want to let people innovate, specifically rejecting the costs in societal disruption and unknown potential harm. They hope and pray and believe there is a way to get the benefits without any cost, if they think about it at all. Since this dissonance is part of what's being addressed, better phrasing might be called for.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jebdm at jebdm.net Mon Aug 23 21:14:34 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:14:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Parts 1 to 3 of The Perils of Precaution now online In-Reply-To: <4C72D944.50007@mac.com> References: <201008230349.o7N3ncNm009542@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4C72D944.50007@mac.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:25 PM, samantha wrote: > I think that this is part of the point of the book, that protection does > not trump innovation. If it is unclear in the rest of the book why > innovation is so crucially important then that lack would need addressing. > But I doubt very much Max would miss that. And the objections above need > some examination, for instance when someone makes the environmental claim. > I don't think Adrian was disagreeing with you. I think he was simply suggesting a change in language for rhetorical effect, to better appeal to the (target?) audience's values. Even if the need for innovation as a principle is explained, it would still probably be more persuasively effective to reword things in terms of prior values, as long as those values aren't what you're fighting against. And I don't think the suggested change ("Find ways to fix the problems - ours and the world's - that we care about") is problematic. -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moulton at moulton.com Tue Aug 24 05:41:42 2010 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:41:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <356870.52969.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <356870.52969.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1282628502.3851.798.camel@desktop-linux> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 09:02 -0700, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > So your definition of 'provocative' has nothing to do with actual > provocation, but instead with the history of the people concerned? > What "actual provocation"? Just because a bunch of people get upset about something does not mean that the project was designed to be a provocation. If you are accusing the planners of the project to be doing the project because they want to provoke a particular response then it is up to you to provide the evidence for your accusation. Evidence that is relevant and verifiable not some vague ramblings and ridiculous innuendo mixed with guilt by association and other logical errors. I was going to write more on this but instead I will just suggest that you read and think seriously about the post that Olga made on Sunday. Fred From pharos at gmail.com Tue Aug 24 07:06:53 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:06:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?=91Survival_of_fittest=92_is_disputed?= Message-ID: A study proposes that Charles Darwin may have been wrong when he argued that competition was the major driving force of evolution. He imagined a world in which organisms battled for supremacy and only the fittest survived. But new research identifies the availability of "living space", rather than competition, as being of key importance for evolution. Findings question the old adage of "nature red in tooth and claw". Professor Mike Benton, a co-author on the study, explained that "competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of evolution". "For example, even though mammals lived beside dinosaurs for 60 million years, they were not able to out-compete the dominant reptiles. But when the dinosaurs went extinct, mammals quickly filled the empty niches they left and today mammals dominate the land," he told BBC News. --------------- Typical mammals! Too lazy to compete. Just wait till the space is vacant, then move in. BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Aug 24 07:19:38 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:19:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=98Survival_of_fittest=E2=80=99_is_disputed?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C73728A.3030600@satx.rr.com> On 8/24/2010 2:06 AM, BillK wrote: > Typical mammals! Too lazy to compete. Just wait till the space is > vacant, then move in. What, you think the mice didn't engineer that big rock? Damien Broderick From bbenzai at yahoo.com Tue Aug 24 12:26:39 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:26:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <59561.56831.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Stathis Papaioannou asked: > On 23 August 2010 05:57, Ben Zaiboc > wrote: > > > Leaving aside the question of whether 'peace-loving > Muslims' is an oxymoron or not... > > Do you know any Muslims? Are they warlike? I did say: *Leaving aside* the question.. Mainly because it's not a simple one, and leads to time-consuming circular arguments about the meanings of the words 'muslim' and 'peace', and the ways in which they can be twisted. Ben Zaiboc From sparge at gmail.com Tue Aug 24 11:41:47 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:41:47 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?=91Survival_of_fittest=92_is_disputed?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:06 AM, BillK wrote: > "For example, even though mammals lived beside dinosaurs for 60 > million years, they were not able to out-compete the dominant > reptiles. But when the dinosaurs went extinct, mammals quickly filled > the empty niches they left and today mammals dominate the land," he > told BBC News. So the mammals were more fit to handle to whatever made the dinosaurs extinct, but because they waited 60 millions years they don't get credit for the win? -Dave From pharos at gmail.com Tue Aug 24 13:44:53 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:44:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?=91Survival_of_fittest=92_is_disputed?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > So the mammals were more fit to handle to whatever made the dinosaurs > extinct, but because they waited 60 millions years they don't get > credit for the win? > > OK, they can have the credit if we change it to 'Survival of the accidentals'. :) If it had been a different type of extinction event we would all now have scales and claws (just like our overlords in the Illuminati). BillK From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 24 16:42:44 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:42:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?=91Survival_of_fittest=92_is_disputed?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <81983153-765A-48CE-AE5F-417A90C9B841@bellsouth.net> On Aug 24, 2010, at 9:44 AM, BillK wrote: > OK, they can have the credit if we change it to 'Survival of the > accidentals'. If it had been a different type of extinction event we would all now > have scales and claws Luck was involved but in any mass calamity mammals would have had an advantage over dinosaurs. Mammals at that time were much much smaller than dinosaurs and thus more numerous, big animals are rarer than small animals, so whatever the disaster there was a greater chance that by pure luck enough mammals would survive to form a breeding population than that dinosaurs would. Mammals were prepared to take advantage of luck and dinosaurs were not. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Aug 24 17:52:12 2010 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:52:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?=91Survival_of_fittest=92_is_disputed?= In-Reply-To: <81983153-765A-48CE-AE5F-417A90C9B841@bellsouth.net> References: <81983153-765A-48CE-AE5F-417A90C9B841@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: Isn't "living space" an item in a subset of survival needs like food and water? I fail to see how the ability to take advantage of living space is any different than an ability which facilitates gathering or reproduction. Natural selection = species who thrive best in the environment reproduce and multiply living space = the environment Natural selection = Species who are best able to take advantage of "living space" reproduce and multiply Competition between species is a smaller part of the big picture. Those interspecies battles are in fact part of "living space"--European history keeps wanting me to say "Lebensraum"--which equates to the summed selection pressures of the environment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Tue Aug 24 17:41:00 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:41:00 +0200 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?TransVision_2010_=96_New_confirmed_speaker?= =?windows-1252?q?s?= Message-ID: TransVision 2010 ? New confirmed speakers http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/transvision-2010-%E2%80%93-new-confirmed-speakers/ The following speakers will give talks at TransVision 2010, which brings the number of confirmed speakers to 33. Other speakers will be announced in a few days. Roberto Marchesini is a well known Italian biologist and epistemologist. He is the author of one of the first books on transhumanism published in Italy: Post-human (Bollati Boringhieri, 2002). A lecturer in several Universities, Marchesini is the President of the Italian Society of Applied Behavioral Sciences and the Director of the School of Human-Animal Interaction. See Roberto Marchesini a TransVision 2010. http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/roberto-marchesini-a-transvision-2010/ David Styles is the organiser of the UK-based voluntary mutual assistance organisation for cryonics emergency standby, stabilisation, and transport services. In this position, he has laboured successfully over the past 18 months to strengthen capabilities in the UK and on the continent, and has lately been involved in a project (over the course of the last year) to create a professional Pan-European service, launching in this October. See David Styles at TransVision 2010: A new development in cryonics standby, stabilisation, and transport capabilities in Europe. http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/david-styles-at-transvision-2010-a-new-development-in-cryonics-standby-stabilisation-and-transport-capabilities-in-europe/ Driven by extremes of ambitions, hope, aspirations, expectations; yet shackled by paroxisms of insanity, doubt, conceit, lazyness, pain, sexual depravity, despair and intransience, the person who has chosen to call herself ?Khannea Suntzu? is a western European artist. In fact Khannea is not one person, but several associated artists working together. Respective ?real world? identities and conventions of these people are no longer relevant ? they have discarded their soul to a greater cause ? the manifestation and incarnation of something Khannea refers to as ?Lilith? as an artillect. To this effect the cause of worldwide transhumanism is a means to an end ? for Khannea transhumanism, (and specifically the ideals and values espoused by the smaller ?Order of Cosmic Engineers?) signify a future where individuals have vastly amplified power over a vastly expanded world. See Khannea Suntzu at TransVision 2010. http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/khannea-suntzu-at-transvision-2010/ TransVision 2010 is a global transhumanist conference and community convention, organized by several transhumanist activists, groups and organizations, under the executive leadership of the Italian Transhumanist Association (AIT) and with the collaboration of an Advisory Board. The event will take place on October 22, 23 and 24, 2010 in Milan, Italy with many options for remote online access. Register now http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/registration/ post links to Twitter, your blogs and add your name to the TransVision 2010 Facebook page. From lists1 at evil-genius.com Tue Aug 24 19:27:00 2010 From: lists1 at evil-genius.com (lists1 at evil-genius.com) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:27:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The actual Sahney paper vs. the BBC's pop-sci collectivist interpretation Message-ID: <4C741D04.80203@evil-genius.com> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939 said: > the amount of biodiversity closely matched the availability of "living > space" through time. E. O. Wilson proved this decades ago. It's a well-known rule of thumb that 2x the species diversity requires 10x the area. > The new study proposes that really big evolutionary changes happen > when animals move into empty areas of living space, not occupied by > other animals. That is absolutely not the same thing as saying "competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of evolution". Creatures are competing with others of their species, and with others who use the same resources within their existing environmental niche. > > "For example, even though mammals lived beside dinosaurs for 60 > million years, they were not able to out-compete the dominant > reptiles. But when the dinosaurs went extinct, mammals quickly filled > the empty niches they left and today mammals dominate the land," he > told BBC News. > Yes, the availability of a new niche increases the range of possible beneficial variations for your offspring: being a large predatory mammal (like, say, a lion) isn't very useful when there are dinosaurs around. However, this is a difference of degree, not of kind. I looked up the original paper, which I cannot find in full-text form (just the abstract): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20106856 The abstract concludes " These groups have driven ecological diversity by expansion and contraction of occupied ecospace, rather than by direct competition within existing ecospace and each group has used ecospace at a greater rate than their predecessors." It is most likely true that availability of ecological niches is a constraining factor for useful genetic variation (and, therefore, speciation), which appears to be the true subject of the paper. However, it is also true that differential survival (and, therefore, competition) occurs by definition, since not all living things leave offspring, and of their offspring, not all survive. And, Dawkins also clearly showed in "The Extended Phenotype" that ecological niches, "ecospace", and/or "the environment" are defined in large part by the phenotypic effects of the existing life within said niche. Therefore -- by the definition of the basic mechanisms of evolution -- competition is still the driving factor in evolution, and the BBC article summarizing this paper comes to an erroneous conclusion, most likely in an effort to push a personal agenda of the writer. What the paper does demonstrate is that whether a niche is previously occupied tends to be the constraining factor in biological evolution. In other words, just like real-world economics, barriers to entry prevent the theoretical free market from existing except in the case of disruptive technological innovation that opens an unoccupied competitive space. -G From lists1 at evil-genius.com Tue Aug 24 19:33:05 2010 From: lists1 at evil-genius.com (lists1 at evil-genius.com) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:33:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Clarification Message-ID: <4C741E71.9060702@evil-genius.com> I bobbled one thing in my last message: the collectivist interpretation is being pushed by Sahney's professor, not just the BBC. I'll be revising that before this essay shows up anywhere else. -G From pharos at gmail.com Tue Aug 24 21:10:15 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:10:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?=91Survival_of_fittest=92_is_disputed?= In-Reply-To: References: <81983153-765A-48CE-AE5F-417A90C9B841@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On 8/24/10, Will Steinberg wrote: > Isn't "living space" an item in a subset of survival needs like food and > water? I fail to see how the ability to take advantage of living space is > any different than an ability which facilitates gathering or reproduction. > > Natural selection = species who thrive best in the environment reproduce and > multiply > > living space = the environment > > Natural selection = Species who are best able to take advantage of "living > space" reproduce and multiply > > Competition between species is a smaller part of the big picture. Those > interspecies battles are in fact part of "living space"--European history > keeps wanting me to say "Lebensraum"--which equates to the summed selection > pressures of the environment. > > I think I agree with what you've written. And I think the new study does as well. I think the study is just reminding us that humans don't rule the world because they out-competed all the opposition. The disaster that killed off the dinosaurs left the field clear for mammals. There were other mass extinctions as well, of course, some of which killed up to about 70% of all land animals. According to National Geographic: After nearly going extinct 150,000 years ago, humankind split into small groups?living in isolation for nearly a hundred thousand years before "reuniting" and migrating out of Africa, a new gene study says. At one point our species may have been down to as few as 2,000 individuals, probably due to climate change?a longstanding theory bolstered by the new findings. ---------------- It is just our good luck that a different mass extinction event didn't kill off all the mammals that led to humans or a few years more drought didn't finish off humans 70,000 years ago. BillK From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 24 23:16:09 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=98Survival_of_fittest=E2=80=99_is_disputed?= In-Reply-To: References: <81983153-765A-48CE-AE5F-417A90C9B841@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <522388.96513.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> >From: Will Steinberg >To: ExI chat list >Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 10:52:12 AM >Subject: Re: [ExI] ?Survival of fittest? is disputed > >Isn't "living space" an item in a subset of survival needs like food and water? >?I fail to see how the ability to take advantage of living space is any >different than an ability which facilitates gathering or reproduction. If you are saying that claims as to the demise of Darwin's theories are exaggerated, I would heartily agree. Competing for living space is still competition. However, one of my college buddies from UCLA named Nathaniel Hallinan (now a doctoral candidate at UC Berkley)?did a lot of work that is as of yet still unpublished in this arena. In brief, it is known from the fossil record that evolution is not a steady slow change in species but is instead a discontinuous process of long periods of stability punctuated with abrupt dramatic changes. This is called punctuated equilibrium and the mechanism behind it is informally called the evolutionary pump, or periods of alternating "feast and famine". What my friend realized and called the "Eden hypothesis"?was that the adaptive radiation phase of punctuated equilbrium, i.e. when you see scads of new species diversify from a given lineage, generally occured during periods of relatively easy living. During certain periods such as immediately after a mass extinction, competive pressures were minimal because there was lots "living space" so to speak. Because of this, exploratory?mutations were?penalized much less than they would be during?periods of high selective pressure, when the environment is?at carrying capacity.?On the other hand, during high pressure phases of evolution, "fine tuning" mutations to maximize?the efficiency of expoiting a particular niche were favored over any radical changes. A good metaphor for understanding this is to think in terms of the fitness landscape as being an actual?landscape of?hills and valleys. Hills represent high fitness and valleys represent low fitness. Selective pressure can be thought of as?the "water level"?on the fitness landscape. During "hellish" phases, the water level is high, and you are better off climbing?the?hill you are already on to its peak and hope it is high enough in case the water level rises higher,?rather than going down and potentially drowning. During "Eden" phases, the water level is low, and you?are able to go down into the valleys and search around for other potentially higher hills elsewhere.?Thus during "Eden" phases, many more "hills" become occupied and you get mass speciation or adaptive radiation. That's?Nat Hallinan's Eden Hypothesis?in a nutshell. Now I gotta go. ? Stuart LaForge "Old men read the lesson in the setting sun. Beat the cymbal and sing in this life, or wail away the hours fearing death. Their choice is their fortune." - I Ching From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Aug 25 01:18:21 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:18:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?=91Survival_of_fittest=92_is_disputed?= In-Reply-To: <522388.96513.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <81983153-765A-48CE-AE5F-417A90C9B841@bellsouth.net> <522388.96513.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:16 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > A good metaphor for understanding this is to think in terms of the fitness > landscape as being an actual?landscape of?hills and valleys. Hills represent > high fitness and valleys represent low fitness. Selective pressure can be > thought of as?the "water level"?on the fitness landscape. During "hellish" > phases, the water level is high, and you are better off climbing?the?hill you > are already on to its peak and hope it is high enough in case the water level > rises higher,?rather than going down and potentially drowning. During "Eden" > phases, the water level is low, and you?are able to go down into the valleys and > search around for other potentially higher hills elsewhere.?Thus during "Eden" > phases, many more "hills" become occupied and you get mass speciation or > adaptive radiation. > > That's?Nat Hallinan's Eden Hypothesis?in a nutshell. Now I gotta go. It also sounds like a computer science major explaining a genetic algorithm exploring a solution space. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 25 13:23:06 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 06:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=98Survival_of_fittest=E2=80=99_is_disputed?= In-Reply-To: References: <81983153-765A-48CE-AE5F-417A90C9B841@bellsouth.net> <522388.96513.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <579084.92215.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Mike Dougherty > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 6:18:21 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] ?Survival of fittest? is disputed > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:16 PM, The Avantguardian > wrote: > > A good metaphor for understanding this is to think in terms of the fitness > > landscape as being an actual?landscape of?hills and valleys. Hills represent > > high fitness and valleys represent low fitness. Selective pressure can be > > thought of as?the "water level"?on the fitness landscape. During "hellish" > > phases, the water level is high, and you are better off climbing?the?hill you > > are already on to its peak and hope it is high enough in case the water level > > rises higher,?rather than going down and potentially drowning. During "Eden" > > phases, the water level is low, and you?are able to go down into the valleys >and > > search around for other potentially higher hills elsewhere.?Thus during >"Eden" > > phases, many more "hills" become occupied and you get mass speciation or > > adaptive radiation. > > > > That's?Nat Hallinan's Eden Hypothesis?in a nutshell. Now I gotta go. > > It also sounds like a computer science major explaining a genetic > algorithm exploring a solution space. Yes although there are some key differences that make genetic algorithms more like the selective breeding of domesticated organisms than the evolution of organisms in the wild. For example in nature, the solution space is several orders of magnitude?higher in dimensionality. Also the?local maxima are moving targets and there is a?feedback of the solutions on the problem constraints. As well as the tendency of the natural algorithms to eat one another. :-) ?Stuart LaForge "Old men read the lesson in the setting sun. Beat the cymbal and sing in this life, or wail away the hours fearing death. Their choice is their fortune." - I Ching From reinhard.heil at googlemail.com Wed Aug 25 06:28:21 2010 From: reinhard.heil at googlemail.com (Reinhard H.) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:28:21 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Copenhagen Suborbitals Message-ID: FYI: Copenhagen Suborbitals Our mission is very simple. We are working towards launching a human being into space. This is a non-profit suborbital space endeavor lead by Kristian von Bengtson and Peter Madsen, based entirely on sponsors and volunteers. http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/index.php wikipedia-entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Suborbitals From giulio at gmail.com Wed Aug 25 10:18:37 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:18:37 +0200 Subject: [ExI] TransVision 2010: Last week to register at the reduced August fees Message-ID: TransVision 2010: Last week to register at the reduced August fees Please note that this is the last week to register for TransVision 2010 at the reduced August fees. On September 1 registration fees will go up. Note also that the conference venue has a limited capacity of approximately 230 seats, so you may wish to register now to reserve your seat. http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/registration/ On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > TransVision 2010 ? New confirmed speakers > http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/transvision-2010-%E2%80%93-new-confirmed-speakers/ > > The following speakers will give talks at TransVision 2010, which > brings the number of confirmed speakers to 33. Other speakers will be > announced in a few days. > > Roberto Marchesini is a well known Italian biologist and > epistemologist. He is the author of one of the first books on > transhumanism published in Italy: Post-human (Bollati Boringhieri, > 2002). A lecturer in several Universities, Marchesini is the President > of the Italian Society of Applied Behavioral Sciences and the Director > of the School of Human-Animal Interaction. See Roberto Marchesini a > TransVision 2010. > http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/roberto-marchesini-a-transvision-2010/ > > David Styles is the organiser of the UK-based voluntary mutual > assistance organisation for cryonics emergency standby, stabilisation, > and transport services. In this position, he has laboured successfully > over the past 18 months to strengthen capabilities in the UK and on > the continent, and has lately been involved in a project (over the > course of the last year) to create a professional Pan-European > service, launching in this October. See David Styles at TransVision > 2010: A new development in cryonics standby, stabilisation, and > transport capabilities in Europe. > http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/david-styles-at-transvision-2010-a-new-development-in-cryonics-standby-stabilisation-and-transport-capabilities-in-europe/ > > Driven by extremes of ambitions, hope, aspirations, expectations; yet > shackled by paroxisms of insanity, doubt, conceit, lazyness, pain, > sexual depravity, despair and intransience, the person who has chosen > to call herself ?Khannea Suntzu? is a western European artist. In fact > Khannea is not one person, but several associated artists working > together. Respective ?real world? identities and conventions of these > people are no longer relevant ? they have discarded their soul to a > greater cause ? the manifestation and incarnation of something Khannea > refers to as ?Lilith? as an artillect. To this effect the cause of > worldwide transhumanism is a means to an end ? for Khannea > transhumanism, (and specifically the ideals and values espoused by the > smaller ?Order of Cosmic Engineers?) signify a future where > individuals have vastly amplified power over a vastly expanded world. > See Khannea Suntzu at TransVision 2010. > http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/khannea-suntzu-at-transvision-2010/ > > TransVision 2010 is a global transhumanist conference and community > convention, organized by several transhumanist activists, groups and > organizations, under the executive leadership of the Italian > Transhumanist Association (AIT) and with the collaboration of an > Advisory Board. The event will take place on October 22, 23 and 24, > 2010 in Milan, Italy with many options for remote online access. > > Register now > http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/registration/ > > post links to Twitter, your blogs and add your name to the TransVision > 2010 Facebook page. > From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Aug 26 00:41:06 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:41:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?=91Survival_of_fittest=92_is_disputed?= In-Reply-To: <579084.92215.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <81983153-765A-48CE-AE5F-417A90C9B841@bellsouth.net> <522388.96513.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <579084.92215.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:23 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > Yes although there are some key differences that make genetic algorithms more > like the selective breeding of domesticated organisms than the evolution of > organisms in the wild. For example in nature, the solution space is several > orders of magnitude?higher in dimensionality. Also the?local maxima are moving > targets and there is a?feedback of the solutions on the problem constraints. As > well as the tendency of the natural algorithms to eat one another. :-) sound _like_ GA Selective breeding is an example of a reduced dimensionality and constrained fitness function. Effectively GA are selectively breeding for an answer to a specific purpose. Wild natural environments are more complex but there is no way to prove that a goal exists or if it's simple/complex. (A simple answer with an unlimited runtime may generate unimaginable complexity) From pharos at gmail.com Thu Aug 26 08:14:49 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:14:49 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Now we've got 'survival of the weakest'! Message-ID: A new book The Artificial Ape: How Technology Changed the Course of Human Evolution by Timothy Taylor. Archaeologist and anthropologist Timothy Taylor explains how a long-vanished artefact explains human evolution and led to "survival of the weakest" Quote: Technology allows us to accumulate biological deficits: we lost our sharp fingernails because we had cutting tools, we lost our heavy jaw musculature thanks to stone tools. These changes reduced our basic aggression, increased manual dexterity and made males and females more similar. Biological deficits continue today. For example, modern human eyesight is on average worse than that of humans 10,000 years ago. Unlike other animals, we don't adapt to environments - we adapt environments to us. We just passed a point where more people on the planet live in cities than not. We are extended through our technology. We now know that Neanderthals were symbolic thinkers, probably made art, had exquisite tools and bigger brains. Does that mean they were smarter? Evidence shows that over the last 30,000 years there has been an overall decrease in brain size and the trend seems to be continuing. That's because we can outsource our intelligence. I don't need to remember as much as a Neanderthal because I have a computer. I don't need such a dangerous and expensive-to-maintain biology any more. I would argue that humans are going to continue to get less biologically intelligent. ------------------- Is he saying humans are degenerating? BillK From pharos at gmail.com Thu Aug 26 08:54:19 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:54:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Google makes Artificial Intelligence available with new Prediction API Message-ID: What is the Google Prediction API? The Prediction API enables access to Google's machine learning algorithms to analyze your historic data and predict likely future outcomes. Upload your data to Google Storage for Developers, then use the Prediction API to make real-time decisions in your applications. The Prediction API implements supervised learning algorithms as a RESTful web service to let you leverage patterns in your data, providing more relevant information to your users. Run your predictions on Google's infrastructure and scale effortlessly as your data grows in size and complexity. Review article here: Quote: Suddenly your social networking App is better at blocking spammers, or your bank App can better guess which transactions might be the work of an identity thief. Google, in turn, benefits from a learning machine that is constantly tested and improved by large numbers of users. The Prediction API code should be able to find ways of applying the lessons it learns in one application to another. Again, this is narrow artificial intelligence ? it?s not going to be able to solve any problem ever, nor will it suddenly become self aware. It should however, become really really good at performing the tasks it is taught. And that learning code is going to be freely available over the internet, distributed and mirrored thousands of times over so it can?t be lost, growing in processing power as servers and computers are added, and increasing in sophistication over years. This a very powerful situation. As I?ve said before, narrow AI applications like Google Prediction API won?t spontaneously develop into a general (human-like) artificial intelligence but I do think they are laying the groundwork for its creation. -------------------------- BillK From aleksei at iki.fi Thu Aug 26 09:45:21 2010 From: aleksei at iki.fi (Aleksei Riikonen) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:45:21 +0300 Subject: [ExI] Now we've got 'survival of the weakest'! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:14 AM, BillK wrote: > > Is he saying humans are degenerating? Yes, and of course we are since because of e.g. better healthcare, we are under less evolutionary pressures than we used to be. Today, people with much more costly deficits in fitness can have lots of children than was possible during our earlier evolutionary history. -- Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Aug 26 15:29:57 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:29:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NATURE and E. O. Wilson contra kin selection Message-ID: <4C768875.4070008@satx.rr.com> Analysis: biologists slam kin selection heretics Thursday, 26 August 2010 by Andrew Letten Cosmos Online SYDNEY: On the hallowed cover of this week's edition of Nature is a paper destined to reignite the flames of a fiery debate that has troubled every generation of biologists since Charles Darwin. Paying short shrift to the idea of 'kin selection' - which has formed the cornerstone of sociobiological theory for almost half a century - the authors of the offending article propose a contentious new model to explain the evolution of 'eusociality'. (Read a news story about the paper, in Kin selection is dead, says E.O. Wilson [at linked story]). Eusociality is exhibited by organisms such as ants, wasps and bees, which live in complex, hierarchical social systems - and it has even been used to explain why young men give their lives in war. It's the kind of upstart paper evolutionary biologists would normally dismiss as attention-grabbing heresy in an obscure journal. Problem is, among the heretics is E.O. Wilson, one of the greatest minds in modern biology ? and the journal is Nature, one of the most respected. And all three authors are at Harvard, one of the world's top universities. Not only that, but the British journal even deemed it worthy of the cover, showing two ants head-to-head above the bold headline, "Social services: how standard natural selection explains the evolution of eusociality". Wilson - a scientific provocateur who through his prolific career has revelled in upsetting the status quo - co-authored the paper with mathematical biologists Martin A. Nowak and Corina E. Tarnita. In the accompanying press release, they pull no punches: "We hope our new theory for the evolution of eusociality will open up sociobiology to new avenues of research by liberating the study of social evolution from mandatory adherence to kin selection theory. After four decades ruling the roost, it is time to recognise this theory's very limited prowess." Kin selection, and the parent concept of 'inclusive fitness', attempt to explain why individuals perform selfless tasks that will not benefit them directly, but have a fitness payoff for their shared genetic heritage with the family, the tribe - or the hive. It seeks to explain why individuals take the seemingly paradoxical step of sacrificing their own reproductive potential in order to care for the offspring of relatives. Most evolutionary biologists are unimpressed. In fact, some had trouble staying calm enough to explain their objections. A straw poll of leading names in sociobiology found almost all were at a loss to explain how such a "flawed" (their words) body of work could have found its way into Nature - let alone onto the front cover. "The paper is so obviously incorrect that it won't have any impact on the study of eusociality," asserted Stuart West, a professor of evolutionary biology at Britain's University of Oxford who has had a long interest in the evolution of social behaviours. "The proposed model may be of mathematical interest, but it is unfortunately based on a scenario that empirical data show is irrelevant." While the authors argue that emerging evidence is undermining the basic idea that relatedness is a driving force for the rise of eusociality, West counters that "the discussion of the existing empirical data ignores the last 40 years of empirical research, which is actually a period when the interplay between inclusive fitness theory and data has led to a golden era in research on the social insects and indeed on living organisms in general." Evolutionary biologist David Queller of Rice University in Texas is not even sure if the paper presents a new theory of eusociality. "They have not explained how their theory differs from kin selection, or what predictions it makes ? and though they denigrate the importance of genetic relatedness, their model involves, and I suspect requires, close kinship," he said. Ben Oldroyd, a behavioural geneticist of the University of Sydney, refutes [[sic--he means "denies"]] outright the suggestion made by the trio that inclusive theory and the role of relatedness has been unproductive as a font of new theory and testable predictions. Equally interesting was the number of key researchers in the field who heatedly declined to comment on the record. This reporter could not tell if whether they don't want to get caught in the crossfire, or are biding their time until they can retaliate in full. And yet, the debate around kin selection is not a new one: debate surrounding the apparent evolutionary paradox began with the publication of On The Origin of Species. Darwin humbly admitted to "one special difficulty, which first appeared to me insuperable, and actual fatal to my theory." The conundrum in question concerned the nature of colonies of social insects such as ants, wasps and bees, and how to explain how sterile worker castes could have evolved if they produce no offspring. In viewing the entire colony as the unit of selection, Darwin compared it to a vegetable domesticated through artificial selection, with sterile casts [[castes]] representing the fruit, and the queen the plant that produced it. Later biologists fermented this idea in the now taboo guise of 'group selection', but it wasn't until the 1960s that researchers arrived at a rational explanation for how selective forces acting on an individual could result in the staggering levels of altruistic cooperation evidenced in insect colonies. That idea was kin selection. In the intervening period, a plethora of studies have elegantly illustrated the apparent validity of kin selection theory. Wilson was among those who for a long time backed it. However, in the last few years, an academic minority - led by Wilson as chief protagonist - have begun to question their own original beliefs in favour of models that appear more reminiscent of early group selection arguments. The debate is sure to get fiery: a major symposium is being held in Amsterdam on September 22. Entitled The Evolution of Cooperation, it brings together many notable figures in the field ? including two of the authors of the incendiary Nature paper, as well as the journal's editor. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Aug 26 16:32:02 2010 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:32:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Now we've got 'survival of the weakest'! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:14 AM, BillK wrote: > > > Is he saying humans are degenerating? > ### It depends on your values. If you value individual survivability under "natural" conditions, then yes, we are degenerating. If you value e.g. the communal ability to build a complex technological civilization (whose intellectual offspring might be able to survive calamities guaranteed to wipe out Neanderthals, such as major asteroid strikes or the sun going red giant), then we are rapidly progressing. All doesn't matter much anyway, since in a few decades the dominant sentients on this planet will be able to choose the attributes of their physical manifestations. They could even manifest as hairy ape-men, should they feel the need to burn resources on such a folly. Rafal From reasonerkevin at yahoo.com Thu Aug 26 17:22:49 2010 From: reasonerkevin at yahoo.com (Kevin Freels) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Now we've got 'survival of the weakest'! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <315243.2536.qm@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >> >> Is he saying humans are degenerating? >Yes, and of course we are since because of e.g. better healthcare, we >are under less evolutionary pressures than we used to be. Today, >people with much more costly deficits in fitness can have lots of >children than was possible during our earlier evolutionary history. But that doesn't give any type of advantage over those who are born with better fitness. This is especially true since most "costly deficits" don't rear their ugly heads until well after a person has reproduced. Meanwhile, other subtle mechanisms are still at work such as sexual attraction to those who can help offset certain deficits. Still it is troubling to know that as IQ increases, testosterone levels drop and fewer babies are made. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Thu Aug 26 20:46:19 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Now we've got 'survival of the weakest'! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <235104.35156.qm@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Aleksei Riikonen replied: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:14 AM, BillK > wrote: > > > > Is he saying humans are degenerating? > > Yes, and of course we are since because of e.g. better > healthcare, we > are under less evolutionary pressures than we used to be. > Today, > people with much more costly deficits in fitness can have > lots of > children than was possible during our earlier evolutionary > history. No, because 'humans' are more than their biology. The biological component of humans has been getting slowly weaker and less capable, over a long period of time, but the technological component is quickly getting much more capable, and may soon overshadow the biological part entirely. Ben Zaiboc From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Aug 27 10:33:50 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 03:33:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Privacy vs the future Message-ID: <4C77948E.9090203@mac.com> What exactly does privacy mean as technology advances? Today we have in the palm of our hands the ability to record full video and transmit it pretty much anywhere in the world. As technology advances the ability to record in excellent fidelity anything/everything we witness will certainly increase. If many of our fundamental dreams are achieved the ability to do so will increasingly be an internalized part of our person - inside the skin. For this to happen the notion that it is legitimate to forbid the recording of any interaction with anyone becomes problematic. Such would effective forbid an enhanced individual such as many of us will likely soon be from using parts of his her sensory capabilities and parts of his her brain and memory. It would effectively be handicapping the individual[s] involved from acting in their full normal capacity. Imagine how useful it would be to be able to perfectly remember that part of that talk or lecture germane to a current activity. Imagine what it would be like to never forget anything except on purpose. Imagine what it would be like to share something of importance with another without being limited to a mere poorly remembered word picture summation. Yet this ability does have far reaching consequences. Much that we think we have secured by obscurity or lack of records will no longer be so. This has both good effects and potentially bad effects. It is at the least highly disruptive. As the technology advances each of us is also under much more continuous surveillance (in the true top down sense) by the authorities. In some nations and cities there are literally enough cameras and microphones to record what everyone does outside their home and much of what they say. There is a move in Britain and in the Netherlands to make all speech in all public places fair game for surveillance by authorities. This obviously has potentially huge possibilities for oppression and other governmental abuse. At the least it must be balanced by sousveillance, observation and recording from the bottom up. How must we ourselves change as these capabilities come online? How must our legal structures change to avoid punishing or the threat of punishing everyone for the inevitable infractions of the impenetrable web of regulations and laws that exist today? At the very least the state must stop punishing people for any and all behavior that does not harm another or amount to the initiation of force. Else the massive inevitable surveillance capability is very problematic indeed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Aug 27 14:24:57 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:24:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] DARPA unveils program to develop autonomous robots Message-ID: To make robots more flexible in battlefield situations, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has launched the Autonomous Robotic Manipulation program. ARM seeks to provide future robots with enough autonomy so they will require only occasional high-level supervision by human operators. According to DARPA, this will simplify human control, potentially improving how tasks such as bomb disposal are carried out and allowing individual robots to carry out a variety of missions. The four-year program?s goal is to develop software and hardware that allows robots to autonomously grasp, manipulate and perform complex tasks with minimal human direction. -------------------- So long as they don't forget the 'supervision by humans' bit. BillK From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat Aug 28 05:35:20 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:35:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Free will and quantum phenomena self-confirm Message-ID: Quantum Entanglement Can be a Measure of Free Will http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25665/?nlid=3434 Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com Sat Aug 28 08:22:20 2010 From: sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com (Sergio M.L. Tarrero) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:22:20 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Privacy vs the future In-Reply-To: <4C77948E.9090203@mac.com> References: <4C77948E.9090203@mac.com> Message-ID: <2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com> This is my first post to this list in a very long time. I happened to open up this mailbox today, and what I saw compelled me to write. Very thoughtful observations, Samantha. I totally concur. Particularly with your comments in the last paragraph, following your questions. In case some people here have not read it, the Lifeboat Foundation has a program which advocates sousveillance via all kinds of sensors, from the large to the very tiny. It's currently called the Security Preserver: http://lifeboat.com/ex/security.preserver For the resons that you well point out (namely, that we really want to have the freedom to record our lives, everything that we see and hear, to begin with, or it's going to turn into even more of a logistical nightmare; etc.), I have advocated for transparency for a quite a while now. I have also advocated for mutual accountability, and sousveillance. We may still have a window of opportunity to push for reform of our legal systems to allow for such--but we'd better start soon, because it's not going to be easy to convince bureaucrats and lawmakers, and people in positions of high power in general, who are still living in the past (and, somewhat, the present) that this is what needs to be done. Top-down surveillance, such a police surveillance and surveillance by intelligence agencies, may stop some crime, and some terrorism... so it cannot be avoided, nor regarded as totally a bad thing. But we all know that, depending on the particular agent or agency doing the surveillance (within the system), the particular state doing it (and its values and goals), and even down to the particular individual doing it (or using the information to give orders), and so on, it can breed oppression of the worst kind--and it often has, in the past. The power and resources of a state, and a multitude of cameras and mics spread over a city or country (or beyond), against an individual. Given our unusual and changing circumstances, and given the level of threats that we are starting to encounter in the world (and they are only going to get worse with more advanced technologies with potential for genocide), sousveillance, if set up correctly, can be a good thing. Some good things about it that immediately come to mind: - Open source monitoring and police work. By pooling on the eyes, ears and brains (and cameras, mics, sensors, computers...) of the populace, it becomes much easier to spot foes, terrorists (or those promoting terrorist mindsets/activities), active criminals (of the kind that hurt or plan to hurt others or their property, women, children...), nasty polluting corporations, and so on. Once it becomes fashionable for people in mass numbers to record their lives much more intensely (initially with simple devices such as video-recording glasses), the wiggle room for people who hurt others or endanger others' lives (I am always annoyed and amazed by what some people get away with, day after day, while driving their death machines...), automatically and radically shrinks. So much so, in fact, the eventually it simply does not pay to do such things... and those who take their chances and choose to do it, would live much more paranoid lives (which would also raise some flags in people around them), try to avoid being watched or recorded (more flags), and mostly end up being psychologically so uncomfortable with it that they may desist in their ways. Or else... they may simply get caught doing harm or planning to do harm to others. - Preventing police abuse. - Preventing abuse by employers and corporations of their workers. - Documentation of human rights and animal rights violations at home and abroad, for use by the appropriate policing organizations (ideally, imo, international organizations such as those encharged of human and animal rights issues today, but with much more enforcement powers than they have today... merely giving recommendations and fines, way after the fact, to the nations committing such or allowing such to happen within their borders, is definitely not enough to stop the crimes). - Focused sousveillance of those in positions of power, and particularly those in positions of high power. We are all human beings (for now). A lot of power can be concentrated in specific people or groups--this is not the best situation, but that's just the way things are. However, these people or groups should not be allowed by the majority to live in total unaccountability and secrecy... particularly because their actions, their 'conspiring', and so on, affect many others' lives, sometimes in very deep ways. Their decisions can mean the life, imprisonment, or death of some (or sometimes many, sometimes many many) other human beings. - Huge employment opportunities. Very few people could afford, or be inclined to, without compensation, donate a lot of their precious lifetime to become sousveillance agents. So... as the opportunities for employment decrease with time, particularly as technology starts taking more and more jobs from the economy, there seems to be a niche there which could potentially grow indefinitely. It would be nice if, once given the appropriate training and certification, any decent person could engage, maybe with greatly loose, open schedules (or no schedule at all... you do it when you want to do it... you can consider it a "back-up job" that is always there), on sur/ sousveillance activities. Always in groups of at least 3 people (who don't know each other), chosen at random from a huge pool of sousveillance "agents" who happen to be online at any given time, they could go in specific missions to investigate, eavesdrop, gather evidence, etc., in situations or contexts which require such. - The more power and influence a person or group has, the more lives her/its everyday decisions touches... the more intense the scrutiny that may fall upon her/it. - Those people, groups, organizations, agencies, governments trying to create (illegal, hopefully according to international law, whatever that means at the time) pockets of privacy, could be easily spotted, and something done about it. A "transparent society", fairly established (after much discussion of what this means, and some sensible agreements reached), would be, by definition almost, much more humane, its peoples' much more accountable to each other, to humanity at large. - With such systems properly in place, it should be easier for us to stop some highly visible and potentially deadly acts of terror before the perpetrators of such acts have the time to cause mass death and destruction. With the advent of cheap DIY bio and eventually nanoengineering, it becomes important, for public health reasons, to start being a lot more vigilant. Some major problems that I see achieving this vision: - Those in positions of power (or high power) may likely, at least initially and probably for some time, oppose it (some fiercely). Given the fact that, today, they have the "upper hand", it may be hard to reverse this. They might fight, kick and scream so that this is not done... so, without strong social support for such systems, and quite a bit of activism, they may never come to pass. This view is hard to accept even by the average citizen right now, still living in 20th century technological and scientific realitites (in their minds), and with 20th century threats in their minds. - Even if one nation were to decide to test or implement such sousveillance systems, others may not. Unless sousveillance systems are organized somewhat globally, via adequate international organizations, it would be hard to properly monitor activity of the worst criminals and terrorists, who have the freedom to go elsewhere to plot their misdeeds. - It would be complicated to set up such a system. If we end up doing none of this, maybe for lack of public support for such measures (a public which may not hear about these possibilities in the first place), maybe a benign superintelligence, if we are successful in developing such, may eventually do the equivalent (both the top-down and the bottom-up monitoring), but without taking so many resources, and without taking so much time from people (the time that countless sousveillance agents around the world may invest in monitoring activities). However, my opinion is that it would be worthy to push for such a social movement and to spark intense political action encouraging lifelogging, transparency and sousveillance--if only because the risks of "privacy" and unaccountability in the world are starting to get out of hand. Such has been also looked at and analyzed in more detail by authors such as David Brin, with his book The Transparent Society, and I'm sure Gordon Bell and other proponents of intense lifelogging. -- Sergio M.L. Tarrero Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:33 PM, samantha wrote: > What exactly does privacy mean as technology advances? Today we have > in the palm of our hands the ability to record full video and > transmit it pretty much anywhere in the world. As technology > advances the ability to record in excellent fidelity anything/ > everything we witness will certainly increase. If many of our > fundamental dreams are achieved the ability to do so will > increasingly be an internalized part of our person - inside the skin. > > For this to happen the notion that it is legitimate to forbid the > recording of any interaction with anyone becomes problematic. > Such would effective forbid an enhanced individual such as many of > us will likely soon be from using parts of his her sensory > capabilities and parts of his her brain and memory. It would > effectively be handicapping the individual[s] involved from acting > in their full normal capacity. Imagine how useful it would be to > be able to perfectly remember that part of that talk or lecture > germane to a current activity. Imagine what it would be like to > never forget anything except on purpose. Imagine what it would be > like to share something of importance with another without being > limited to a mere poorly remembered word picture summation. > > Yet this ability does have far reaching consequences. Much that we > think we have secured by obscurity or lack of records will no longer > be so. This has both good effects and potentially bad effects. It > is at the least highly disruptive. > > As the technology advances each of us is also under much more > continuous surveillance (in the true top down sense) by the > authorities. In some nations and cities there are literally enough > cameras and microphones to record what everyone does outside their > home and much of what they say. There is a move in Britain and in > the Netherlands to make all speech in all public places fair game > for surveillance by authorities. This obviously has potentially > huge possibilities for oppression and other governmental abuse. At > the least it must be balanced by sousveillance, observation and > recording from the bottom up. > > How must we ourselves change as these capabilities come online? How > must our legal structures change to avoid punishing or the threat of > punishing everyone for the inevitable infractions of the > impenetrable web of regulations and laws that exist today? At the > very least the state must stop punishing people for any and all > behavior that does not harm another or amount to the initiation of > force. Else the massive inevitable surveillance capability is very > problematic indeed. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Aug 28 12:06:09 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:06:09 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Free will and quantum phenomena self-confirm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > Quantum Entanglement Can be a Measure of Free Will > > http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25665/?nlid=3434 The article talks about "free will" but what it is actually referring to is randomness. If the experimenters' choice is not random then the mysterious nature of entanglement disappears. According to the MWI of QM, the experimenters' choice is not random but completely determined. It just seems random from the first person perspective because you don't know which copy you are. -- Stathis Papaioannou From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Aug 28 14:42:04 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:42:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Free will and quantum phenomena self-confirm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <247F1E18-FEAA-4BDA-88A6-000E35E36200@bellsouth.net> On Aug 28, 2010, at 1:35 AM, Jeff Davis wrote: > Quantum Entanglement Can be a Measure of Free Will > http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25665/?nlid=3434 >> if there is any information shared by the experimenters and the particles they are to measure, then entanglement can be explained by some kind of hidden process that is deterministic. In practical terms, this means that there can be no shared information between the random number generators that determine the parameters of the experiments to be made, and the particles to be measured. >> > In other words everything happens because of cause and effect or it doesn't. >> But the same also holds true for the experimenters themselves. The experimenters are something so it's not very surprising that the above is true. >> It means there can be no information shared between them and the particles to be measured either. In other words, they must have completely free will. In other words everything happens because of cause and effect or it doesn't. >> Free will never looked so fascinating. I don't think "fascinating" adequately sums up what it is, much better would be "free will is an idea so bad it's not even wrong". John K Clark >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Sat Aug 28 11:59:34 2010 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (\ ) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:59:34 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Incoming Invite Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Sat Aug 28 17:09:24 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:09:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Privacy vs the future In-Reply-To: <2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com> References: <4C77948E.9090203@mac.com> <2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Sergio M.L. Tarrero wrote: > This is my first post to this list in a very long time. I happened to open up > this mailbox today, and what I saw compelled me to write. > > Very thoughtful observations, Samantha. I totally concur. Particularly with > your comments in the last paragraph, following your questions. I perceive both of you as quite optimistic. So, as an advocatus diaboli and cynic, I feel the urgent need to spice up discussion with my diabolically-cynical remarks. I don't think cynicysm itself is strong enough to change anybody's minds, not without money for bribing, but I feel a bit bored. In one sentence, we humans display the well known tendency to heavily screw up everything that we touch. Including, it seems, evolution (now, the tale of Tower of Babel doesn't seem like cruelty anymore, but rather like a safety measure). It is important to note, however, that the tendency itself seems to be immune from us. Maybe we should start intentionally screwing up. Instead of this "all be good" moves, which always end up in hellish way (sometimes small, sometimes big). Of course, this should not stop us from doing things. Our history is an ongoing race to escape our previous screwups (Stanislaw Lem, "Summa technologiae"??, probably), so if we stop we simply become finished even faster. Myself, I would vote for buying us some more time, if possible, mostly because I don't think being finished would be funny for me. Technically, this was one sentence, repeated few times and with some letters permutated and changed/added/retracted. (No I don't have patent on this, fsck you patent parasites ;-), permutation and word play is prior art). [...] > - Open source monitoring and police work. By pooling on the eyes, ears and > brains (and cameras, mics, sensors, computers...) of the populace, it becomes > much easier to spot foes, terrorists (or those promoting terrorist > mindsets/activities), active criminals (of the kind that hurt or plan to hurt > others or their property, women, children...), nasty polluting corporations, > and so on. Once it becomes fashionable for people in mass numbers to record > their lives much more intensely (initially with simple devices such as > video-recording glasses), the wiggle room for people who hurt others or > endanger others' lives (I am always annoyed and amazed by what some people get > away with, day after day, while driving their death machines...), > automatically and radically shrinks. So much so, in fact, the eventually it > simply does not pay to do such things... and those who take their chances and > choose to do it, would live much more paranoid lives (which would also raise > some flags in people around them), try to avoid being watched or recorded > (more flags), and mostly end up being psychologically so uncomfortable with it > that they may desist in their ways. Or else... they may simply get caught > doing harm or planning to do harm to others. Yes, this "citizen eyes" reminds me of perils of one recently failed system. This "give me a man and I will find a paragraph (to sentence him)". Fortunately, this didn't work in a lo-tech environment. Hopefully, hi-tech will prove to be helpless too. How? Well, scratch my back and I will scratch yours, buddy. It's not going to be "right minded citizens watch". It's more likely going to be "I cannot trust my wife and children anymore". Those kind of things are well known in countries in 1000 km radius from where I sit now. It's not going to be "bad men will have psyche damaged" - they don't give a fsck, I'm afraid. I would rather expect bad men to feel the winds and get promoted into right place, where they would become safe and profit from helping their comrades. Being sociopaths, they are marvels of camouflage and mimicry, able to become first among most righteous. So, while I look at all this lifeblogging idea with some scepticism, I am at the same time quite cool about it. I don't expect revolutionary changes. People will find their way around surveillance. Business will make loads of money doing work for govt. Everything as usual, maybe there will be some positive side effect, as was the case with internet, but rather an unexpected one. As I said, because of this one yet unknown side effect, I can go for it. Other than this, it's just another screwup for me. > - Preventing police abuse. > > - Preventing abuse by employers and corporations of their workers. > > - Documentation of human rights and animal rights violations at home and There are more ways of abusing people and animals, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. The last one genocide (and one before it, too) had been widely reported in the news, including leading broadcasters. > - Focused sousveillance of those in positions of power, and particularly those > in positions of high power. We are all human beings (for now). A lot of power > can be concentrated in specific people or groups--this is not the best > situation, but that's just the way things are. However, these people or groups > should not be allowed by the majority to live in total unaccountability and > secrecy... particularly because their actions, their 'conspiring', and so on, > affect many others' lives, sometimes in very deep ways. Their decisions can > mean the life, imprisonment, or death of some (or sometimes many, sometimes > many many) other human beings. You seem to believe too much in majority. I think majority will allow what it is being said to allow. Heck, it will even be sure this is majority's own will. > - Huge employment opportunities. Very few people could afford, or be inclined > to, without compensation, donate a lot of their precious lifetime to become > sousveillance agents. So... as the opportunities for employment decrease with > time, particularly as technology starts taking more and more jobs from the > economy, there seems to be a niche there which could potentially grow > indefinitely. It would be nice if, once given the appropriate training and > certification, any decent person could engage, maybe with greatly loose, open > schedules (or no schedule at all... you do it when you want to do it... you > can consider it a "back-up job" that is always there), on sur/sousveillance > activities. Always in groups of at least 3 people (who don't know each other), > chosen at random from a huge pool of sousveillance "agents" who happen to be > online at any given time, they could go in specific missions to investigate, > eavesdrop, gather evidence, etc., in situations or contexts which require > such. What I pray for every day (not really, in fact) is to never become subject of majority's interest. While I have no fear at all of police, intelligence, military, Catholic Church, mafia etc. (well, I feel a lot of respect, sure, and I show my respect by staying away). Maybe I would be more enthusiastic about this if I had a gun and few boxes of patrons. Or better, unlimited ammo mod. Nowadays, majority is so numerous. BTW, your visions do include ghettos, don't they? But frankly, I wouldn't go to ghetto with cellphone camera turned on, or showing off my cool camera binoculars... As I would have even less protection there than a policeman, and they kill policemen in ghettos. And if you were living there, and they learned about you, well, man, your genitals could become your last supper. > - The more power and influence a person or group has, the more lives her/its > everyday decisions touches... the more intense the scrutiny that may fall upon > her/it. Great. However the mob of well meaning people is, basically, unpunishable. And somewhere in the backs of their heads they know it, all the time. > - Those people, groups, organizations, agencies, governments trying to create > (illegal, hopefully according to international law, whatever that means at the > time) pockets of privacy, could be easily spotted, and something done about > it. A "transparent society", fairly established (after much discussion of what > this means, and some sensible agreements reached), would be, by definition > almost, much more humane, its peoples' much more accountable to each other, to > humanity at large. Big ideas don't breed well in transparency (before you shred this sentence, try to analyse it). This kind of society seems to be doomed by design. I don't think that group think has contributed anything valuable to humanity (other than abhorment for group think). Of course I will gladly educate myself about counter examples. > - With such systems properly in place, it should be easier for us to stop some > highly visible and potentially deadly acts of terror before the perpetrators > of such acts have the time to cause mass death and destruction. With the > advent of cheap DIY bio and eventually nanoengineering, it becomes important, > for public health reasons, to start being a lot more vigilant. While terrorists look very well in TV, there are many things far more dangerous, like driving under influence. Other example - there are bilions of people lacking potable water, proper food and shelter, ready to incubate super virus (which is going to happen by pure chance rather than concerted effort). While there are milions (bilions?) of computer owners, and they are all capable of DIY electronic warfare (giving us a looong holidays in best case), I have yet to hear about anything bigger than fscking up Windows world-wide. And I expect very few are capable of actually doing anything, and even fewer are motivated - and if they are, they would rather rob the bank than destroy electronic currency. Or they will set up a botnet and make money from it. So it seems to me, most dangerous and capable guys are connected to crime world, which is not so much interested in burning the tree that gives them fruits so sweet. Is this good enough reason to put so much of effort and resources in surveillance, while not giving even 1/1000 of it to try and really improve things? Like, helping people to be less self destructing. Drug abuse, violence (not just physical one), many other abuses - I believe they have much bigger costs than few crimes that could be prevented by citizens looking inside my anus. And I am not sure that existing prevention mechanisms really lack so much that they need to be extended in this new brave way. It looks more like not repairing a bridge, and when it finally develops holes and corrosion, building a new one few meters away. One could only guess there was monetary interest, not well meaning, in it. > Some major problems that I see achieving this vision: > > - Those in positions of power (or high power) may likely, at least initially > and probably for some time, oppose it (some fiercely). Given the fact that, > today, they have the "upper hand", it may be hard to reverse this. They might > fight, kick and scream so that this is not done... so, without strong social > support for such systems, and quite a bit of activism, they may never come to > pass. This view is hard to accept even by the average citizen right now, still > living in 20th century technological and scientific realitites (in their > minds), and with 20th century threats in their minds. I think (but I'm not afraid, mind you) they will welcome everything you propose. From what I've heard, the best surveillance in London was in a City (i.e. financial district). I guess they will be delighted with prospects of always knowing what those pesky dirty paupers are going to do. Some paupers will be given well looking positions, to establish more democratic feel of all this. But to be frank, English paupers seem to be less and less willing to do anything, especially anything worthy surveillance. Unless you would like to make miles of porn involving pink fat teenagers. > - Even if one nation were to decide to test or implement such sousveillance > systems, others may not. Unless sousveillance systems are organized somewhat > globally, via adequate international organizations, it would be hard to > properly monitor activity of the worst criminals and terrorists, who have the > freedom to go elsewhere to plot their misdeeds. The way I see it, the most advanced country will execute it's newly found power worldwide. Other countries may protest, of course. We are not barbarians (and no commies), we allow for opposing opinions :-). In Poland, we will protest more if the country happens to be China and we will only mention about France protesting if the country happens to be USA :-). > - It would be complicated to set up such a system. If we end up doing none of > this, maybe for lack of public support for such measures (a public which may > not hear about these possibilities in the first place), maybe a benign > superintelligence, if we are successful in developing such, may eventually do > the equivalent (both the top-down and the bottom-up monitoring), but without > taking so many resources, and without taking so much time from people (the There are quite big possibilities of such superinteligences being simply uninterested in doing such menial job, as caring for us human ants and preventing us from harming each other (this was described in a great way in Stanislaw Lem's "Golem XIV"). Even if I am far below such level, I would take any chance of going out of this planet and build my home in space (especially having millenia if not eons to live). Also, I would consider preventive war against humanity, just to make sure I am too far to be chased and punished for my "disobedience". Or, to be even more sure, I would shoot out only kind of seed probe, that would replicate myself on the Moon and spread me further, while here on Earth I would play with humanity to keep it busy for a long, long time... One thing I would be a bit afraid about humanity, it would be similarities to cockroaches. One can poison, drown, shoot or burn and still, there is no 100% effectiveness. I think this could be depressing, but I am not sure if mechanical intelligence can feel depression. The best strategy seems to be playing us against each other, make use of our own screwing ability to keep us in line, or more like keep us from stepping over some line. Another take on such super-supervisors is given in Lem's "Wizja lokalna" (not translated to English, but judging from wikipedia there are German, Japanese, Russian and Italian translations [ http://solaris.lem.pl/ksiazki/beletrystyka/wizja-lokalna ] , [ http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizja_lokalna ], so bilinguals can help themselves a little). In one sentence :-), the endproduct is strange. The soil is penetrated to few meters depth by small bots creating so called "ethicosphere", which prevents citizens from harming each other, sometimes in a very depressing way, like for example when boys are unable to act upon little bastard who laughs at them and bullies them with abusive words. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From rebelwithaclue at gmail.com Sat Aug 28 16:56:05 2010 From: rebelwithaclue at gmail.com (rebelwithaclue at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:56:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Incoming Invite In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can someone reply if you receive this ? Spam gets through, but I can't seem to post. Cheers! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sat Aug 28 19:14:02 2010 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 13:14:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Incoming Invite In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2DD2F98B31004E6B81822EC0AB8A89C0@3DBOXXW4850> I got it. Gina Miller www.nanogirl.com ----- Original Message ----- From: rebelwithaclue at gmail.com To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Incoming Invite Can someone reply if you receive this ? Spam gets through, but I can't seem to post. Cheers! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Aug 28 19:12:07 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:12:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Incoming Invite In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I received the original, and your reply. It's a phishing scam. (Ilsa Bartlett, someone hacked into your contacts list.) I suggest nobody click on any of the links in the original. 2010/8/28 > Can someone reply if you receive this ? > Spam gets through, but I can't seem to post. > > Cheers! > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Aug 28 20:00:13 2010 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:00:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Incoming Invite In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: reply! :) > Can someone reply if you receive this ? > Spam gets through, but I can't seem to post. > > Cheers! > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Aug 28 20:25:28 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:25:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Free will and quantum phenomena self-confirm In-Reply-To: <247F1E18-FEAA-4BDA-88A6-000E35E36200@bellsouth.net> References: <247F1E18-FEAA-4BDA-88A6-000E35E36200@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/8/28 John Clark : > I don't think "fascinating" adequately sums up what it is, much better would > be "free will is an idea so bad it's not even wrong". I thought it was a movie about a whale that escapes captivity by jumping over some rocks topped with a small boy. From sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com Sun Aug 29 03:30:51 2010 From: sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com (Sergio M.L. Tarrero) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 05:30:51 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Privacy vs the future In-Reply-To: References: <4C77948E.9090203@mac.com> <2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com> Message-ID: <294215FA-79B5-437B-9C30-5C11F42C341E@mac.com> Tomasz, your comments sound... hmmm... a bit primitive... But I will take a few minutes to comment. Hopefully someone else here has something interesting to say about the idea of sousveillance. If so, please feel free to take it from the top, instead of from this already muddied dialogue. On Aug 28, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Sergio M.L. Tarrero wrote: > >> This is my first post to this list in a very long time. I happened >> to open up >> this mailbox today, and what I saw compelled me to write. >> >> Very thoughtful observations, Samantha. I totally concur. >> Particularly with >> your comments in the last paragraph, following your questions. > > I perceive both of you as quite optimistic. We are trans-survivalists. I wish more people were. However, I see myself more of a realist than an optimist. I don't have much hope, and however that is no good reason not to do things to make the world better or safer. [...] > [...] >> - Open source monitoring and police work. By pooling on the eyes, >> ears and >> brains (and cameras, mics, sensors, computers...) of the populace, >> it becomes >> much easier to spot foes, terrorists (or those promoting terrorist >> mindsets/activities), active criminals (of the kind that hurt or >> plan to hurt >> others or their property, women, children...), nasty polluting >> corporations, >> and so on. Once it becomes fashionable for people in mass numbers >> to record >> their lives much more intensely (initially with simple devices such >> as >> video-recording glasses), the wiggle room for people who hurt >> others or >> endanger others' lives (I am always annoyed and amazed by what some >> people get >> away with, day after day, while driving their death machines...), >> automatically and radically shrinks. So much so, in fact, the >> eventually it >> simply does not pay to do such things... and those who take their >> chances and >> choose to do it, would live much more paranoid lives (which would >> also raise >> some flags in people around them), try to avoid being watched or >> recorded >> (more flags), and mostly end up being psychologically so >> uncomfortable with it >> that they may desist in their ways. Or else... they may simply get >> caught >> doing harm or planning to do harm to others. > > Yes, this "citizen eyes" reminds me of perils of one recently failed > system. This "give me a man and I will find a paragraph (to sentence > him)". Fortunately, this didn't work in a lo-tech environment. > Hopefully, > hi-tech will prove to be helpless too. How? Well, scratch my back > and I > will scratch yours, buddy. With all their perils, limitations, and evils, some modern legal systems work, somewhat. It's better than total lawlessness, anyway. Some nations' legal systems are ethically about others, without a doubt. We can only kick and scream to our lawmakers to learn from past mistakes and abuses, and slowly evolve our systems so that they become more inclusive, less biased, more ethical, etc. Practical examples: allow marriage between any 2 people (no matter their sex or sexual preference); get rid of all the handguns out there (so that ghettos and mafias won't so easily emerge - no handguns out there, in the hands of the people, where I live; penalties for those carrying are steep); legalize drug use (so that ghettos and mafias won't so easily emerge); get rid of the death penalty (so that there is no way that you will kill the wrong person); and so on. > > It's not going to be "right minded citizens watch". It's more likely > going > to be "I cannot trust my wife and children anymore". Those kind of > things > are well known in countries in 1000 km radius from where I sit now. I use lifelogging and casual video-recording equipment on a daily basis. I use it to document my life, and trust loved ones just as much as ever. I use it for self-defense, particularly in case some idiot hits me while driving (which wouldn't be the first time, every accident I've had has been due to idiots doing something wrong). I think there's nothing wrong with using tech for self defense, and the defense of children. The conditions will soon be set so that even your closest relatives won't be able to easily access your data. But the fact that sensors, cameras and mics are getting smaller and smaller... does warrant some concern. However... it's the way of the future, and that's why David Brin has called it the transparent society. It forces us to act openly and without shame. Because we could be being watched. I've learned to adapt to this (as a psychological experiment), and if everyone did this there would be a whole lot less violent crime. > It's not going to be "bad men will have psyche damaged" - they don't > give a > fsck, I'm afraid. I would rather expect bad men to feel the winds > and get > promoted into right place, where they would become safe and profit > from > helping their comrades. Being sociopaths, they are marvels of > camouflage > and mimicry, able to become first among most righteous. > > So, while I look at all this lifeblogging idea with some scepticism, > I am > at the same time quite cool about it. I don't expect revolutionary > changes. People will find their way around surveillance. Not forever. Not when the cameras are hidden in tiny (or even invisible to the naked eye) artificial insects, and it becomes illegal to actually create these secret clean pockets of space. > Business will make loads of money doing work for govt. Everything as > usual, maybe > there will be some positive side effect, as was the case with > internet, > but rather an unexpected one. "Everything as usual" is not the way of the future. Deep changes are not unexpected if society became a whole lot more transparent. > As I said, because of this one yet unknown side effect, I can go for > it. > Other than this, it's just another screwup for me. > >> - Preventing police abuse. >> >> - Preventing abuse by employers and corporations of their workers. >> >> - Documentation of human rights and animal rights violations at >> home and > > There are more ways of abusing people and animals, Horatio, > Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. That's why we need more eyes and ears everywhere. > The last one genocide (and one before it, too) had been widely > reported in > the news, including leading broadcasters. That's what broadcasters do. Which shouldn't stop us from trying to prevent future genocides. > >> - Focused sousveillance of those in positions of power, and >> particularly those >> in positions of high power. We are all human beings (for now). A >> lot of power >> can be concentrated in specific people or groups--this is not the >> best >> situation, but that's just the way things are. However, these >> people or groups >> should not be allowed by the majority to live in total >> unaccountability and >> secrecy... particularly because their actions, their 'conspiring', >> and so on, >> affect many others' lives, sometimes in very deep ways. Their >> decisions can >> mean the life, imprisonment, or death of some (or sometimes many, >> sometimes >> many many) other human beings. > > You seem to believe too much in majority. I think majority will > allow what > it is being said to allow. Heck, it will even be sure this is > majority's > own will. Well... democratic systems do work by majoritites. Now, if we could only educate our people to the point that democracy becomes fairer... that would be something. I think that's a job for everyone: from the state, down to every last individual. Trying to become wiser, and educating others. At least we now have the Internet, which potentiates one's ability to educate others, and makes knowledge available to anyone seeking it. We need to make the Internet available to everyone in the planet, and that's going to be challenging. But yes... I think most people would actually welcome this stuff, if they knew what's at stake. If they understood that their livelihood, their well being, even their own survival and that of their loved ones (their very societies), may be at stake... the logical option is to want it. I don't know if you understand that living in a largely unpoliced world is quickly becoming incompatible with survival. Also, I think most people would rather someone watches the watchers too, and those in positions of power. Instead of the status quo of top- down surveillance only. > >> - Huge employment opportunities. Very few people could afford, or >> be inclined >> to, without compensation, donate a lot of their precious lifetime >> to become >> sousveillance agents. So... as the opportunities for employment >> decrease with >> time, particularly as technology starts taking more and more jobs >> from the >> economy, there seems to be a niche there which could potentially grow >> indefinitely. It would be nice if, once given the appropriate >> training and >> certification, any decent person could engage, maybe with greatly >> loose, open >> schedules (or no schedule at all... you do it when you want to do >> it... you >> can consider it a "back-up job" that is always there), on sur/ >> sousveillance >> activities. Always in groups of at least 3 people (who don't know >> each other), >> chosen at random from a huge pool of sousveillance "agents" who >> happen to be >> online at any given time, they could go in specific missions to >> investigate, >> eavesdrop, gather evidence, etc., in situations or contexts which >> require >> such. > > What I pray for every day (not really, in fact) is to never become > subject > of majority's interest. While I have no fear at all of police, > intelligence, military, Catholic Church, mafia etc. (well, I feel a > lot of > respect, sure, and I show my respect by staying away). > > Maybe I would be more enthusiastic about this if I had a gun and few > boxes > of patrons. Or better, unlimited ammo mod. Nowadays, majority is so > numerous. The ethical legitimacy of democratic systems does involve an aware and educated populace. We should strive for that. In the meanwhile, you have the option of moving to a tiny country. Or do you prefer to live under some other system, where the people have no vote? Monarchy...? As far as the guns and the ammo... all you need to do is move to the States. You can actually carry concealed weapons in public in some states. That shit's scary--one day the shit will hit the fan, and people will be literally killing each other with way too much ease. I prefer societies where handguns are extremely rare and hard to find. > BTW, your visions do include ghettos, don't they? But frankly, I > wouldn't > go to ghetto with cellphone camera turned on, or showing off my cool > camera binoculars... As I would have even less protection there than a > policeman, and they kill policemen in ghettos. And if you were living > there, and they learned about you, well, man, your genitals could > become > your last supper. Ghettos could be cleaned up. People given better living conditions, education, options in life. Much more transparency (in this case, maybe using artificial insects, if going in there is too scary for anyone but especially armored police forces) would only make it easier to get rid of the weapons, and arrest criminals within the ghettos. But cheap and nearly invisible AV-recording devices, given out to those being abused within the ghettos in mass numbers, would only make the picking-up of serious wrongdoers much easier. Yes, I guess you could say I am an optimist, in some ways. I look for solutions to the problems. > >> - The more power and influence a person or group has, the more >> lives her/its >> everyday decisions touches... the more intense the scrutiny that >> may fall upon >> her/it. > > Great. However the mob of well meaning people is, basically, > unpunishable. > And somewhere in the backs of their heads they know it, all the time. Nobody is "unpunishable". Well... today, too many people are not being punished for too many horrible things. But they're only "umpunishable" until they get caught. > >> - Those people, groups, organizations, agencies, governments trying >> to create >> (illegal, hopefully according to international law, whatever that >> means at the >> time) pockets of privacy, could be easily spotted, and something >> done about >> it. A "transparent society", fairly established (after much >> discussion of what >> this means, and some sensible agreements reached), would be, by >> definition >> almost, much more humane, its peoples' much more accountable to >> each other, to >> humanity at large. > > Big ideas don't breed well in transparency (before you shred this > sentence, try to analyse it). This kind of society seems to be > doomed by > design. I don't think that group think has contributed anything > valuable > to humanity (other than abhorment for group think). Of course I will > gladly > educate myself about counter examples. I think that's just nonesense. No need to analyze further.e > >> - With such systems properly in place, it should be easier for us >> to stop some >> highly visible and potentially deadly acts of terror before the >> perpetrators >> of such acts have the time to cause mass death and destruction. >> With the >> advent of cheap DIY bio and eventually nanoengineering, it becomes >> important, >> for public health reasons, to start being a lot more vigilant. > > While terrorists look very well in TV, there are many things far more > dangerous, like driving under influence. Other example - there are > bilions > of people lacking potable water, proper food and shelter, ready to > incubate super virus (which is going to happen by pure chance rather > than > concerted effort). Yes, the idea has to do with preventing drunk-driving too. As far as superviruses, I do think they can be much, much more deadly if created by design. And it's becoming all too easy to do just that. That is, partly, the point of this thread, and this idea of sousveillance. Getting regular people to be whistle-blowers, and getting regular people to do what the police cannot handle in its present form. > While there are milions (bilions?) of computer owners, and they are > all > capable of DIY electronic warfare (giving us a looong holidays in best > case), I have yet to hear about anything bigger than fscking up > Windows > world-wide. And I expect very few are capable of actually doing > anything, > and even fewer are motivated - and if they are, they would rather > rob the > bank than destroy electronic currency. Or they will set up a botnet > and > make money from it. So it seems to me, most dangerous and capable > guys are > connected to crime world, which is not so much interested in burning > the > tree that gives them fruits so sweet. > > Is this good enough reason to put so much of effort and resources in > surveillance, while not giving even 1/1000 of it to try and really > improve > things? Like, helping people to be less self destructing. Drug abuse, > violence (not just physical one), many other abuses - I believe they > have > much bigger costs than few crimes that could be prevented by citizens > looking inside my anus. And I am not sure that existing prevention > mechanisms really lack so much that they need to be extended in this > new > brave way. All bad things are worth making an effort to have changed. One thing does not stop other people from improving other problems. But, as I've said, cheap and tiny, disguisable AV equipment connected to the Internet is fast becoming ridiculously cheap. Pretty soon, people will realize that. So it doesn't make sense not to use it for the benefit of mankind, and exploit its potential for better vigilance using the crowds... the average citizen. > It looks more like not repairing a bridge, and when it finally > develops > holes and corrosion, building a new one few meters away. One could > only > guess there was monetary interest, not well meaning, in it. > >> Some major problems that I see achieving this vision: >> >> - Those in positions of power (or high power) may likely, at least >> initially >> and probably for some time, oppose it (some fiercely). Given the >> fact that, >> today, they have the "upper hand", it may be hard to reverse this. >> They might >> fight, kick and scream so that this is not done... so, without >> strong social >> support for such systems, and quite a bit of activism, they may >> never come to >> pass. This view is hard to accept even by the average citizen right >> now, still >> living in 20th century technological and scientific realitites (in >> their >> minds), and with 20th century threats in their minds. > > I think (but I'm not afraid, mind you) they will welcome everything > you > propose. Sure. Everything but the "us watching them" part. > From what I've heard, the best surveillance in London was in a > City (i.e. financial district). I guess they will be delighted with > prospects of always knowing what those pesky dirty paupers are going > to > do. Some paupers will be given well looking positions, to establish > more > democratic feel of all this. But to be frank, English paupers seem > to be > less and less willing to do anything, especially anything worthy > surveillance. > > Unless you would like to make miles of porn involving pink fat > teenagers. > >> - Even if one nation were to decide to test or implement such >> sousveillance >> systems, others may not. Unless sousveillance systems are organized >> somewhat >> globally, via adequate international organizations, it would be >> hard to >> properly monitor activity of the worst criminals and terrorists, >> who have the >> freedom to go elsewhere to plot their misdeeds. > > The way I see it, the most advanced country will execute it's newly > found > power worldwide. Other countries may protest, of course. We are not > barbarians (and no commies), we allow for opposing opinions :-). In > Poland, we will protest more if the country happens to be China and we > will only mention about France protesting if the country happens to > be USA > :-). Many people will protest, kick and scream, and have a hard time adapting to a more transparent society. This will not prevent it from becoming a reality, though. > >> - It would be complicated to set up such a system. If we end up >> doing none of >> this, maybe for lack of public support for such measures (a public >> which may >> not hear about these possibilities in the first place), maybe a >> benign >> superintelligence, if we are successful in developing such, may >> eventually do >> the equivalent (both the top-down and the bottom-up monitoring), >> but without >> taking so many resources, and without taking so much time from >> people (the > > There are quite big possibilities of such superinteligences being > simply > uninterested in doing such menial job, as caring for us human ants and > preventing us from harming each other (this was described in a great > way > in Stanislaw Lem's "Golem XIV"). Even if I am far below such level, I > would take any chance of going out of this planet and build my home in > space (especially having millenia if not eons to live). Also, I would > consider preventive war against humanity, just to make sure I am too > far > to be chased and punished for my "disobedience". Or, to be even more > sure, > I would shoot out only kind of seed probe, that would replicate > myself on > the Moon and spread me further, while here on Earth I would play with > humanity to keep it busy for a long, long time... > > One thing I would be a bit afraid about humanity, it would be > similarities > to cockroaches. One can poison, drown, shoot or burn and still, > there is > no 100% effectiveness. I think this could be depressing, but I am > not sure > if mechanical intelligence can feel depression. The best strategy > seems to > be playing us against each other, make use of our own screwing > ability to > keep us in line, or more like keep us from stepping over some line. I guess you have still not internalized the fact that, if a superintelligence does not care for our well being, we are pretty much doomed. It may not even consider keeping us around for very long... or it might allow us to destroy ourselves. So, I don't follow that train of thought very far. I am assuming a superintelligence which actually cares about us and our well being. Of course it will also go out into outer space and explore and process, regardless whether it decides to keep us alive and well or not. > Another take on such super-supervisors is given in Lem's "Wizja > lokalna" > (not translated to English, but judging from wikipedia there are > German, > Japanese, Russian and Italian translations [ > http://solaris.lem.pl/ksiazki/beletrystyka/wizja-lokalna ] , [ > http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizja_lokalna ], so bilinguals can help > themselves a little). In one sentence :-), the endproduct is > strange. The > soil is penetrated to few meters depth by small bots creating so > called > "ethicosphere", which prevents citizens from harming each other, > sometimes > in a very depressing way, like for example when boys are unable to act > upon little bastard who laughs at them and bullies them with abusive > words. Strange it will be, indeed. -- Sergio > > Regards, > Tomasz Rola > > -- > ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** > ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** > ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** > ** ** > ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Sun Aug 29 08:55:36 2010 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:55:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Free will and quantum phenomena self-confirm Message-ID: <17581636.2979041283072136408.JavaMail.root@wmail42> Stathis wrote: > http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25665/?nlid=3434 > The article talks about "free will" but what it is actually referring > to is randomness. If the experimenters' choice is not random then the > mysterious nature of entanglement disappears. According to the MWI of > QM, the experimenters' choice is not random but completely determined. > It just seems random from the first person perspective because you > don't know which copy you are. If, according to MWI, the result of my passing a silver atom through an S-G magnet depends on the existence - somewhere - of many, even infinite copies of the whole experiment, then one might as well accept the non- locality of the orthodox interpretation -- that would be more parsimonious. s. ?When he died, his heirs found nothing save chaotic manuscripts. His family, as you may be aware, wished to condemn them to the fire; but his executor ? a Taoist or Buddhist monk ? insisted on their publication.? ?We descendants of Ts?ui P?en," I replied, "continue to curse that monk. Their publication was senseless. The book is an indeterminate heap of contradictory drafts.? -Jorge Luis Borges, 'The Garden of Forking Paths' ( as quoted in 'One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution, probability, and scientific confirmation.' by Adrian Kent http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0624 ) From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon Aug 30 03:37:39 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:37:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A casino built right next to The Gettysburg National Park... Message-ID: I wonder how many people here would be offended by such a casino being built... I initially thought they were going to construct it *within* the Gettysburg National Park, but because they are not, I really don't care. But am I being too blase` about American history and the many youthful lives taken on such a bloody patch of land? I suspect the casino will have a civil war theme, complete with employees dressed up to look like the soldiers of the Union and the Confederacy. I can imagine how this will outrage the many civil war enthusiasts in the American South. I once heard a crazy rumor about a Disney Park, that would have been centered around the American Civil War! I think seeing my favorite Disney characters refighting the Battle of Gettysburg could be kind of fun! "Go get 'em, Confederate Mickey!" ; ) I suspect that if the dead still exist in some form and can see what goes on in this world, that the long deceased veterans of this famous battle would find such a development very amusing. But those who adore their exploits in the here and now will not be so good humored.... lol http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/255/160/576/?z00m=19881988 I suppose I am posting about this because I see it as another example of Corporate America encroaching on things. I'm sure Abraham Lincoln would have had something pithy to say about the subject... John From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon Aug 30 04:41:13 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:41:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics of the Future: How Science Will Change Daily Life by 2100, by Michio Kaku Message-ID: Physics of the Future: How Science Will Change Daily Life by 2100 [Hardcover] Michio Kaku (Author) This title will be released on March 22, 2011. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385530803?ie=UTF8&tag=michkakutheop-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0385530803 >From the Amazon.com book profile page: The New York Times bestselling author of Physics of the Impossible gives us a stunning and provocative vision of the future. Based on interviews with over three hundred of the world?s top scientists, who are already inventing the future in their labs, Kaku?in a lucid and engaging fashion?presents the revolutionary developments in medi?cine, computers, quantum physics, and space travel that will forever change our way of life and alter the course of civilization itself. His astonishing revelations include: ? The Internet will be in your contact lens. It will recog?nize people?s faces, display their biographies, and even translate their words into subtitles. ? You will control computers and appliances via tiny sen?sors that pick up your brain scans. You will be able to rearrange the shape of objects. ? Sensors in your clothing, bathroom, and appliances will monitor your vitals, and nanobots will scan your DNA and cells for signs of danger, allowing life expectancy to increase dramatically. ? Radically new spaceships, using laser propulsion, may replace the expensive chemical rockets of today. You may be able to take an elevator hundreds of miles into space by simply pushing the ?up? button. Like Physics of the Impossible and Visions before it, Physics of the Future is an exhilarating, wondrous ride through the next one hundred years of breathtaking scientific revolution. >>> I'm not overly impressed by what is supposedly going to be the contents of the book. I laughed at the idea that by 2100 the internet would be interfacing with us via contact lenses! lol I could see that by 2040, but by 2100 surely it would be a direct neurojack connection. Oh, and the flying car on the cover is for me sort of a "bad omen," though by then we should definitely have them finally perfected and in large numbers. I suppose 2100 is the "new" hot future date on our calendars, just as at one time 2000, 2020, 2030, 2040, or 2050 were "it." The book made me think of the wonderful "Transhuman Space" roleplaying game that is set in the year 2100... http://www.sjgames.com/transhuman/ John : ) From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Aug 30 05:02:53 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:02:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physics of the Future: How Science Will Change Daily Life by 2100, by Michio Kaku In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:41 AM, John Grigg wrote: > I'm not overly impressed by what is supposedly going to be the > contents of the book. ?I laughed at the idea that by 2100 the internet > would be interfacing with us via contact lenses! lol ?I could see that > by 2040, but by 2100 surely it would be a direct neurojack connection. > ?Oh, and the flying car on the cover is for me sort of a "bad omen," > though by then we should definitely have them finally perfected and in > large numbers. I'd be surprised if flying cars were ever feasible. Sure we can make them. It's more economical in terms of energy use to let people stay home and work. Once you don't have the commute for work, the travel experience might be enjoyable enough that you don't need to fly over it. If that's not true, then what would be the point of so much tech if we can't enjoy life anymore? From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Aug 30 13:44:25 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:44:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China In-Reply-To: <4C701186.9030506@libero.it> References: <4C6866C0.1050408@libero.it> <4C701186.9030506@libero.it> Message-ID: 2010/8/21 Mirco Romanato : > Anyone allowing a foreign tribunal to have jurisdiction over his > military is better to disband his military. Anyone allowing foreign military to go exempt from jurisdiction in its own territory has already disbanded its sovereignty. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Aug 30 13:17:49 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:17:49 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero. In-Reply-To: References: <63FF6C30-66ED-45CA-8A8D-1749276AAB22@bellsouth.net> <6E5DC588-035F-40D0-B736-703CB8E2B2A6@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/8/15 John Clark : > On Aug 14, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > > There is a form of relativism that doesn't posit that relativism itself is > objectively good, > > Then forget about good or bad, is relativism objectively true? No, it is more than enough that is is "relatively" true, i.e., for me. :-) However, "no absolute on-the-merits truth exists" is of course a meta-linguistic statement, which may well be absolutely true or false without any especially unresolvable paradox... > I prefer to associate with people who's?subjective morality is > closer to mine than the acid thrower. Yes, this is normal, and btw it is a statement of fact, not a value judgment. The same is probably valid for many acid throwers. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Aug 30 15:00:11 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:00:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <1282628502.3851.798.camel@desktop-linux> References: <356870.52969.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1282628502.3851.798.camel@desktop-linux> Message-ID: On 24 August 2010 07:41, Fred C. Moulton wrote: > What "actual provocation"? ?Just because a bunch of people get upset > about something does not mean that the project was designed to be a > provocation. On second thought, while I am no particular fan of mosquees and churches and synagogues, nor do I think they should enjoy any especial tax, zoning or other regime in the least, I think I would rather take a page from Giulio Prisco in liking my legal system to keep a strong distinction between physical injury and "provocations" of all sorts, intended provocations included. I appreciate that many people may feel offended by, e.g., transhumanist ideas, but all considered I think it best that they have to live with it rather than enjoy some form of legal or social enforcement of their feelings. -- Stefano Vaj From rtomek at ceti.pl Tue Aug 31 00:05:47 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 02:05:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Privacy vs the future In-Reply-To: <294215FA-79B5-437B-9C30-5C11F42C341E@mac.com> References: <4C77948E.9090203@mac.com> <2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com> <294215FA-79B5-437B-9C30-5C11F42C341E@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Sergio M.L. Tarrero wrote: > Tomasz, your comments sound... hmmm... a bit primitive... Yes! At first moment I wanted to pretend this was intentional. But, you are right - while I may show some signs of culturation, beneath this thin skin there is my brutal, bestial me :-). However, I am glad you were not put off by my true nature. > But I will take a few minutes to comment. Hopefully someone else here has > something interesting to say about the idea of sousveillance. If so, please > feel free to take it from the top, instead of from this already muddied > dialogue. Muddied, eh? The problem is, I have no problem at all. I have realised possibilities of widespread surveillance long ago (few years ago, ten years ago? I don't care much and besides I have probably read about it somewhere even earlier). The technology is there in the labs, I guess. The labs are owned, so the technology is owned already. Maybe sometime in the future we will hear that it has been available for quite long. I am a bit disillusioned about all those citizens, majority and so on. Also I think all of your postulates will be realised and I am not going to stand in the way. Most of the effects are behind the door and are to be unknown until the door are opened. I can, however, deduce some of them from my knowledge of human nature. And I don't expect anything unusual, at least I don't expect to be surprised. Well, maybe one or two unexpected side effects will be there, but since we can't see throu the door... Perhaps I am not so much experienced wrt human nature, but I am cynical. I have learned once (from animated Dilbert series, a source that is hardly disputable) that cynicysm can be a substitute for experience. Since that day my experience has only grown (I have a hypothesis that, if I grow cynicysm to x, my experience grows by x*x, so it pays better to be cynical). So, I have just put my hands in the water and stirred. But the mud was there already. It always is there. > On Aug 28, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > >On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Sergio M.L. Tarrero wrote: > > > > >This is my first post to this list in a very long time. I happened to open > > >up > > >this mailbox today, and what I saw compelled me to write. > > > > > >Very thoughtful observations, Samantha. I totally concur. Particularly with > > >your comments in the last paragraph, following your questions. > > > >I perceive both of you as quite optimistic. > > We are trans-survivalists. I wish more people were. However, I see myself more > of a realist than an optimist. I don't have much hope, and however that is no > good reason not to do things to make the world better or safer. Trans-survivalist? Who is this? Google gives me barely anything interesting about this, and I couldn't spot any kind of definition. > > >- Open source monitoring and police work. By pooling on the eyes, ears and > > >brains (and cameras, mics, sensors, computers...) of the populace, it > > >becomes > > >much easier to spot foes, terrorists (or those promoting terrorist [...] > >Yes, this "citizen eyes" reminds me of perils of one recently failed > >system. This "give me a man and I will find a paragraph (to sentence > >him)". Fortunately, this didn't work in a lo-tech environment. Hopefully, > >hi-tech will prove to be helpless too. How? Well, scratch my back and I > >will scratch yours, buddy. > > With all their perils, limitations, and evils, some modern legal systems work, > somewhat. It's better than total lawlessness, anyway. Contrary to the popular belief, it is a bit hard to find places where there are no rules of any kind. So fear of lawlessness is, I think, overemphasised. The only question that remains, is whether one will play along, or not. > >It's not going to be "right minded citizens watch". It's more likely going > >to be "I cannot trust my wife and children anymore". Those kind of things > >are well known in countries in 1000 km radius from where I sit now. > > I use lifelogging and casual video-recording equipment on a daily basis. I use > it to document my life, and trust loved ones just as much as ever. I use it > for self-defense, particularly in case some idiot hits me while driving (which > wouldn't be the first time, every accident I've had has been due to idiots > doing something wrong). I think there's nothing wrong with using tech for self > defense, and the defense of children. Seems like you definitely don't get what I am talking about. Let's hope you will never have to learn more about it. > The conditions will soon be set so that even your closest relatives won't be > able to easily access your data. But the fact that sensors, cameras and mics > are getting smaller and smaller... does warrant some concern. However... it's > the way of the future, and that's why David Brin has called it the transparent > society. It forces us to act openly and without shame. Because we could be > being watched. I've learned to adapt to this (as a psychological experiment), Yea, yea, been there, done that, no damn about it. > and if everyone did this there would be a whole lot less violent crime. Oh, I wouldn't be so sure about it. How about reprogramming sensors, so that they move and block a trachea of a victim? > >It's not going to be "bad men will have psyche damaged" - they don't give a > >fsck, I'm afraid. I would rather expect bad men to feel the winds and get > >promoted into right place, where they would become safe and profit from > >helping their comrades. Being sociopaths, they are marvels of camouflage > >and mimicry, able to become first among most righteous. > > > >So, while I look at all this lifeblogging idea with some scepticism, I am > >at the same time quite cool about it. I don't expect revolutionary > >changes. People will find their way around surveillance. > > Not forever. Not when the cameras are hidden in tiny (or even invisible to the > naked eye) artificial insects, and it becomes illegal to actually create these > secret clean pockets of space. The whole culture has as one of it's unwritten laws the idea of right to temporarily or permamently separating myself from the rest, by my own will. But again, I can imagine reprogramming sensors so that they don't show that a pocket is full. Now, this would mean your postulates suggest penalizing ability to program devices, right? War with hackers? You really want such stupid move? Even if this so called "society" could win such a war, there would come another kinds of penalisations - high IQ would be more dangerous than ever. This is simply going down and down the drain. > "Everything as usual" is not the way of the future. Deep changes are not > unexpected if society became a whole lot more transparent. Yep. "Everything as usual" is a way of the present. Present is a future, just right now. I don't doubt in the future there are going to be some deep changes, I just doubt a little that the future will happen anytime soon. > >As I said, because of this one yet unknown side effect, I can go for it. > >Other than this, it's just another screwup for me. > > > > >- Preventing police abuse. > > > > > >- Preventing abuse by employers and corporations of their workers. > > > > > >- Documentation of human rights and animal rights violations at home and > > > >There are more ways of abusing people and animals, Horatio, > >Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. > > That's why we need more eyes and ears everywhere. It was done. It didn't work (or it worked in ways that could stand hairs on one's head, those that one didn't pull out oneself). So, if it is done again, it won't work again (or worse, it will work, again). I have accepted that people have to do same things over and over. No problem at all. I have lots of interests to keep me occupied. > >The last one genocide (and one before it, too) had been widely reported in > >the news, including leading broadcasters. > > That's what broadcasters do. Which shouldn't stop us from trying to prevent > future genocides. Sure, at least we can try. Who knows, maybe it can be done, some few hundreds years from now (you know, genocide is still a novelty for us, and it is so exciting!, so... forbidden!!). Or maybe there would be too few people to perform next genocide. Boredom or technical difficulties, it will stop one day. > > >- Focused sousveillance of those in positions of power, and particularly > > >those > > >in positions of high power. We are all human beings (for now). A lot of > > >power > > >can be concentrated in specific people or groups--this is not the best > > >situation, but that's just the way things are. However, these people or > > >groups > > >should not be allowed by the majority to live in total unaccountability and > > >secrecy... particularly because their actions, their 'conspiring', and so > > >on, > > >affect many others' lives, sometimes in very deep ways. Their decisions can > > >mean the life, imprisonment, or death of some (or sometimes many, sometimes > > >many many) other human beings. > > > >You seem to believe too much in majority. I think majority will allow what > >it is being said to allow. Heck, it will even be sure this is majority's > >own will. > > Well... democratic systems do work by majoritites. Now, if we could only > educate our people to the point that democracy becomes fairer... that would be > something. I think majority is kind of herd. If there was any thinking in it, SETI would have discovered it as one of it's false positives. You could point to ants, but I wouldn't risk and say ants think. They are quite capable, but their thinking process is yet to be discovered. > I think that's a job for everyone: from the state, down to every > last individual. Trying to become wiser, and educating others. At least we now > have the Internet, which potentiates one's ability to educate others, and > makes knowledge available to anyone seeking it. We need to make the Internet > available to everyone in the planet, and that's going to be challenging. Yes, about this one I do agree. At least giving people access to the net, since I don't think educating people would educate anybody. One has to do some conscious work to become educated (I don't mean going to school for a number of years). I don't see too many incentives for average Joe to do this work. Quite the contrary. > But yes... I think most people would actually welcome this stuff, if they knew > what's at stake. If they understood that their livelihood, their well being, > even their own survival and that of their loved ones (their very societies), > may be at stake... the logical option is to want it. I don't know if you > understand that living in a largely unpoliced world is quickly becoming > incompatible with survival. > > Also, I think most people would rather someone watches the watchers too, and > those in positions of power. Instead of the status quo of top-down > surveillance only. You know... there is so many positives in your thinking, that people will buy it right out from the truck. They like this kind of sweet fantasies (no offence to you but this is what they want - a good tale for a good night). [...] > The ethical legitimacy of democratic systems does involve an aware and > educated populace. We should strive for that. Agreed. Nice goal, that everybody says to be wanting. > In the meanwhile, you have the option of moving to a tiny country. Or do you > prefer to live under some other system, where the people have no vote? > Monarchy...? Why, I like to see people voting. This gives some hope that one day they will vote for something real. > As far as the guns and the ammo... all you need to do is move to the States. > You can actually carry concealed weapons in public in some states. That shit's > scary--one day the shit will hit the fan, and people will be literally killing > each other with way too much ease. I prefer societies where handguns are > extremely rare and hard to find. Guns and ammo are our last hope. So that when next time some benevolent bastard buddies want to screw us, we can defend our beloved, children and families (you should like the idea) and blow them their lies back into their buddy smiling mouths. I could also lifeblog this and put on my webpage. If the shit hits the fan and people decide to kill each other, there are still plenty of kitchen knives. There are clubs, machetas, hammers, chains... If the shit hits the fan, military and police will gradually convert into bandits. You sure they will be scared away by your camera? Bad guys seem to always find a gun for themselves every time they need it. No matter if this is forbidden or not. [...] > Ghettos could be cleaned up. People given better living conditions, education, > options in life. Much more transparency (in this case, maybe using artificial > insects, if going in there is too scary for anyone but especially armored > police forces) would only make it easier to get rid of the weapons, and arrest > criminals within the ghettos. > > But cheap and nearly invisible AV-recording devices, given out to those being > abused within the ghettos in mass numbers, would only make the picking-up of > serious wrongdoers much easier. Yes, I guess you could say I am an optimist, > in some ways. I look for solutions to the problems. The solution, IMHO, would be to educate ghettos and give them decent jobs. Giving out cameras, this doesn't sound too well - until the ghetto is populated by well fed people, who can think positively about their future. [...] > >Big ideas don't breed well in transparency (before you shred this > >sentence, try to analyse it). This kind of society seems to be doomed by > >design. I don't think that group think has contributed anything valuable > >to humanity (other than abhorment for group think). Of course I will gladly > >educate myself about counter examples. > > I think that's just nonesense. No need to analyze further.e You know, if you could point nonsense somewhere in my reasoning, I wouldn't mind at all. Educating oneself is sometimes painful, but in theory I end up being better man, so why not? > > >- With such systems properly in place, it should be easier for us to stop > > >some > > >highly visible and potentially deadly acts of terror before the > > >perpetrators > > >of such acts have the time to cause mass death and destruction. With the > > >advent of cheap DIY bio and eventually nanoengineering, it becomes > > >important, > > >for public health reasons, to start being a lot more vigilant. > > > >While terrorists look very well in TV, there are many things far more > >dangerous, like driving under influence. Other example - there are bilions > >of people lacking potable water, proper food and shelter, ready to > >incubate super virus (which is going to happen by pure chance rather than > >concerted effort). > > Yes, the idea has to do with preventing drunk-driving too. I was pointing out that while we chase terrorists, a lot of other issues remain. And human cost-wise, I wouldn't be so sure they should be left unattended. From this page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States ], "17,941 people died in 2006" and "275,000 were injured in alcohol-related accidents in 2003". This is just one country, one cause of death. Or, consider landmines: [ http://www.unicef.org/graca/mines.htm ]. There are mechanical ways of clearing landmines, but I'm not sure if they have been adopted globally and if they are cheap or not. So I would be more for checking first, if we really need to deploy global invigilation "because there are terrorists out there". Where, where? Everywhere? If so, no invigilation is going to save us. They should be running towards White House and Capitol right now, being so ubiquitous as proponents of invigilation seem to suggest. Or maybe, some money could be spent on addressing some real problems, that kill thousands and cripple tens of thousands. Every year. But, as I said, no need for me to worry about it. There is going to be great deal, worth shitloads of green. The deal will buy a lot of shiny cute devices, that will hoover and look at us, but the world as such will not be much better (or not at all). And things written above will be repeated years later by someone else. Of course, in the news, there will be some great stories. Some new workplaces. Check. Some criminals caught. Check. Nothing surprising. Check. But yes, there will be some crimes, that would be forced out of the streets. This doesn't mean they will end, no matter how many spybots you push out of factory and how small they are. The psychological and economic roots of crime are not addressed by your spybots, seems to me. > >I think (but I'm not afraid, mind you) they will welcome everything you > >propose. > > Sure. Everything but the "us watching them" part. Well, we agree on this, but each in one's unique way. I think they will not only adopt the idea, they will also implement it... for our good of course. As of "watching them", good luck. You seem to believe that if the technology is adopted by so called citizens, "they" will be watched and all ends well. Some time ago modern judicial system (supported by journalism) have been adopted with same promises. Didn't it work as expected? > Many people will protest, kick and scream, and have a hard time adapting to a > more transparent society. This will not prevent it from becoming a reality, > though. I will not protest. I would rather drink some vodka, this alternative is much more interesting. They allow vodka in transparent society? Otherwise, I will scream, kick and protest like burning hell. But, well, if they allow drugs, why not vodka. So, no reason to protest anyway. > > >- It would be complicated to set up such a system. If we end up doing none > > >of > > >this, maybe for lack of public support for such measures (a public which > > >may > > >not hear about these possibilities in the first place), maybe a benign > > >superintelligence, if we are successful in developing such, may eventually > > >do > > >the equivalent (both the top-down and the bottom-up monitoring), but > > >without > > >taking so many resources, and without taking so much time from people (the > > > >There are quite big possibilities of such superinteligences being simply > >uninterested in doing such menial job, as caring for us human ants and > >preventing us from harming each other (this was described in a great way > >in Stanislaw Lem's "Golem XIV"). Even if I am far below such level, I > >would take any chance of going out of this planet and build my home in > >space (especially having millenia if not eons to live). Also, I would > >consider preventive war against humanity, just to make sure I am too far > >to be chased and punished for my "disobedience". Or, to be even more sure, > >I would shoot out only kind of seed probe, that would replicate myself on > >the Moon and spread me further, while here on Earth I would play with > >humanity to keep it busy for a long, long time... > > > >One thing I would be a bit afraid about humanity, it would be similarities > >to cockroaches. One can poison, drown, shoot or burn and still, there is > >no 100% effectiveness. I think this could be depressing, but I am not sure > >if mechanical intelligence can feel depression. The best strategy seems to > >be playing us against each other, make use of our own screwing ability to > >keep us in line, or more like keep us from stepping over some line. > > I guess you have still not internalized the fact that, if a superintelligence > does not care for our well being, we are pretty much doomed. No, I guess that I have internalized it quite well. There are, however, questions if such superintelligence will be allowed to exist at all. Those in power have only one thing, and they would rather not give it away. > It may not even > consider keeping us around for very long... or it might allow us to destroy > ourselves. So, I don't follow that train of thought very far. I am assuming a > superintelligence which actually cares about us and our well being. Of course > it will also go out into outer space and explore and process, regardless > whether it decides to keep us alive and well or not. As I said, since I consider humanity to be kind of bigger cockroaches (I must be in bad moods today, really), so as SuperAI I would rather play with us, not go openly against us. Being smart, I would be able to play for millenia, and condition my human subjects in such way that they never realize what I do to them - that is, keep them down and low, to give me as much advantage as possible. Of course, one day favours being so much on my side, that giving a decisive blow to the humanity wouldn't be any problem. Caring for humanity? Well, humans are psychologically unstable. Like schizophrenics, they can go from being best friends to killers in a second. Caring, bah, sure, why not. But more as in terminal care (read: loads of morphine or maybe stronger things). Naw, ok, I went too far. We are not that bad. Maybe we could fancy AI, to make it interested in our twisted ways. > Strange it will be, indeed. > > Sergio Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From bbenzai at yahoo.com Tue Aug 31 08:58:34 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Physics of the Future: How Science Will Change Daily Life by 2100, by Michio Kaku In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <576647.2761.qm@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> John Grigg laughed: >? I laughed at the idea that by > 2100 the internet > would be interfacing with us via contact lenses! lol? > I could see that > by 2040, but by 2100 surely it would be a direct neurojack > connection. LOL. 2100? Call yourself a transhumanist? 2100 is 9 decades away. 9 decades! If you're a fan of Ray Kurzweil's accelerating progress concept, that's not much short of 20,000 years (iirc). If not, it's still a hell of a long time for things to happen in. If it's not game over for the human race v1.0 by then, it will be game over for transhumanism and all our dreams for the future. Contact Lenses, flying cars, direct neural interfaces, and maybe even space elevators could (should, even) all be totally irrelevant by then. I suspect Kaku realises this, or suspects it, but also realises he can't really say it out loud. Maybe I'm wrong, but he seems smart enough to realise his tv programs and books are actually very tame. I find the prospect of there still being meat brains around in 2100 pretty dismaying, because I suspect it would mean the human race has Failed, with a big F, and is staring extinction in the face. Ben Zaiboc From spike66 at att.net Tue Aug 31 09:36:06 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 02:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Dealing with the IRS In-Reply-To: <4C6DE4FE.5000507@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <643821.83623.qm@web81505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 8/19/10, Damien Broderick wrote: ... Be warned: This is a Blatant Advertisement as well as a public announcement--but it concerns a book by a long-time extrope (my wife, Barbara Lamar), on a topic of some urgency to many people in these financially critical times. I hope it's not spam, but if moderators regard it as such, I'll understand if it's removed...Damien Broderick ? ? Damien, any comment by you or Barbara Lamar, even those promoting your own books, would no sooner be discarded by this list than we would discard those green pieces of paper in our wallets. ? Thanks for the links to Barbara's book! ? spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Aug 31 14:03:13 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 07:03:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New papers by Dr. Gregory Clark Message-ID: As some of you know, I have been very impressed by the research of Dr. Clark into the genetic selection that led up to the industrial revolution. He has a number of new papers out. You can read them here: http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/research.html There is a lot of meat in them that relates directly to many of the topics discussed here. Keith From max at maxmore.com Tue Aug 31 14:45:47 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:45:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Complete Perils of Precaution now online Message-ID: <201008311512.o7VFCeJ6004555@andromeda.ziaspace.com> My critique of the precautionary principle, "The Perils of Precaution" recently appeared in six parts on my blog. The full version, with notes, is now online: http://www.maxmore.com/perils.htm Thanks for the comments so far. Additional comments are welcome -- I will be continuing to work to displace the precautionary principle from its unfortunate position of influence in policy-making. Perhaps someone would add a link to the full essay from the Wikipedia page on the precautionary principle, and any other relevant pages. Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader The Proactionary Project Director, Humanity Plus Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Aug 31 16:23:30 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:23:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Two Paths to Further Shrink Computer Chips In-Reply-To: <201008311512.o7VFCeJ6004555@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201008311512.o7VFCeJ6004555@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <2523D111-A79F-4E76-B99C-5A209500FCDC@bellsouth.net> Two different independent announcements were made in the front page of the New York Times today that is likely to cause Moore's law to continue for a long time. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/science/31compute.html?_r=1&ref=global-home The first concerns researchers at Rice University and a startup company called PrivaTran, they have made elements on computer chips as small as 5 nanometers, the most advanced chips on the market today use 32 nanometer technology; importantly the process involves silicon oxide, a substance well understood by chip makers and used extensively, which should make commercialization much easier. The other development is even more important as it involves memristors, the last of the 4 basic electrical devices that joins resistors, capacitors and inductors discovered more than 150 years ago. Hewlett Packard announced that they intend to produce memristors commercially in the near future. The article doesn't mention it but among their many virtues memristors would make it much much easier to build a computer that works by Hebbian learning, a process that has been observed to work with neurons in the human brain. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From painlord2k at libero.it Tue Aug 31 18:46:01 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:46:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <4C7188D8.6050802@satx.rr.com> References: <348871.18904.qm@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C7188D8.6050802@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4C7D4DE9.2080400@libero.it> Il 22/08/2010 22.30, Damien Broderick ha scritto: > On 8/22/2010 2:57 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > >> Leaving aside the question of whether 'peace-loving Muslims' is an >> oxymoron or not, who actually thinks it's peace-loving Muslims >> that want to build this centre? > > Anyone who knows that the Imam behind the proposal is a Sufi. > > Muhammad Ahmad bin Abd Allah was a Sufi sheikh of the Samaniyya order in Sudan who, on June 29, 1881, proclaimed himself as the Mahdi or messianic redeemer of the Islamic faith. They finally arrived in Khartoum on 28 January 1885 to find the town had fallen during the Battle of Khartoum two days earlier. When the Nile had receded from flood stage, Faraz Pasha had opened the river gates and let the Ans?r in. The garrison was slaughtered, and Gordon was killed fighting the Mahdi's warriors on the steps of the palace, hacked to pieces and beheaded which the Mahdi forbade. When Gordon's head was unwrapped at the Mahdi's feet, he ordered the head transfixed between the branches of a tree "....where all who passed it could look in disdain, children could throw stones at it and the hawks of the desert could sweep and circle above." Not bad, for a Sufi. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3104 - Data di rilascio: 08/31/10 08:34:00 From painlord2k at libero.it Tue Aug 31 18:52:23 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:52:23 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Religions and violence In-Reply-To: <4C72DB3F.5080507@mac.com> References: <348871.18904.qm@web114406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C72DB3F.5080507@mac.com> Message-ID: <4C7D4F67.7090109@libero.it> Il 23/08/2010 22.34, samantha ha scritto: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> On 23 August 2010 05:57, Ben Zaiboc wrote: >>> Leaving aside the question of whether 'peace-loving Muslims' is >>> an oxymoron or not... >> Do you know any Muslims? Are they warlike? > There are many many predominantly Muslim countries that are not > warlike. A lot of them are in Asia. One litmus test seems to be > whether a separation of religion and state is largely in place. > There are secular countries whose populations are predominantly > Muslim and who have no intention whatsoever of instituting sharia or > jihad. Just as Christianity got past (mostly) its convert them or > kill them phase so Islam is doing. Just not as throughly yet. By the way, these not warlike Muslim countries were under the thumb of Soviets for a 70 years and under the Christian Russian Empire for some centuries before? They are what is called "ethnic Muslims", someone counted as Muslim only because his ethnic group historically was Muslim. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3104 - Data di rilascio: 08/31/10 08:34:00 From painlord2k at libero.it Tue Aug 31 20:12:10 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:12:10 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Meanwhile in China In-Reply-To: References: <4C6866C0.1050408@libero.it> <4C701186.9030506@libero.it> Message-ID: <4C7D621A.4060705@libero.it> Il 30/08/2010 15.44, Stefano Vaj ha scritto: > 2010/8/21 Mirco Romanato : >> Anyone allowing a foreign tribunal to have jurisdiction over his >> military is better to disband his military. > > Anyone allowing foreign military to go exempt from jurisdiction in > its own territory has already disbanded its sovereignty. If I remember correctly Italian Air Force members in US have the same privileges of US Air Force members in Italy. If the Italians did the same in US, the NATO jurisdiction rules would be the same. The US have already disbanded their sovereignty. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* -------------- next part -------------- Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 9.0.851 / Database dei virus: 271.1.1/3104 - Data di rilascio: 08/31/10 08:34:00 From jrd1415 at gmail.com Tue Aug 31 20:18:20 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:18:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Intel brain scanning and interface research Message-ID: I have no comment other than this the future knocking on your doorstep TODAY. Intel Human Brain Imaging and Machine Learning Research http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/intel-human-brain-imaging-and-machine.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Aug 31 20:42:00 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:42:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Now we've got 'survival of the weakest'! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <178271.86351.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I wouldn't say less, but different. A lot of the things talked about are no longer pluses in tame or civilized environments. Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: Aleksei Riikonen To: ExI chat list Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 5:45:21 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Now we've got 'survival of the weakest'! On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:14 AM, BillK wrote: > > Is he saying humans are degenerating? Yes, and of course we are since because of e.g. better healthcare, we are under less evolutionary pressures than we used to be. Today, people with much more costly deficits in fitness can have lots of children than was possible during our earlier evolutionary history. -- Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Aug 31 20:45:19 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Now we've got 'survival of the weakest'! In-Reply-To: <235104.35156.qm@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <235104.35156.qm@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <415670.11994.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I think the analogy can be made, too, with other organisms. An animal that can build, say, nests might be able to save energy on making thicker egg shells. (I'm just guessing here. I don't know if anyone's done a study of nest-building egg laying animals that shows their eggs have thinner shells than their non-nest-building egg laying ancestors.) Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: Ben Zaiboc To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 4:46:19 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Now we've got 'survival of the weakest'! Aleksei Riikonen replied: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:14 AM, BillK > wrote: > > > > Is he saying humans are degenerating? > > Yes, and of course we are since because of e.g. better > healthcare, we > are under less evolutionary pressures than we used to be. > Today, > people with much more costly deficits in fitness can have > lots of > children than was possible during our earlier evolutionary > history. No, because 'humans' are more than their biology.? The biological component of humans has been getting slowly weaker and less capable, over a long period of time, but the technological component is quickly getting much more capable, and may soon overshadow the biological part entirely. Ben Zaiboc _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jrd1415 at gmail.com Tue Aug 31 23:10:36 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:10:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Two Paths to Further Shrink Computer Chips In-Reply-To: <2523D111-A79F-4E76-B99C-5A209500FCDC@bellsouth.net> References: <201008311512.o7VFCeJ6004555@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <2523D111-A79F-4E76-B99C-5A209500FCDC@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: And add this tech, hyped as "game-changing", enabling 3D chip architecture: http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/applied-materials-claims-game-changing.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles