From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 01:22:24 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:22:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reverse aging In-Reply-To: <110530.75483.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <175291.19133.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002701cb8fe4$ef4a71e0$cddf55a0$@att.net> <4a4dab57fcc08ea47620360ca68c720d.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <3EDF26C2560548199BA6E6A03512F6A1@PCserafino> <55CE9E2C436B40B4A7C45C33809E05AB@PCserafino> <110530.75483.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Stuart, and so was this simply a first step toward rejuvenating normally aged mice? And do you think within 10-15 years we could be at the point where humans are being restored, despite the major differences between humans and mice? John On 11/30/10, The Avantguardian wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: John Grigg >> To: ExI chat list >> Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 5:22:14 PM >> Subject: Re: [ExI] reverse aging >> >> My understanding is that to do the same in humans (much easier said >> than done) would make the test subjects very vulnerable to cancers. >> But some researchers actually contend that is not true. >> >> And how many years do you think we are away from a *successful* >> treatment being developed?? I say this because at least in theory, if >> this is perfected, we have firmly landed our feet on the launching pad >> of longevity escape velocity!? : ) >> >> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=telomerase-reverses-aging > > Aside from valid cancer concerns, I would like to?stress that the scientists > in > the Nature paper did not reverse normal aging in mice. Instead what they did > was?first cause premature aging in mice by taking away telomerase. Then they > reversed the premature aging that they caused?by putting?telomerase back. > Therefore they would not, for example, qualify for the Methuselah Mouse > Prize. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From lubkin at unreasonable.com Wed Dec 1 01:29:17 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:29:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find In-Reply-To: <201011302252.oAUMqImh002314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201011301334.oAUDY5YC016878@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201011302252.oAUMqImh002314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <201012010128.oB11S9ia014606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I wrote: >Probably this: > > Update: Not this. That was in the 26 Nov issue of Science. The press conference is about an embargoed story in the 3 Dec issue. -- David. From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 1 01:43:01 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:43:01 -0600 Subject: [ExI] reverse aging In-Reply-To: References: <175291.19133.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002701cb8fe4$ef4a71e0$cddf55a0$@att.net> <4a4dab57fcc08ea47620360ca68c720d.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <3EDF26C2560548199BA6E6A03512F6A1@PCserafino> <55CE9E2C436B40B4A7C45C33809E05AB@PCserafino> <110530.75483.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CF5A825.7010000@satx.rr.com> On 11/30/2010 7:22 PM, John Grigg wrote: > Stuart, and so was this simply a first step toward rejuvenating > normally aged mice? I don't see any obvious reason why this should follow. As I commented on a biogerontology list when a few people were getting prematurely excited (IMO) by this report: On the face of it, this sounds like an incredibly silly "discovery". Build a car without wheels. You can't drive it anywhere. Put the wheels on. Look! A miracle! Now you can drive it! Ship a crew of old sea dogs from England to Australia without any vitamin C in their diet. They get scurvy and start to die. Feed them some citrus and they all recover. A miracle! Lemons will make you young again! In addition, mice normally have unusually long telomeres, longer than ours, and die after 3 years or so. I'm not sure why added telomerase would help little mousies, unless they'd started life as mutant cripples. Damien Broderick From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 01:52:46 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:52:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reverse aging In-Reply-To: <4CF5A825.7010000@satx.rr.com> References: <175291.19133.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002701cb8fe4$ef4a71e0$cddf55a0$@att.net> <4a4dab57fcc08ea47620360ca68c720d.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <3EDF26C2560548199BA6E6A03512F6A1@PCserafino> <55CE9E2C436B40B4A7C45C33809E05AB@PCserafino> <110530.75483.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4CF5A825.7010000@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Damn it, Damien! I wanted to be reassured that before 2025 people would be inexpensively rejuvenated due to the end results of this research, and also that by 2035 the Singularity would be happening, at the hands of an AGI even friendlier than David Pearce!!! You really know how to rain on my parade... LOL What other bad news do you have for me??? John ; ) : ( On 11/30/10, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 11/30/2010 7:22 PM, John Grigg wrote: > >> Stuart, and so was this simply a first step toward rejuvenating >> normally aged mice? > > I don't see any obvious reason why this should follow. As I commented on > a biogerontology list when a few people were getting prematurely excited > (IMO) by this report: > > On the face of it, this sounds like an incredibly silly "discovery". > Build a car without wheels. You can't drive it anywhere. Put the wheels > on. Look! A miracle! Now you can drive it! Ship a crew of old sea dogs > from England to Australia without any vitamin C in their diet. They get > scurvy and start to die. Feed them some citrus and they all recover. A > miracle! Lemons will make you young again! > > In addition, mice normally have unusually long telomeres, longer than > ours, and die after 3 years or so. I'm not sure why added telomerase > would help little mousies, unless they'd started life as mutant cripples. > > Damien Broderick > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 03:38:16 2010 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 14:08:16 +1030 Subject: [ExI] reverse aging In-Reply-To: <4CF5A825.7010000@satx.rr.com> References: <175291.19133.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002701cb8fe4$ef4a71e0$cddf55a0$@att.net> <4a4dab57fcc08ea47620360ca68c720d.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <3EDF26C2560548199BA6E6A03512F6A1@PCserafino> <55CE9E2C436B40B4A7C45C33809E05AB@PCserafino> <110530.75483.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4CF5A825.7010000@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 1 December 2010 12:13, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 11/30/2010 7:22 PM, John Grigg wrote: > >> Stuart, and so was this simply a first step toward rejuvenating >> normally aged mice? > > I don't see any obvious reason why this should follow. As I commented on a > biogerontology list when a few people were getting prematurely excited (IMO) > by this report: > > On the face of it, this sounds like an incredibly silly "discovery". Build a > car without wheels. You can't drive it anywhere. Put the wheels on. Look! A > miracle! Now you can drive it! Ship a crew of old sea dogs from England to > Australia without any vitamin C in their diet. They get scurvy and start to > die. Feed them some citrus and they all recover. A miracle! Lemons will make > you young again! I thought the interesting thing here was that a big complex organism would essentially repair itself just by switching on telomerase, where the shortened telomeres were the problem. Is there previous research actually showing this happen (as opposed to in-vitro experiments, or extrapolations from theory)? -- Emlyn http://my.syyn.cc - A service for syncing buzz and facebook, posts, comments and all. http://www.blahblahbleh.com - A simple youtube radio that I built http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog Find me on Facebook and Buzz From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 1 09:43:47 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 01:43:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] reverse aging In-Reply-To: References: <175291.19133.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002701cb8fe4$ef4a71e0$cddf55a0$@att.net> <4a4dab57fcc08ea47620360ca68c720d.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <3EDF26C2560548199BA6E6A03512F6A1@PCserafino> <55CE9E2C436B40B4A7C45C33809E05AB@PCserafino> <110530.75483.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <755968.97958.qm@web65601.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: John Grigg > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 5:22:24 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] reverse aging > > Stuart, and so was this simply a first step toward rejuvenating > normally aged mice?? Not really although the study is not entirely without merit with regard to rejuvenation. There are problems with this approach. First of all, these mice were genetically engineered from before birth to not make any telomerase unless they were given hydroxytestosterone. So their telomerase gene?was able to be switched on or off like a chemical switch.?Therefore what you are really asking?is whether reversing abnormal aging in engineered mice has any relevance to reversing?normal aging in normal mice. The answer is some but not much. Let me explain. Telomeres are the DNA at the tips of linear chromosomes. They exist specifically as a buffer of "extra" DNA because each time a?linear chromosome replicates, it gets a little shorter. This is because the enzyme?that?copies DNA, called DNA polymerase, can only?move in one direction and can only copy the DNA in front of it and not behind it.?This is called?"the end replication problem" and?it suffered by all organisms except for bacteria whose circular chromosomes make them immune because circles do not have ends. Now for some time a leading theory of aging has been?that the gradual accumulation of DNA damage causes aging much like gradual accumulation of errors on your hard drive might lead to your operating system files becoming corrupt.?There are several types of DNA damage that can happen and the body has evolved a series of defenses against said damage.?One of the worst types of DNA damage are double-stranded breaks in the DNA. They are exceptionally bad because normally?repair enzymes use the undamaged strand to act as a template for?repair of the damaged strand such that each strand acts as a backup copy of the other. When both?strands are broken however, which can happen when you are exposed to x-rays and other ionizing radiation for example, the repair enzymes mate the broken ends together the best they can with random nucleotides. If the double stranded break happens inside of a coded gene, that gene is?now either useless gibberish or a dangerous mutation. Because of this the cell responds to double stranded breaks in its DNA by shutting off the cells ability to replicate itself. So what does all this have to do with telomeres and aging? Well if you are particularly astute, you may ask how the cell can distinguish between the ends of its own chromosomes and double-stranded breaks in its DNA? The answer is that telomeres, by virtue of their DNA sequence, bind?special protein complexes that enable them to fold over themselves such that they bury?their exposed ends inside a structure called the telomeric loop in a process called capping. Now because the telomeric loop is a literal loop of DNA, the structure cannot form unless the telomeres are long enough to?have enough slack to allow the structure to form. This means that if the telomeres are too short then the telomeric loop cannot form and the cell is *unable* to distinguish between the ends of its own chromosomes and a double-stranded break in its DNA. So it?reponds?to both the same way by shutting down the cell's ability to replicate itself. This is?called cellular senescence. Cellular senescence is thought to contribute to aging by preventing the body from?replacing cells when they die or wear out. But when a damaged cell manages to bypass cellular sensecence and tries to replicate itself despite being damaged, the?cell will activate another program to try and commit cellular suicide?called apoptosis. If apoptosis doesn't work, the cell is now a full blown turmor. So the cold hard truth about aging is that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. In a certain sense, we get old in order to prevent cancer and if we get cancer, we don't survive long enough to get old. So where is the silver lining to the Nature study? It is that it?fully supports the theory that DNA damage leads to?aging and that repairing that damage does not just halt the aging process but actually reverses it. The caveat is that?you can't just repair the telomeres, you have to repair *all* of it, otherwise?you get?an immortal?horde of?rogue replicating cells known as cancer.?? > And do you think within 10-15 years we could be > at the point where humans are being restored, despite the major > differences between humans and mice? Not with the way the system is currently set up. If someone figured out how to reverse the aging process while dodging cancer today, it would take at least that long just to get FDA approval. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 1 09:53:13 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 01:53:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] reverse aging In-Reply-To: <4CF5A825.7010000@satx.rr.com> References: <175291.19133.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002701cb8fe4$ef4a71e0$cddf55a0$@att.net> <4a4dab57fcc08ea47620360ca68c720d.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <3EDF26C2560548199BA6E6A03512F6A1@PCserafino> <55CE9E2C436B40B4A7C45C33809E05AB@PCserafino> <110530.75483.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4CF5A825.7010000@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <945207.89291.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Damien Broderick > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 5:43:01 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] reverse aging > > On 11/30/2010 7:22 PM, John Grigg wrote: > > > Stuart, and so was this simply a first step toward rejuvenating > > normally aged mice? > > I don't see any obvious reason why this should follow. As I commented on a >biogerontology list when a few people were getting prematurely excited (IMO) by >this report: > > On the face of it, this sounds like an incredibly silly "discovery". Build a >car without wheels. You can't drive it anywhere. Put the wheels on. Look! A >miracle! Now you can drive it! Ship a crew of old sea dogs from England to >Australia without any vitamin C in their diet. They get scurvy and start to die. >Feed them some citrus and they all recover. A miracle! Lemons will make you >young again! > > In addition, mice normally have unusually long telomeres, longer than ours, and >die after 3 years or so. I'm not sure why added telomerase would help little >mousies, unless they'd started life as mutant cripples. It wouldn't. Mice evolved to be disposable, living fast and breeding prodigously. But keep their telomeres long enough to cap *and* repair the rest of their DNA *and* keep their mitochondria functioning *and* guard them against predators and infections and you might just get an immortal mouse. Stuart LaForge "There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 1 09:56:59 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 01:56:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] reverse aging In-Reply-To: References: <175291.19133.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002701cb8fe4$ef4a71e0$cddf55a0$@att.net> <4a4dab57fcc08ea47620360ca68c720d.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <3EDF26C2560548199BA6E6A03512F6A1@PCserafino> <55CE9E2C436B40B4A7C45C33809E05AB@PCserafino> <110530.75483.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4CF5A825.7010000@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <892790.5708.qm@web65601.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Emlyn > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 7:38:16 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] reverse aging > > On 1 December 2010 12:13, Damien Broderick wrote: > > On 11/30/2010 7:22 PM, John Grigg wrote: > > > >> Stuart, and so was this simply a first step toward rejuvenating > >> normally aged mice? > > > > I don't see any obvious reason why this should follow. As I commented on a > > biogerontology list when a few people were getting prematurely excited (IMO) > > by this report: > > > > On the face of it, this sounds like an incredibly silly "discovery". Build a > > car without wheels. You can't drive it anywhere. Put the wheels on. Look! A > > miracle! Now you can drive it! Ship a crew of old sea dogs from England to > > Australia without any vitamin C in their diet. They get scurvy and start to > > die. Feed them some citrus and they all recover. A miracle! Lemons will make > > you young again! > > I thought the interesting thing here was that a big complex organism > would essentially repair itself just by switching on telomerase, where > the shortened telomeres were the problem. Is there previous research > actually showing this happen (as opposed to in-vitro experiments, or > extrapolations from theory)? Not to my knowledge. Which is why, aside from the tremendous labor involved in installing a controllable genetic switch into a lineage of mice, it deserved to be in Nature. From bbenzai at yahoo.com Wed Dec 1 13:17:38 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 05:17:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] reverse aging In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <205204.67641.qm@web114404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> The Avantguardian wrote: > Let me explain. > Interestingly, Aubrey de Grey's SENS includes a scheme for totally eliminating all cancers, by taking the opposite approach: Get rid of telomerase and all other means of lengthening telomeres. Of course, that brings its own problems, but it stops cancer dead in its tracks. Ben Zaiboc From atymes at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 17:26:33 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:26:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] reverse aging In-Reply-To: <755968.97958.qm@web65601.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <175291.19133.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002701cb8fe4$ef4a71e0$cddf55a0$@att.net> <4a4dab57fcc08ea47620360ca68c720d.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <3EDF26C2560548199BA6E6A03512F6A1@PCserafino> <55CE9E2C436B40B4A7C45C33809E05AB@PCserafino> <110530.75483.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <755968.97958.qm@web65601.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:43 AM, The Avantguardian < avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote: > This means that if the telomeres are too short then the telomeric loop > cannot form and the cell is *unable* to distinguish between the ends of its > own > chromosomes and a double-stranded break in its DNA. So it reponds to both > the > same way by shutting down the cell's ability to replicate itself. This > is called > cellular senescence. > > Cellular senescence is thought to contribute to aging by preventing the > body > from replacing cells when they die or wear out. But when a damaged cell > manages > to bypass cellular sensecence and tries to replicate itself despite being > damaged, the cell will activate another program to try and commit cellular > suicide called apoptosis. If apoptosis doesn't work, the cell is now a full > blown turmor. So the cold hard truth about aging is that we are stuck > between a > rock and a hard place. In a certain sense, we get old in order to prevent > cancer > and if we get cancer, we don't survive long enough to get old. > What if you extended the telomeres, such that the only way senescence would set in is via damage leading to cancer? Maybe add in a very slow telomere extending enzyme, that replaces telomeres fast enough for normal cell division (to replace worn out cells) but can't keep up - or even goes into reverse - if very rapid cell division is encountered (such as in cancer). Might that work? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 1 21:29:04 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:29:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] commie spacecraft landing Message-ID: <000301cb919e$c76338e0$5629aaa0$@att.net> Check this. Cool slides showing how the commies do their space engineering. Their system works and its immensely more cost effective than the way we do it. Of course the system we have (used to have) had a lot more flexibility, and was waaay more high tech. Unfortunately, we can't afford it anymore. These photos are those of which you will never see in the US newspapers or probably anywhere else in the USA. A Soyuz capsule carrying Russians Alexander Skvortsov and Mikhail Korniyenko, and NASA's Tracy Caldwell Dyson came back to Earth September 25, 2010 from the International Space Station and landed safely in Kazakhstan, a day after an initial attempt to return was aborted after latches holding the Soyuz TMA-18 craft to the orbital station failed to open. http://cryptome.org/info/soyuz-tma18/soyuz-tma18.htm spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 21:35:59 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 14:35:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reverse aging In-Reply-To: <55CE9E2C436B40B4A7C45C33809E05AB@PCserafino> References: <175291.19133.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002701cb8fe4$ef4a71e0$cddf55a0$@att.net> <4a4dab57fcc08ea47620360ca68c720d.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <3EDF26C2560548199BA6E6A03512F6A1@PCserafino> <55CE9E2C436B40B4A7C45C33809E05AB@PCserafino> Message-ID: Me, too. Jeff Davis On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:34 AM, scerir wrote: > somebody gave me the pdf of the (6 pages) paper on Nature, > anyone interested? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From max at maxmore.com Thu Dec 2 07:18:30 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 01:18:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Interview of Max More by Ben Goertzel Message-ID: <201012020745.oB27jM0x023339@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Ben Goertzel Interviews Max More on the Future of Transhumanism and the Optimization of Disorder", Humanity+ Magazine, December 1, 2010: http://www.hplusmagazine.com/editors-blog/ben-goertzel-interviews-max-more-future-transhumanism-and-optimization-disorder Extropes -- especially in California, I hope to see you at the Humanity+ conference this weekend at Caltech. http://humanityplus.org/conferences/ Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader The Proactionary Project Vice Chair, Humanity+ Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Dec 2 15:02:10 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 07:02:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] commie spacecraft landing In-Reply-To: <000301cb919e$c76338e0$5629aaa0$@att.net> References: <000301cb919e$c76338e0$5629aaa0$@att.net> Message-ID: <384074.45634.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Your comment about high-tech and high-priced makes me think of the joke about the pen that writes in space. I don't know if it's merely an urban legend, but it goes like this: NASA spent millions to develop a pen that writes in space while the Soviet space agency opted to use pencils. (Of course, ignorant people might chalk this up to the command economy working better than free markets. They are ignorant because NASA is not the free market in action. It's definitely command economy -- just command economy with a much bigger budget -- hence more waste and more Kafkaesque developments.) Regards, Dan From: spike To: ExI chat list Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 4:29:04 PM Subject: [ExI] commie spacecraft landing Check this.? Cool slides showing how the commies do their space engineering.? Their system works and its immensely more cost effective than the way we do it.? Of course the system we have (used to have) had a lot more flexibility, and was waaay more high tech.?? Unfortunately, we can?t afford it anymore. ? These photos are those of which you will never see in the US newspapers or probably anywhere else in the USA.? A Soyuz capsule carrying Russians Alexander Skvortsov and Mikhail Korniyenko, and NASA's Tracy Caldwell Dyson came back to Earth September 25, 2010 from the International Space Station and landed safely in Kazakhstan, a day after an initial attempt to return was aborted after latches holding the Soyuz TMA-18 craft to the orbital station failed to open. http://cryptome.org/info/soyuz-tma18/soyuz-tma18.htm spike? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 16:15:16 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 11:15:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] commie spacecraft landing In-Reply-To: <384074.45634.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <000301cb919e$c76338e0$5629aaa0$@att.net> <384074.45634.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/12/2 Dan > Your comment about high-tech and high-priced makes me think of the joke > about the pen that writes in space. I don't know if it's merely an urban > legend, > It is: http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 2 16:19:38 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 08:19:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] commie spacecraft landing In-Reply-To: <384074.45634.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <000301cb919e$c76338e0$5629aaa0$@att.net> <384074.45634.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003001cb923c$b7d47bc0$277d7340$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 7:02 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] commie spacecraft landing Your comment about high-tech and high-priced makes me think of the joke about the pen that writes in space. I don't know if it's merely an urban legend, but it goes like this: NASA spent millions to develop a pen that writes in space while the Soviet space agency opted to use pencils. (Of course, ignorant people might chalk this up to the command economy working better than free markets. They are ignorant because NASA is not the free market in action. It's definitely command economy -- just command economy with a much bigger budget -- hence more waste and more Kafkaesque developments.) Regards, Dan Dan, it was a mixture of urban legend and market-speak. One of the pen companies did in fact have a pen called a power point, which worked upside down so you could write over your head. They claimed they developed it for NASA to work in weightlessness. Like everyone else who had one in 1970, I never did figure out why anyone needs to write upside down or over one?s head. But we had them and they were high tech! Perhaps the US government?s tax revenue for all those pens would eventually cover the contract they let for the development effort. Your tax dollars at play. Regarding using pencils in space, I can easily imagine the commies doing it, but I can think of a coupla good reasons why it would be better to not do that. Graphite would splinter off and float around until inhaled by the proles onboard, perhaps causing some new space disease twenty years hence. Also the powdery conductive graphite floating about would introduce risk of short circuiting electronic gear. We have cleanroom markers that are actually more similar to waxy hard crayons that would be better. Now of course we would just use keyboards. The clear message was that the commies are willing to accept waaay more risk that NASA ever was, and consequently they did their thing at a small fraction of the cost. Even more illustrative is how the Chinese do their space launches. We launch rockets way far out by itself on an island like Cape Canaveral or Vandenberg, and launch out over water. The Chinese have their launch facilities inland, with a city evolving in a ring around it with a radius of a leisurely bicycle ride. They never did own up to the number of proles slain in the 14 February 1996 Long March crash. Watch the video. The official number of proles was 6, but I know someone who was there, who claimed it was at least in the hundreds, perhaps thousands: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoU1GgkrKg http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/china_rocket/ On the other hand, everyone I knew who worked in the space program at Cape Canaveral had to drive an hour to get to work, which presents cumulative risk to the proles one would suppose, so that should be counted somehow. I would estimate the death toll at perhaps 20 in driving accidents between Cape Canaveral and Titusville, most of these as a result of hitting a wild boar or alligator on NASA causeway, which passes through an enormous wildlife refuge. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at alice.it Thu Dec 2 17:17:29 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:17:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find In-Reply-To: <201012010128.oB11S9ia014606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201011301334.oAUDY5YC016878@andromeda.ziaspace.com><201011302252.oAUMqImh002314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201012010128.oB11S9ia014606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20FFBEEFF9904B02A17EA5E1AACC5B6F@PCserafino> From: "David Lubkin" > Update: Not this. That was in the 26 Nov issue of Science. The press > conference is about an embargoed story in the 3 Dec issue. http://www.creditcardoutlaw.com/my-blog/2010/12/is-nasa-really-going-to-unveil-alien-life-forms-tomorrow.html From scerir at alice.it Thu Dec 2 17:24:16 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:24:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find In-Reply-To: <20FFBEEFF9904B02A17EA5E1AACC5B6F@PCserafino> References: <201011301334.oAUDY5YC016878@andromeda.ziaspace.com><201011302252.oAUMqImh002314@andromeda.ziaspace.com><201012010128.oB11S9ia014606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20FFBEEFF9904B02A17EA5E1AACC5B6F@PCserafino> Message-ID: <7858A4379C3245DA84F4CB7D325FE63D@PCserafino> > http://www.creditcardoutlaw.com/my-blog/2010/12/is-nasa-really-going-to-unveil-alien-life-forms-tomorrow.html http://tinyurl.com/34dvdul From timhalterman at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 17:37:29 2010 From: timhalterman at gmail.com (Tim Halterman) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 11:37:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find In-Reply-To: <7858A4379C3245DA84F4CB7D325FE63D@PCserafino> References: <201011301334.oAUDY5YC016878@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201011302252.oAUMqImh002314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201012010128.oB11S9ia014606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20FFBEEFF9904B02A17EA5E1AACC5B6F@PCserafino> <7858A4379C3245DA84F4CB7D325FE63D@PCserafino> Message-ID: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/eureka/article7040864.ece Article from March of this year discussing in more detail the research being done at Mono Lake, mentioned results likely published at the end of the year (2010). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ablainey at aol.com Thu Dec 2 20:03:49 2010 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:03:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find In-Reply-To: <20FFBEEFF9904B02A17EA5E1AACC5B6F@PCserafino> References: <201011301334.oAUDY5YC016878@andromeda.ziaspace.com><201011302252.oAUMqImh002314@andromeda.ziaspace.com><201012010128.oB11S9ia014606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20FFBEEFF9904B02A17EA5E1AACC5B6F@PCserafino> Message-ID: <8CD60732B369B96-1D60-3685@webmail-d004.sysops.aol.com> Complete anticlimax. No invasion, No flesh eating acid for blood monsters, Not even an exomicrobe found by one of our numerous planetary probes. Still interesting, but hardly earthshattering. Just confirms long held existing theories. -----Original Message----- From: scerir To: ExI chat list Sent: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:17 Subject: Re: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find From: "David Lubkin" > Update: Not this. That was in the 26 Nov issue of Science. The press > conference is about an embargoed story in the 3 Dec issue. http://www.creditcardoutlaw.com/my-blog/2010/12/is-nasa-really-going-to-unveil-alien-life-forms-tomorrow.html _______________________________________________ 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 Dec 2 20:41:00 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:41:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find In-Reply-To: <8CD60732B369B96-1D60-3685@webmail-d004.sysops.aol.com> References: <201011301334.oAUDY5YC016878@andromeda.ziaspace.com><201011302252.oAUMqImh002314@andromeda.ziaspace.com><201012010128.oB11S9ia014606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20FFBEEFF9904B02A17EA5E1AACC5B6F@PCserafino> <8CD60732B369B96-1D60-3685@webmail-d004.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <353.57491.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes, like so much about NASA: big hype over almost nothing. Regards, Dan From: "ablainey at aol.com" To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Thu, December 2, 2010 3:03:49 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find Complete anticlimax. No invasion, No flesh eating acid for blood monsters, Not even an exomicrobe found by one of our numerous planetary probes. Still interesting, but hardly earthshattering. Just confirms long held existing theories. -----Original Message----- From: scerir To: ExI chat list Sent: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:17 Subject: Re: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find From: "David Lubkin"? > Update: Not this. That was in the 26 Nov issue of Science. The press? > conference is about an embargoed story in the 3 Dec issue.? ? http://www.creditcardoutlaw.com/my-blog/2010/12/is-nasa-really-going-to-unveil-alien-life-forms-tomorrow.html ? _______________________________________________? 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 rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 22:25:56 2010 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:25:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find In-Reply-To: <353.57491.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <201011301334.oAUDY5YC016878@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201011302252.oAUMqImh002314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201012010128.oB11S9ia014606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20FFBEEFF9904B02A17EA5E1AACC5B6F@PCserafino> <8CD60732B369B96-1D60-3685@webmail-d004.sysops.aol.com> <353.57491.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The most anticlimactic aspect is that the bacteria are not a separate highly divergent clade like Archaea but rather members of our own tree of life that adapted to opportunistically incorporate arsenic in their DNA. Archaea may have originated DNA separately from Eubacteria, thus implying that the development of simple forms of life may consist of distinct phases, each of which could be relatively likely to occur sequentially, rather than requiring a single complicated origination event. Archaea have thus implications for the Fermi paradox. GFAJ-1 do not point to a separate origination event on Earth and thus have limited importance for astrobiology, aside from supporting the idea that life could be based on various combinations of elements - and this is not that important for discussions of e.g. likely filters on our way to sustained space colonization. Rafal 2010/12/2 Dan : > Yes, like so much about NASA: big hype over almost nothing. > > Regards, > > Dan > From: "ablainey at aol.com" > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Sent: Thu, December 2, 2010 3:03:49 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find > > Complete anticlimax. No invasion, No flesh eating acid for blood monsters, > Not even an exomicrobe found by one of our numerous planetary probes. > Still interesting, but hardly earthshattering. Just confirms long held > existing theories. > > -----Original Message----- > From: scerir > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:17 > Subject: Re: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find > From: "David Lubkin" >> Update: Not this. That was in the 26 Nov issue of Science. The press >> conference is about an embargoed story in the 3 Dec issue. > > http://www.creditcardoutlaw.com/my-blog/2010/12/is-nasa-really-going-to-unveil-alien-life-forms-tomorrow.html > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD Chief Clinical Officer, Gencia Corporation 706 B Forest St. Charlottesville, VA 22903 tel: (434) 295-4800 fax: (434) 295-4951 This electronic message transmission contains information from the biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail (fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately. From max at maxmore.com Fri Dec 3 02:43:58 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 20:43:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Robotic 'pants' let paralyzed people walk Message-ID: <201012030244.oB32i7fF013944@andromeda.ziaspace.com> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40483447/ns/health-health_care/ From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 3 02:42:09 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:42:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find In-Reply-To: References: <201011301334.oAUDY5YC016878@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201011302252.oAUMqImh002314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201012010128.oB11S9ia014606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20FFBEEFF9904B02A17EA5E1AACC5B6F@PCserafino> <8CD60732B369B96-1D60-3685@webmail-d004.sysops.aol.com> <353.57491.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005001cb9293$aed73ba0$0c85b2e0$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki Subject: Re: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find The most anticlimactic aspect is that the bacteria are not a separate highly divergent clade like Archaea but rather members of our own tree of life that adapted to opportunistically incorporate arsenic in their DNA...Rafal 2010/12/2 Dan : > Yes, like so much about NASA: big hype over almost nothing. > > Dan > From: "ablainey at aol.com" > ... > Complete anticlimax... I am surprised by the disappointment expressed by several posters. This was a hellll of a find. I wouldn't expect anything to incorporate arsenic into the tissues. This opens up possibilities for the panspermia notion, as well as causing me personally to increase my own estimate of the number of star systems that support life. spike From lubkin at unreasonable.com Fri Dec 3 03:19:30 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:19:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find In-Reply-To: <005001cb9293$aed73ba0$0c85b2e0$@att.net> References: <201011301334.oAUDY5YC016878@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201011302252.oAUMqImh002314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201012010128.oB11S9ia014606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20FFBEEFF9904B02A17EA5E1AACC5B6F@PCserafino> <8CD60732B369B96-1D60-3685@webmail-d004.sysops.aol.com> <353.57491.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005001cb9293$aed73ba0$0c85b2e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <201012030319.oB33JWk2015840@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Spike wrote: >I am surprised by the disappointment expressed by several posters. This was >a hellll of a find. I wouldn't expect anything to incorporate arsenic into >the tissues. This opens up possibilities for the panspermia notion, as well >as causing me personally to increase my own estimate of the number of star >systems that support life. I'm wondering whether arsenic was happenstance or a particularly feasible substitution. Can the critters can make other substitutes to a higher row in the periodic table, e.g., phosphorus for nitrogen, strontium for calcium, ruthenium for iron...? This phenomenon also suggests that we can engineer lifeforms for different element mixes piecewise. (For industrial use here or seeding life elsewhere.) And what about last week's find that Rhea has an oxygen atmosphere? Which raises the prospect that there are loads of gas giants in the galaxy with similar lunar possibilities for life. -- David. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Dec 3 04:21:55 2010 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 23:21:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find In-Reply-To: <005001cb9293$aed73ba0$0c85b2e0$@att.net> References: <201011301334.oAUDY5YC016878@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201011302252.oAUMqImh002314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201012010128.oB11S9ia014606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20FFBEEFF9904B02A17EA5E1AACC5B6F@PCserafino> <8CD60732B369B96-1D60-3685@webmail-d004.sysops.aol.com> <353.57491.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005001cb9293$aed73ba0$0c85b2e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:42 PM, spike wrote: ?This opens up possibilities for the panspermia notion, ### How so? Remember, these are garden-variety gamma-proteobacteria, not anything that fell from the sky, unless you already believe that all life on Earth did. as well > as causing me personally to increase my own estimate of the number of star > systems that support life. ### Trivially, yes, in the sense that our estimate of the probability that worlds with unusually high metallicity (and therefore high levels of arsenic) could harbor DNA and protein-based life should now be higher - but we have no reasons to believe that high metallicity is a significant issue on most otherwise habitable planets. Personally, I never thought that metallicity is a problem anyway - the only reason why metals are poisonous to most terrestrial life is not their intrinsic badness but rather rarity - and rare chemicals are more likely to be problematic when encountered, since normally there is no pressure to evolve good uses for them. For me a more astrobiologically significant finding was the discovery of gamma-ray eating molds inside the Chernobyl sarcophagus. If an eukaryote can develop the ability to feed on gamma rays after a few years inside a little piece of Hell, then a hundred million years in that place could perhaps yield some very, very tough creatures, capable of breezing through millions of years of space travel. Of course, the Ruskis still aren't good at propaganda, so the black mold of Chernobyl hardly made headlines. Rafal From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 3 06:16:21 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 22:16:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find In-Reply-To: References: <201011301334.oAUDY5YC016878@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201011302252.oAUMqImh002314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201012010128.oB11S9ia014606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20FFBEEFF9904B02A17EA5E1AACC5B6F@PCserafino> <8CD60732B369B96-1D60-3685@webmail-d004.sysops.aol.com> <353.57491.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005001cb9293$aed73ba0$0c85b2e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <000901cb92b1$9befc5c0$d3cf5140$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: Rafal Smigrodzki [mailto:rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 8:22 PM To: spike Cc: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:42 PM, spike wrote: >?This opens up possibilities for the panspermia notion... ### How so? Remember, these are garden-variety gamma-proteobacteria, not anything that fell from the sky, unless you already believe that all life on Earth did... Actually what I meant was I find it very exciting to discover any lifeform based on any alternate chemistry besides those so familiar to us. This is equal to that finding a few years ago of those bugs hanging around the thermal vents at the bottom of the sea, making their living decomposing sulfur compounds. It reinforces in my mind the panspermia notions if we find more lifeforms based on alternate chemistries in general. >as well as causing me personally to increase my own estimate of the number of star systems that support life. ### Trivially, yes, in the sense that our estimate of the probability that worlds with unusually high metallicity (and therefore high levels of arsenic) could harbor DNA and protein-based life should now be higher - but we have no reasons to believe that high metallicity is a significant issue on most otherwise habitable planets... Ja. But having more pathways to life is better than fewer, always. This one is cool in that a tech application immediately comes to mind, removing arsenic from drinking water. I lived for five years just south of Mono Lake where these things were found. Low level arsenic toxicity was thought to be the cause of many ills there. We knew there was always low but measurable arsenic in the drinking water. When the winds would come howling down from the north, the dust clouds were known to contain arsenides and arsenates. ###For me a more astrobiologically significant finding was the discovery of gamma-ray eating molds inside the Chernobyl sarcophagus...Rafal I hadn't heard of that, but it is exciting indeed. This suggests a lifeform that evolved on site, since nature would perhaps supply insufficient gamma rays on the surface to support many of these kinds of beasts. The commies should have published more on it. 2 December 2010, this is a good day indeed. I learn of a lifeform apparently at least partially substituting arsenic(!) for phosphorus, and on the same day I learn of commie molds that make their living converting gamma rays. How cool is that? {8-] spike From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 3 11:12:14 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 04:12:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Tom Horn on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory Message-ID: Tom Horn was the primary guest on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory (a show that covers everything from the paranormal to cutting edge science, and has a listenership in the many millions). I had thought Tom Horn was more of a New Ager, but in fact he is a devout Evangelical of the Hal Lindsey/John Ankerberg bent. On his own show he tends to be fairly low-key and actually sort of reminds me of a more laidback version of Jimmy Swaggart, but while on the Coast to Coast radio show he spoke a mile a minute to try to get out everything he wanted to say! lol And the host, George Noory, generally let him do it. These were some of his key points... -Within ten years super-soldiers will exist! -We are engaged in a biological/cybernetic arms race. -Human/machine interfaces being perfected. -The Jason Group- the U.S. must stay ahead of global competitors, no matter what. -Nick Bostrom and Dr. Hughes were briefly mentioned. -Kurzweil's Singularity was very briefly explained. -Hugo de Garis and his nightmarish artilect war brought up several times. -Sophia Project at ASU to contact supernatural creatures (I had never heard of this!!). -Terrance McKenna- we will re-engineer the brain so we can communicate with beings from other dimensions. Demons? -Genetically engineered humans could turn into a rebel force to overthrow us. I noticed that he would take a convergence technology that is probably 20-30 years away (or more) and act like it's right around the corner! But then some transhumanists have that same tendency... lol Horn spoke very fast and excitedly, and it was like he had imbibed several large energy drinks right before he got started speaking! The man is a walking tabloid headline the way he grabs onto some online article and then goes bonkers over it! Hal lindsey and John Ankerberg are actually more articulate than he is, at least when under the pressure of being on a major talk radio show. He mentioned James Hughes being on his program, and seemed to have a fondness for the man. Tom Horn claims to be a "friendly nemesis" to the transhumanist community, and seemed pleased as punch that transhumanists would dialogue with him (of course it helps him to sell books and promote himself). Horn said transhumans are splintered in their views and philosophies, and some even think this astounding technological progress will lead to humanity being wiped out. He credited transhumanist thinkers with being able to clearly look at both the good and horrifically bad scenarios regarding these coming technologies and their possible effect on humanity. Horn mentioned Greg Stock and how he pushes for the upgrading of humanity via germline engineering, while Ray Kurzweil sees artificial intelligence as the solution. I don't think Horn grokked that there is quite a bit of overlap and it is not always either/or when it comes to these things. He kept on saying the future is coming fast and it will revolutionize mankind! I think he has found his tagline... I was amazed when he brought up teleportation experiments, and yet *did not* say that it's human transport success was right around the corner! He claimed that time travel was a Darpa project at one time, and so were some form of telepathic hive mind troops, but the projects were scrapped by nervous senators who took a much closer look at things, after the Navy admiral in charge of Darpa passed away. A decade ago the project named, "master race super soldiers" disturbed congressional examiners, and so now Darpa has gotten good at giving "pleasant names" to their programs, and then burying them under layers of protective secrecy. As time grew short Horn stated that "transhumanism is an outgrowth of Adolph Hitler's eugenics programs!" This is such a great way to get on our good side. But then he has two different links on his website about how Max More has mocked him and his beliefs. He followed up by mentioning Leon Kass saying that humanity is crossing the line between man and God! And of course Fukuyama's "The End of History" was brought up, with transhumanism being the next stage. He grew apocalyptic as he as he discussed Hugo de Garis (one of his favorite transhumanists, due to the happily nightmarish and genocidal wars envisioned by him) and the bedtime nightmares which plague the scientist, where dark visions of humanity by the billions getting slaughtered by godlike artilects, haunt his dreams. Horn touched on his belief that in ancient times, angels spread their DNA among humans and caused the creation of the Nephilium superhumans that caused so much trouble in the land. And he said that his studies of ancient cultures indicated that they believed there would be a great tumult as humans and gods blended together, and created a portal to our world. I guess he watches Stargate SG1... GRINS was given a short overview as he gave a quickie lesson on convergence technologies. And then he talked about how it's very possible that the bones of the Nephilium superhumans from Biblical times have been found by govt. scientists, and that the new generation of supersoldiers will be made in part by adding their DNA to the mix. Yes, really... The whole discussion was finished with, "I'm really not sitting at home with a tinfoil cap on my head!" LOL Well, I guess that's reassuring... http://www.raidersnewsnetwork.com/ Whew!! Write-ups wear me out, but I wanted to get this to everyone, while my memories were still fresh... John : ) From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Dec 3 14:38:52 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 06:38:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find In-Reply-To: <005001cb9293$aed73ba0$0c85b2e0$@att.net> References: <201011301334.oAUDY5YC016878@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201011302252.oAUMqImh002314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201012010128.oB11S9ia014606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20FFBEEFF9904B02A17EA5E1AACC5B6F@PCserafino> <8CD60732B369B96-1D60-3685@webmail-d004.sysops.aol.com> <353.57491.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005001cb9293$aed73ba0$0c85b2e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <307382.16207.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On the other hand, I would expect arsenic to be incorporated into tissues. I don't see anything earth-shattering about this finding. It's not like the central theory of biochemistry up to this point was something that utterly and definitively ruled out arsenic. In fact, to me, not having arsenic in the biochemistry of most Earth life seems more like an accident of history. Are you being serious here too? Did you completely rule out slightly different biochemistries? Were you estimating the number of places life might arise or spread to based on estimates of how many places might have plentiful?arsenic? And what were your estimates? Have you now doubled the number of such places? Tripled them? Etc.? To me, this is like some researcher found a life form that can survive and thrive is brine that's 1% more saline than the previous record holder and then holding off on announcing it for a big conference as if this were the equivalent of finding life on Mars. (Granted, all of us should have guessed that any really big find would be announced in short order or leaked. This sounds almost like a promotional stunt to justify funding or keep NASA in the news than anything else. I mean here the way the story was?played up?-- not the actual find.) Regards, Dan From: spike To: rafal at smigrodzki.org; ExI chat list Sent: Thu, December 2, 2010 9:42:09 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find ... On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki Subject: Re: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find The most anticlimactic aspect is that the bacteria are not a separate highly divergent clade like Archaea but rather members of our own tree of life that adapted to opportunistically incorporate arsenic in their DNA...Rafal 2010/12/2 Dan : > Yes, like so much about NASA: big hype over almost nothing. > > Dan > From: "ablainey at aol.com" > ... > Complete anticlimax... I am surprised by the disappointment expressed by several posters.? This was a hellll of a find.? I wouldn't expect anything to incorporate arsenic into the tissues.? This opens up possibilities for the panspermia notion, as well as causing me personally to increase my own estimate of the number of star systems that support life. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Dec 3 16:11:53 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:11:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find. In-Reply-To: <307382.16207.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <201011301334.oAUDY5YC016878@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201011302252.oAUMqImh002314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201012010128.oB11S9ia014606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20FFBEEFF9904B02A17EA5E1AACC5B6F@PCserafino> <8CD60732B369B96-1D60-3685@webmail-d004.sysops.aol.com> <353.57491.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005001cb9293$aed73ba0$0c85b2e0$@att.net> <307382.16207.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <798181AB-C327-4CED-BE07-6F7C5A04DC8D@bellsouth.net> On Dec 3, 2010, at 9:38 AM, Dan wrote: > I don't see anything earth-shattering about this finding. While not as earth-shattering as that staple of science fiction, a life form that replaces carbon with silicon, it's still a pretty big deal. Up to now every single living thing ever examined, even viruses, contained phosphorus; not only are phosphate bonds what keeps DNA and RNA from falling apart its also the key part of ATP (Adenosine triPHOSPHATE) a molecule found in all life until now, that is used to store energy. It's also interesting that 3 elements in the same column of the periodic table, nitrogen phosphorus and now arsenic, can be used by life; it wouldn't surprise me if somebody tried antimony next, or maybe even bismuth, because unlike arsenic or antimony, bismuth is one of the few heavy metals that is not poisonous, its the active ingredient in Pepto-Bismol. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Dec 3 16:25:59 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:25:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> On Nov 30, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Darren Greer wrote: > I'm not a physicist, but I think it's important to remember that these things seem "weird" only to those versed in at least the basic science. To someone who didn't know anything about the speed of light constant and why it can't be violated, it wouldn't seem weird at all. Just more goofy science stuff, by guys and gals with nothing better to do with their time. There two quotations that I like, at first they seem contradictory but may actually contain an element of complementarity about them. The first is by Niels Bohr: "Anybody who is not shocked by Quantum Mechanics has not understood it." The second is by Richard Feynman: "I think its safe to say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics." John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 3 17:27:59 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:27:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find In-Reply-To: <307382.16207.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <201011301334.oAUDY5YC016878@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201011302252.oAUMqImh002314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <201012010128.oB11S9ia014606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20FFBEEFF9904B02A17EA5E1AACC5B6F@PCserafino> <8CD60732B369B96-1D60-3685@webmail-d004.sysops.aol.com> <353.57491.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <005001cb9293$aed73ba0$0c85b2e0$@att.net> <307382.16207.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000c01cb930f$6e40bcc0$4ac23640$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan. Subject: Re: [ExI] NASA tease on SETI find .On the other hand, I would expect arsenic to be incorporated into tissues. I don't see anything earth-shattering about this finding. It's not like the central theory of biochemistry up to this point was something that utterly and definitively ruled out arsenic. In fact, to me, not having arsenic in the biochemistry of most Earth life seems more like an accident of history. This is an interesting case because arsenic is actually so chemically similar to phosphorus, yet it is so nearly universally toxic to life that it often cannot even be used as a pesticide: highly effective but also too dangerous to the personnel applying the stuff. . . .Are you being serious here too? Did you completely rule out slightly different biochemistries? Were you estimating the number of places life might arise or spread to based on estimates of how many places might have plentiful arsenic? And what were your estimates? Have you now doubled the number of such places? Tripled them? Etc.?... Not so much that I ruled out alternate life chemistries, but rather we have too few examples of it. When we talk about uploading, we are actually talking about an alternate life chemistry in a sense. Any actual example of it is very exciting. . . . This sounds almost like a promotional stunt to justify funding or keep NASA in the news than anything else. I mean here the way the story was played up -- not the actual find.) Regards, Dan Certainly there was plenty of hype surrounding the announcement, but I can forgive NASA for that. I read what the NASA guy said, which wasn't that far off base. The popular press ran with the ball, supplying the most egregious hype. I can imagine the morale at NASA is extremely low, after the retirement of the shuttle (leaving the US without a man-rated launcher), the cancellation of Orion (leaving the US without a man-rated reentry system), a repeated failure to explain what the space station is actually good for, and perhaps the deepest injury, NASA director Bolden's comment: . . "When I became the NASA administrator, [Obama] charged me with three things," NASA head Charles Bolden said ".and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering." http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/nasa039s-new-mission-building-ties-mu slim-world Well you know, plenty of us, even hardcore lifelong space fans, read that comment and seriously questioned whether we need NASA at all. I don't understand Bolden's motive for revealing that scandalous request. I know several hardcore space scientists, born to be space scientists, live for it, gave it everything, earned a PhD at the sacrifice of a family life, all space all the way. Then they read that comment. I can imagine the NASA scientists feeling like they have been demoted to foreign ambassador or US state department flunky. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 4 02:42:59 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 18:42:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: . >There two quotations that I like, at first they seem contradictory but may actually contain an element of complementarity about them. The first is by Niels Bohr: >"Anybody who is not shocked by Quantum Mechanics has not understood it." >The second is by Richard Feynman: >"I think its safe to say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics." >John K Clark Pondering quantum mechanics is like a religious experience for me. Because every time I do it, I ask, "How in the goddam hell can this be?" spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Sat Dec 4 04:02:53 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 05:02:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] Beware of thy diet... Message-ID: ...as it seems to prolong lives of those who promote it. But not necesarilly yours. Which doesn't mean your diet is unhealthy, just that it may be neutral or close to it. Howdy, I've been heroically trying to follow "diet debate", but I have some other, heavier things to memorize and understand. So I am a bit behind (well, maybe two weeks or so). Hopefully nobody will kick my head off in case this message is redundant :-). Please don't, I still have some use for it. "How the five-a-day mantra was born" [ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7095530.ece ] Funny quotation, as usually: "So, from where did the US Government get the idea for the number five, if not the scientific studies? I was closing in. Marion Nestle, nutrition professor at New York University, thinks she remembers exactly where. ?'It was Susan Foerster, the head nutritionist in California. She had the bright idea of promoting fruit and vegetable consumption in a state which was a big fruit and vegetable producer.?' The American National Cancer Institute admits that ?'no studies have tested the impact of specific numbers of servings on cancer risk?'. But it says five was chosen in California in 1988, as it doubled the average consumption, and ?'the number five was memorable and provided a platform for creative message and programme delivery'. In America now, the five-a-day message is ?'invisible; [it has] completely dropped off the radar?', says Nestle. [**] Britain, though, has taken California's 1980s marketing policy and run with it.?'We have to abandon this idea that there's something miraculous in diet,?' says Paulo Boffetta, the doctor behind last week's study. ?'It's not true for fruit and vegetables as a whole, and even less true for fruit and vegetables individually.'] And by the way, as everyone I spoke to emphasised, an unexpected surprise of all this research is the discovery that although it may not do much for cancer, eating fruit and vegetables is good for your heart. How many a day? Don't ask." This one is quite interesting, too: "An expert's reaction to the 5-a-day myth bust" [ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7095541.ece ] BTW, I am not following any particular diet at the moment. Just eating what (I think that) I need. And somewhat going from white bread to the whole-grained one. I was a bit upset that I had not been consuming wholly five products, but not much. Now even less than that :-). Meat - always a fan of it. Mineral water and black coffee for a breakfast (and something to eat, of course). "Real" butter (at least it smells and tastes more real than my previous butter-o-like bread smear, so I consider it a move in a right direction). Yes, I know, cholesterol - I will worry when I have too much of it. If I have any kind of preference, it is avoiding "strange" chemicals. I dropped sweeteners, I dropped (mostly) candies with preservatives. If I ever need sugar, I would rather go to the kitchen and swallow a teaspoon of plain, white sugar (the same that goes with candies, minus chemistry). I think I disliked "my candies" when I learned one of preservatives used in them was related to liquid crystals. Now it is edible - now (or few years later, actually) it is not. No way. This means, no diet drinks, of course. Well, what good are they for, anyway, compared to, say, tea or mineral water? Besides, they taste nowhere close to what I loved in my childhood, and I'm still undecided on corn syrup. And no fast-fooding. But then again, I don't make it into religion, so from time to time I may have an inclination for this, too (and some coke) - like, once a month, once a year or once a decade. Now, ok, I admit that maybe my current eating habits will kill me someday. But, maybe not? Hopefully I will die happy, sipping brandy after a good dinner ;-). Or hurtling champagne down my throat, in a manner similar to this crazy pilot from "1941" Spielberg movie :-). Oh great, and I only wanted to give you two links and a quotation. [**] I wonder, how much truth is in this statement? Usians, do you really not get lectioned about how healthy it is to eat five-a-day? I hear it at least once a year and I think I would hear more of it, had I watched more "healthy style for dummies" TV. 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 4 05:55:43 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 23:55:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer Message-ID: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> "/Overall evaluation:/ Just about everything that could be done wrong in an experiment occurred here. And even if one chose to overlook that methodological mess, because of the multiple testing problem his data still do not support the claimed above-chance effect." From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 4 10:41:37 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 10:41:37 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer In-Reply-To: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > "/Overall evaluation:/ Just about everything that could be done wrong in an > experiment occurred here. And even if one chose to overlook that > methodological mess, because of the multiple testing problem his data still > do not support the claimed above-chance effect." > Good article! With nice historical context. I liked the quote: One must also keep in mind that even the best statistical evidence cannot speak to the causes of observed statistical departures. Statistical deviations do not favour arbitrary pet hypotheses, and statistical evidence cited in support of psi could as easily support other hypotheses as well. For example, if one conducted a parapsychological experiment while praying for above-chance scoring, statistically significant outcomes could be taken as evidence for the power of prayer just as readily as for the existence of psi. ---------------- BillK From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Dec 4 14:01:30 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 09:01:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Beware of thy diet... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/12/3 Tomasz Rola > > [**] I wonder, how much truth is in this statement? Usians, do you really > not get lectioned about how healthy it is to eat five-a-day? I hear it at > least once a year and I think I would hear more of it, had I watched more > "healthy style for dummies" TV. Amidst all the other marketing noise, it's hard to know if the five-a-day is particularly strong.? The company that makes V8 has a product that incorporates a large percentage of fruit juice to "hide" the taste of a large amount of vegetable juice.? They're actively promoting that their product provides 3 of your 5 servings in an easy to drink beverage.? At the same time, the company that makes Nutella (the imported Hazelnut chocolate spread) is advertising it as a way to trick children into eating bread.? ... because children have a long-standing hatred of bread?!??? They try to convince moms that it's made with "healthy" hazelnuts and chocolate has antioxidants, so that's good for you too, right? No doubt if we were in public school (or involved with the care and feeding of children) we would be seeing food guide pyramids and 5-a-day posters.? The latest food pyramid I've seen shows 5 triangular slices of an equilateral triangle such that it is almost impossible to visually compare the area of each slice since none of the angles are similar and the "top" of each slice vanishes into a single point.? It really is a terrible infographic. (http://tinyurl.com/2azlpjk) Far more invasive are the anti-smoking efforts.? For a while it was merely the surgeon general warning that smoking may cause cancer. Then it was active promotion.? Now cigarette ads must contain a very large warning that product use has ugly side effects.? For the last 2-3 years my employer has been offering smoking cessation classes for free (paid for by our health insurance provider)? This year we are required to contractually affirm that we do not use tobacco or live in a house with a tobacco user - otherwise we incur a tobacco usage surcharge on our healthcare premium.? I get it, smoking is public enemy #1 - but i think it sets a dangerous precedent.? Soon we'll be swearing that we don't eat fast food more than twice a month, or that we consistently eat the government-recommended 5 servings of veg else we must pay for our own healthcare offset.? "I'm sorry, you are either a fan of extreme sports or a completely sedentary couch commander - same healthcare surcharge in both cases" But we absolutely can not be responsible for ourselves. It's good that the guh'mint takes such care of us. From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Dec 4 14:04:02 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 09:04:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> Message-ID: 2010/12/3 spike : > Pondering quantum mechanics is like a religious experience for me.? Because > every time I do it, I ask, ?How in the goddam hell can this be?? Hmm... religious experience indeed: the unexplained, god, damnation, hell and existence all in one sentiment. :) From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 4 16:43:32 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 08:43:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> Message-ID: <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty Subject: Re: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. 2010/12/3 spike : >> Pondering quantum mechanics is like a religious experience for me.? >> Because every time I do it, I ask, ?How in the goddam hell can this be?? >Hmm... religious experience indeed: the unexplained, god, damnation, hell and existence all in one sentiment. :) All that religion in a single prepositional phrase! My theological training did not go to waste. {8^D spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 4 17:59:16 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 09:59:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> 2010/12/3 spike : >>> Pondering quantum mechanics is like a religious experience for me. >>> Because every time I do it, I ask, "How in the goddam hell can this be?" >>Hmm... religious experience indeed: the unexplained, god, damnation, >>hell and existence all in one sentiment. :) Mike >All that religion in a single prepositional phrase!...spike Writing about it reminded me of college, when I read about the standard explanations for quantum mechanics. Perhaps you have read them too, and your reaction was similar to mine: no way, this must be wrong, there hasta be a better explanation, I will find it. Then I witnessed the double slit experiment. I did the equations every which way I could imagine. They showed that photons are quantized, like tiny particles with energy equal to h*nu, with momentum equal to h*nu/c. Those equations are my trusted friends, they never lied to me, never let me down ever, a scintillation detector proves it true, and time is a one way street in my experience. Then we see how the photons are hitting the double slits one at a time, calculate it a hundred times, they are, no question. But somehow each individual photon is either splitting in two and interfering with itself, or its *spacial* other self, or it is somehow remembering what the previous photon did, and leaving messages for the next one, as if it is like a particle waving back and forth in time, interfering or with its temporal other self. Or some damn thing. Every standard explanation just sounds so outlandish, so very wrong, but it then the theory actually works perfectly. How annoying! Quantum mechanical theory makes accurate predictions to eight places, works waaaay better than the models we mechanical engineering types use every day and trust explicitly, even though they are lucky to predict within plus or minus thirty percent. It's been 30 years now since my mind was first boggled by that astonishing experiment, but today I am NO CLOSER to any reasonable-sounding explanation for quantum mechanics. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 4 18:23:03 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 12:23:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> Message-ID: <4CFA8707.2010608@satx.rr.com> On 12/4/2010 11:59 AM, spike wrote: > somehow each individual photon is either splitting in two and > interfering with itself, or its*spacial* other self, spatial? special? > or it is somehow > remembering what the previous photon did, and leaving messages for the next > one, as if it is like a particle waving back and forth in time, interfering > or with its temporal other self. This is John Cramer's Transactional model, no? > Or some damn thing. Every standard > explanation just sounds so outlandish, so very wrong, but it then the theory > actually works perfectly. I had this halfassed idea the other day: a Deutschean shadow-universes intuition that the Quantum Zeno effect might derive from superposed activities in adjacent, only slightly divergent M-W realities where intentionally directed activities reinforce or prohibit a certain outcome, unlike ordinary stochastic radioactivity, say, where the "shadow overlaps" in/from nearby worlds are arbitrary. Might this have an impact on big beam programs, say, perhaps delaying or inhibiting some otherwise possible outcomes (Higgs manifestations, e.g.)? Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 4 18:53:51 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 18:53:51 +0000 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:59 PM, spike wrote: > Then I witnessed the double slit experiment. ?I did the equations every > which way I could imagine. ?They showed that photons are quantized, like > tiny particles with energy equal to h*nu, with momentum equal to h*nu/c. > Those equations are my trusted friends, they never lied to me, never let me > down ever, a scintillation detector proves it true, and time is a one way > street in my experience. ?Then we see how the photons are hitting the double > slits one at a time, calculate it a hundred times, they are, no question. > But somehow each individual photon is either splitting in two and > interfering with itself, or its *spacial* other self, or it is somehow > remembering what the previous photon did, and leaving messages for the next > one, as if it is like a particle waving back and forth in time, interfering > or with its temporal other self. ?Or some damn thing. ?Every standard > explanation just sounds so outlandish, so very wrong, but it then the theory > actually works perfectly. ?How annoying! ?Quantum mechanical theory makes > accurate predictions to eight places, works waaaay better than the models we > mechanical engineering types use every day and trust explicitly, even though > they are lucky to predict within plus or minus thirty percent. > > It's been 30 years now since my mind was first boggled by that astonishing > experiment, but today I am NO CLOSER to any reasonable-sounding explanation > for quantum mechanics. > > This article attempts a 'simple' explanation for the double slit experiment. Quote: when we don't know which slit the photons are going through, we get a wave interference pattern. When we do know which slit each photon traveled through, no interference pattern.! the Copenhagen Interpretation: So how does that theory apply to our experiment? First let's look at the original double slit experiment. You shoot out a photon. The Y wave travels from the photon emitter, through both slits, and back to the wall, creating a pattern just like light would, except it's a pattern of probability instead of light. At the back wall (with its photo-sensitive surface) the photon is measured, which collapses the wave function: the photon has to choose where to hit. Of course, lots of photons choose high-probability areas, only a few choose low-probability areas, and none of them choose zero-probability areas. That's why we see the interference pattern. But when we put measuring devices in the slits, we collapse the wavefunction much earlier. We force the photon to choose which slit to go through: one probability becomes "definitely yes" and the other becomes "definitely no" in that instant. Thereafter, there is only one beam, and hence no interference and no interference pattern. The photon really, genuinely, and importantly, does not have a specific location until we measure one. The cat really isn't alive or dead. BillK From sparge at gmail.com Sat Dec 4 19:14:28 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:14:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:53 PM, BillK wrote: > the photon has to choose where to hit What does that mean? -Dave From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Sat Dec 4 19:17:56 2010 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 12:17:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] WikiLeaks: What is the moral transhumanist expert consensus? Message-ID: <4CFA93E4.7000309@canonizer.com> Moral Transhumanist Experts, Is anyone besides me interested in knowing, quantitatively, what other moral transhumanists experts think aboutWikiLeaks and Julian Assange? How does a transhumanist consensus compare to the general population consensus?.... Please take this one question survey: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/119 Brent Allsop From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 4 19:28:23 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 11:28:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <4CFA8707.2010608@satx.rr.com> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFA8707.2010608@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000701cb93e9$6af53930$40dfab90$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Damien Broderick Subject: Re: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. On 12/4/2010 11:59 AM, spike wrote: >> somehow each individual photon is either splitting in two and interfering with itself, or its*spacial* other self, >spatial? special? Spatial thanks. It perhaps shoulda been spelled spacial, because it pertains to one of the three space dimensions, as opposed to the temporal or time dimension. But microsloth keeps wanting to change it to special, and perhaps it does look too much like special. So spatial it is. {8-] And shoulda shoulda been spelled should have, because that is how we say it, ja? {8^D >> or it is somehow remembering what the previous photon did, and leaving messages for the next one, as if it is like a particle waving back and forth in time, >> interfering or with its temporal other self. >This is John Cramer's Transactional model, no? Feyman had it before Cramer, or at least a puzzling version of it. ... >I had this halfassed idea the other day: a Deutschean shadow-universes intuition that the Quantum Zeno effect might derive from superposed activities in adjacent, only slightly divergent M-W realities where intentionally directed activities reinforce or prohibit a certain outcome, unlike ordinary stochastic radioactivity, say, where the "shadow overlaps" in/from nearby worlds are arbitrary. Might this have an impact on big beam programs, say, perhaps delaying or inhibiting some otherwise possible outcomes (Higgs manifestations, e.g.)? Damien Broderick Hey that one works as well as any of the others I have heard. Good show, me lad! spike From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 4 19:48:41 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 19:48:41 +0000 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:53 PM, BillK wrote: >> the photon has to choose where to hit > > What does that mean? > > Read the article - it's obvious! ;) (It's written in simple language for beginners, that's why he used that phrase). Oh all right, I'll try an explanation. The photon is a probabilty wave function until it is measured (or hits the detector plate). The measurement might hit anywhere in the wave function. That's what he means. (Clue - he doesn't really think photons are self aware beings). :) BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 4 19:53:59 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 19:53:59 +0000 Subject: [ExI] WikiLeaks: What is the moral transhumanist expert consensus? In-Reply-To: <4CFA93E4.7000309@canonizer.com> References: <4CFA93E4.7000309@canonizer.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Moral Transhumanist Experts, > > Is anyone besides me interested in knowing, quantitatively, what other moral > transhumanists experts think aboutWikiLeaks and Julian Assange? ?How does a > transhumanist consensus compare to the general population consensus?.... > > I doubt if you can get a yes / no answer to moral questions. For example, Sometimes yes, when he is exposing covered up crimes / lies. Sometimes no, when he is endangering complex diplomatic negotiations or individuals in dangerous situations. BillK From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Sat Dec 4 20:15:05 2010 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 13:15:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] WikiLeaks: What is the moral transhumanist expert consensus? In-Reply-To: References: <4CFA93E4.7000309@canonizer.com> Message-ID: <4CFAA149.5000601@canonizer.com> On 12/4/2010 12:53 PM, BillK wrote: > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: >> Moral Transhumanist Experts, >> >> Is anyone besides me interested in knowing, quantitatively, what other moral >> transhumanists experts think aboutWikiLeaks and Julian Assange? How does a >> transhumanist consensus compare to the general population consensus?.... >> >> > I doubt if you can get a yes / no answer to moral questions. > > For example, > Sometimes yes, when he is exposing covered up crimes / lies. > Sometimes no, when he is endangering complex diplomatic negotiations > or individuals in dangerous situations. > > > BillK > First off, this is not seeking an answer or any kind of truth to a moral question, as it seems to me you are implying. It instead is simply a survey, to rigorously measure what everyone thinks on this issue, and how different groups like transhumanists, the general population, moral experts, and so on compare. Also, of course, with a traditional survey, your point is valid. But canonizer.com is completely different. There isn't a camp like you describe above yet, but you could create a camp that concisely states just what you've said here, and join that one. The goal would be a definitive, concise moral expert consensus on just what is good and what is bad, along with a rigorous measure of how many moral experts feel precisely that way, compared to all other concisely stated moral theories. I currently happen to disagree and am in the camp that believes in general everyone should know everything ( http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/119/2 ). The rules and the structure of the system enables large groups of experts to collaboratively negotiate and develop all of this, for the moral betterment of humanity. Everyone eternally yelling yes, no, yes... and the ignorant immoral majority abusing the expert minority, mostly lead by immoral bottleneck hierarchies seeking to kill all other hierarchies, is still keeping us in the moral dark ages. To the degree the minority moral experts are willing to help and work together collaboratively, I believe we can dramatically change things for the better. Brent Allsop From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 4 20:32:30 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 20:32:30 +0000 Subject: [ExI] WikiLeaks: What is the moral transhumanist expert consensus? In-Reply-To: <4CFAA149.5000601@canonizer.com> References: <4CFA93E4.7000309@canonizer.com> <4CFAA149.5000601@canonizer.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > First off, this is not seeking an answer or any kind of truth to a moral > question, as it seems to me you are implying. ?It instead is simply a > survey, to rigorously measure what everyone thinks on this issue, and how > different groups like transhumanists, the general population, moral experts, > and so on compare. > > Also, of course, with a traditional survey, your point is valid. ?But > canonizer.com is completely different. > > There isn't a camp like you describe above yet, but you could create a camp > that concisely states just what you've said here, and join that one. ?The > goal would be a definitive, concise moral expert consensus on just what is > good and what is bad, along with a rigorous measure of how many moral > experts feel precisely that way, compared to all other concisely stated > moral theories. ?I currently happen to disagree and am in the camp that > believes in general everyone should know everything ( > http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/119/2 ). > > Those were just a few examples that immediately occurred to me. It would have to be a 'Maybe' camp, with each example being judged on a case by case basis. And even then some examples might come out as mostly good, but with some bad side-effects and vice-versa. So I don't see it as a very useful camp to be in. :) BillK From sparge at gmail.com Sat Dec 4 20:35:51 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 15:35:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:48 PM, BillK wrote: > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Dave Sill ?wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:53 PM, BillK ?wrote: >>> the photon has to choose where to hit >> >> What does that mean? > > Read the article - it's obvious! ? ;) > (It's written in simple language for beginners, that's why he used that phrase). > > Oh all right, I'll try an explanation. > The photon is a probabilty wave function until it is measured (or hits > the detector plate). The measurement might hit anywhere in the wave > function. That's what he means. > (Clue - he doesn't really think photons are self aware beings). ?:) Thanks, Bill. I did read that part of the article, but I couldn't tell what he meant. I'm not a physicist, but that explanation is obviously a little too simple. -Dave From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Sat Dec 4 20:57:06 2010 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 13:57:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] WikiLeaks: What is the moral transhumanist expert consensus? In-Reply-To: References: <4CFA93E4.7000309@canonizer.com> <4CFAA149.5000601@canonizer.com> Message-ID: <4CFAAB22.7040802@canonizer.com> Hi Bill, You seem to be saying you think it isn't possible to come up with concise descriptions of some beneficial to humanity general moral behavioral theories on such issues? Brent Allsop On 12/4/2010 1:32 PM, BillK wrote: > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: >> First off, this is not seeking an answer or any kind of truth to a moral >> question, as it seems to me you are implying. It instead is simply a >> survey, to rigorously measure what everyone thinks on this issue, and how >> different groups like transhumanists, the general population, moral experts, >> and so on compare. >> >> Also, of course, with a traditional survey, your point is valid. But >> canonizer.com is completely different. >> >> There isn't a camp like you describe above yet, but you could create a camp >> that concisely states just what you've said here, and join that one. The >> goal would be a definitive, concise moral expert consensus on just what is >> good and what is bad, along with a rigorous measure of how many moral >> experts feel precisely that way, compared to all other concisely stated >> moral theories. I currently happen to disagree and am in the camp that >> believes in general everyone should know everything ( >> http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/119/2 ). >> >> > > Those were just a few examples that immediately occurred to me. > It would have to be a 'Maybe' camp, with each example being judged on > a case by case basis. And even then some examples might come out as > mostly good, but with some bad side-effects and vice-versa. So I > don't see it as a very useful camp to be in. :) > > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 4 23:08:37 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 17:08:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer In-Reply-To: References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CFAC9F5.90101@satx.rr.com> On 12/4/2010 4:41 AM, BillK wrote: > Good article! Terrible article, filled with errors and disgraceful innuendo, including unjustified imputations of dishonesty ("one cannot help but wonder if two experiments were indeed run, and each failed to produce significant results, and so the data from the two were combined, with the focus shifted to only the erotic pictures common to all participants," even though Alcock adds disingenuously, "Surely that was not done, for such an action would make a mockery of experimental rigor"). > With nice historical context. A biased and misleading "context". Full of stuff like "Because of the lack of clear and replicable evidence, the Ganzfeld procedure has not lived up to the promise of providing the long-sought breakthrough that would lead to acceptance by mainstream science." In fact, the ganzfeld data are replicable and have been replicated (as shown in almost all the papers he himself cites), despite a botched critique by Richard Wiseman. Professor Bem posted a quick reply to the careless critique of his paper, which he allows me to repost here: ======= I strongly dispute Alcock's charge that I ran multiple t tests that should have been statistically corrected for multiple comparisons. For each experimental hypothesis, I did a single t test. For example, based on presentiment experiments in which subjects have shown pre-stimulus arousal to erotic stimuli, my first experiment tested the straightforward prediction that subjects would be able to select the curtain behind which an erotic picture would appear significantly more frequently than chance. (A blank wall was the non-target alternative on each trial.) Since there are two curtains, the null is 50%. Subjects achieved a mean score of 53.1%, which is significant by a one-sample, one-tailed t test. But, because t tests assume normal distributions, I also submitted that same figure, .531, to a nonparametric binomial test across all trials and sessions. Throughout the article, I did the same thing, presenting a parametric test and a nonparametric test on the same result. The point was to counter the potential criticism that I relied on a statistical test that requires an underlying distribution. It was not a fishing expedition. In that same study, I left as an open question whether there was something unique about erotic stimuli above and beyond their high arousal level and positive valence. It might be that subjects could significantly detect other future stimuli, too, especially stimuli with high arousal and positive valence. I discovered that?at least in this unselected population?subjects could not. I did one t test showing that they scored significantly higher on erotic stimuli than on nonerotic stimuli and another t test showing that their performance on nonerotic stimuli did not differ from chance. Finally, I did t tests showing that they did not differ from chance on any of the subcatagories of nonerotic stimuli either (e.g., negative stimuli, neutral stimuli, positive stimuli, romantic-but-nonerotic stimuli). So, yes, if one glances at the page, you will see many t tests, but they are all in the service of showing no significant effects on nonerotic stimuli. Correcting the p levels for multiple tests would have revealed?voila!?no significant psi hitting on nonerotic stimuli. The objection would have had more merit if I had found and then claimed that one subtype of nonerotic stimuli, (e.g., romantic stimuli) had shown significant psi hitting. A similar misreading of multiple tests occurs in Experiments 2 & 7, where I expressed concerns about potential nonrandomness in the computer's successive left/right placements of targets. To counter this possibility, I did 4 different analyses of the data (3 of them involving t-tests), each one controlling in a different ways for possible nonrandomness. So, yes, if one glances superficially at Tables 2, 3, and 6, it looks like a lot of t tests were conducted. But every test was aimed at showing that the same conclusion arises from different treatments of the same data. This is not the same thing as conducting several t tests on different portions of the data and then concluding that one of them showed a significant p level. Ironically, the whole point of multiple tests here was to demonstrate that my statistical conclusions were the same no matter which kind of test I conducted and to defend against the potential charge that I must have tried several statistical tests and then cherry-picked and reported only the one that worked. File this under the maxim that no good deed goes unpunished. I have not yet taken the time to analyze the negative correlation between effect size and sample size that Alcock reports as a legitimate concern. A similar debate occurred between Honorton and Hyman on a similar negative correlation found across ganzfeld experiments. But, unlike the ganzfeld database, which included many data points, Alcock's calculation could not have had more than 9 data pairs to correlate. Correlations are notoriously unstable with such low numbers. I suspect the entire correlation rests on Experiment 7, which I designed to check out an unexpected serendipitous finding from the previous experiment and hence called for a large number of subjects (200), and Experiment 9, a highly successful 50-subject replication of the previous Retroactive Recall experiment. The other experiments offered very little variation; most of them involved 100 subjects. I note, too, that many of the critics of my article accuse me of exploratory experiments, even though the predictions are always simply that I will find the same effect that is found in non-time-reversed versions of these standard effects. Even more frequently overlooked is that 4 of my 9 experiments are themselves replications of the experiment that immediately preceded them. (Hence, Retroactive Priming I and II; Retroactive Habituation I and II; and Retroactive Recall I and II). I did this, in part, to make sure that I wasn't misleading myself because of forgotten pilot testing conducted to work out the procedures of each initial experiment. On another matter, I have now posted the complete replication package for the Retroactive Recall 1.1 experiment at http://dbem.ws/psistuff. ============= Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 4 23:30:23 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 23:30:23 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer In-Reply-To: <4CFAC9F5.90101@satx.rr.com> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <4CFAC9F5.90101@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Terrible article, filled with errors and disgraceful innuendo, including > unjustified imputations of dishonesty ("one cannot help but wonder if two > experiments were indeed run, and each failed to produce significant results, > and so the data from the two were combined, with the focus shifted to only > the erotic pictures common to all participants," even though Alcock adds > disingenuously, "Surely that was not done, for such an action would make a > mockery of experimental rigor"). > > Well, surely his original description must have been very badly written to allow interpretations that he disagrees with so strongly? Perhaps he should do a complete rewrite. But whether or not his statistical findings prove psi is still an entirely open question. Perhaps he was praying very hard for a good result? Or perhaps Mercury was in a good aspect with Uranus at the time of his experiment? Or perhaps his candidates had a few lucky guesses that a longer experiment would negate? As I quoted, a statistical bias has no preference for which theory might or might not have been the cause when no mechanism can be demonstrated. Choose your favorite theory. BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 4 23:59:42 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 17:59:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer In-Reply-To: References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <4CFAC9F5.90101@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CFAD5EE.5000107@satx.rr.com> On 12/4/2010 5:30 PM, BillK wrote: > Well, surely his original description must have been very badly > written to allow interpretations that he disagrees with so strongly? > Perhaps he should do a complete rewrite. Alcock is (as your people put it, BillK) all cock and bull. Unlike his colleague Hyman. To see what kind of deceptive claptrap his "context" section is, have a careful look at Dr. Radin's response: Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 5 06:19:59 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 00:19:59 -0600 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> Message-ID: <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> On 12/4/2010 1:48 PM, BillK wrote: > Oh all right, I'll try an explanation. > The photon is a probabilty wave function until it is measured (or hits > the detector plate). The measurement might hit anywhere in the wave > function. That's what he means. Yeah, it drives me nuts when woowoos** babble about "measurement" as if it's necessarily a human mental activity, rather than just an interaction. However, even so, I don't know the answer to a point raised by your guys: Air molecules, say, So, for example, does the double slit gag work better, more clearly, if it's done in vacuo rather than through the air of the lab? What happens if you run your photons or electrons through water before they hit the slits? Damien Broderick **no, I'm not one, and I'll have to hurt anyone who says otherwise... From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 10:30:06 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 10:30:06 +0000 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Presumably the photon is bumping into, and interacting with, all kinds of > things on the way to the cardboard, but they apparently don't count as > "measurements." > > > Air molecules, say, So, for example, does the double slit gag work better, > more clearly, if it's done in vacuo rather than through the air of the lab? > What happens if you run your photons or electrons through water before they > hit the slits? > > That's a simple question, but the answer gets as complicated as you like. :) I'll start with a few simple explanations that experts will start picking holes in, but might be`enough for you. Basically light doesn't react with air molecules. That's why we can see. If our eyes were sensitive to different wavelengths that do react with air, our eyesight would be poor and that model didn't survive evolution. ---------------------- You next question is probably 'WHY doesn't light react with air molecules?' (Careful, you're getting more complicated). Photons are very tiny and gas molecules are widely separated, so hits are rare. But light does weaken, the more stuff it has to go through. Occasional hits do happen. Think of absorption lines in light from distant stars. By default any object will be transparent to a certain wavelength (color) of light, unless that wavelength is of the exact energy needed to cause something to happen in the object, like promoting an electron to a higher energy level. The molecules in air aren't effected much by the visible wavelengths of light, so most of the time light will pass through the air without having an effect on it. (Different wavelengths, like X-rays, can see through flesh). When a photon (of any region of the spectrum) hits an atom a number of things can occur: 1) the atom can absorb the energy and an electron will move to a higher state within it, this can either be stored or released in another frequency e.g. metals often release heat, and phosphorus turns UV into visible light 2) the electron can jump, revolve once and release the photon back in the opposite direction i.e. reflection 3) the atom may not be able to absorb the energy and the electron may continue uninhibited. There are also all sorts of scattering processes that can occur. In scattering the photon is not actually absorbed, but 'bounces' off in a different direction, sometimes at a different wavelength. Scattering is what causes the sky to be blue, since nitrogen scatters blue light more than other colors. ---------------------- If you want to go to the top for the most complicated explanation, it is Quantum Electrodynamics. Feynman has some good lectures (and books) on it. BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 10:55:56 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 11:55:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Best case, was Hard Takeoff In-Reply-To: <08AD78CA-48A9-4232-BF77-6980A9745EF7@mac.com> References: <08AD78CA-48A9-4232-BF77-6980A9745EF7@mac.com> Message-ID: On 29 November 2010 05:58, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Not really. ?Friendly AI is posited as a better alternative than Unfriendly AI given that AI of great enough power to be dangerous is likely. ?All the wonderful things that some ascribe to what FAI will or at least may do for us are quite beside the fundamental point. Such idea however required some less acritical definition of "friendly/unfriendly", of "danger" and of "AI". If I were to say that unfriendly wordprocessor are dangerous, most people would ask what I really mean. For AGI, many seem to make a number of factual and valorial assumptions that do not bear a closer inspection, IMHO. >> - the second has to do with technological skepticism as to the reality >> and imminence of any perceived threat; > > AGI is very very likely IFF we don't destroy the technological base beyond repair first. ? How soon is a separable question. ?Expert opinions range from 10 - 100 years with a median at around 30 years. I certainly hope you are right. Only, I am quite opposed to make it an article of faith relative to something that would be achieved anyway irrespective of any actual effort to this end. >> - the third has to do with a more fundamental, philosophical >> questioning of such a perception of threat and the underlying >> psychology and value system, not to mention its possible neoluddite >> implications. > > Irrelevant to whether AGI friendliness is important to think about or not. ? ?Calling it neoluddite to be concerned is prejudging the entire question in an unhelpful manner. Fear of the machines as such is the very definition of Luddism. Admittedly, most of those concerned with unfriendly AGI imagine that friendly AGI could and should be developed in its stead. From a practical point of view, they risk however to be objective allies of those who would like to control AGI research on a precautionary principle basis. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 11:09:13 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:09:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Hard Takeoff In-Reply-To: <007E90B0-6B7C-403A-995B-BB9AEAA07582@mac.com> References: <810705.72511.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <001c01cb89c1$ea9974d0$bfcc5e70$@att.net> <670CF4BE-1C5C-4C8B-A50E-DCA517775DBC@mac.com> <007E90B0-6B7C-403A-995B-BB9AEAA07582@mac.com> Message-ID: On 29 November 2010 06:02, Samantha Atkins wrote: > What? ?You don't think attempting to maximize the outcomes that ensue is worth thinking about at all? ? You think it is presumptuous to even bother to attempt to predict alternatives and do what we can (which admittedly may not be a lot) to make more desirable outcomes more likely? ? If you do think this are you in the do-nothing camp re technology and how it is deployed in the future? ?I don't think so judging from your activities but perhaps I am mistaken. No. I think that while there have always been, and probably there will always be, a struggle for technological superiority, the fundamental confrontation today is between those who would like, for whatever reason, to relinquish or more plausibly to control and/or freeze promethean researches and paradigm-shifting developments, and those who favour their very continued possibility (accepting of course the 9usual risks we have been facing at each step of our evolution). Accordingly, I think that the mission of transhumanism is to present the case for the second option, and organising grass-root activism to this effect. Sure, as a citizen, I would be crazy to oppose security and safety measures and sometimes reasonable compromises, especially when the costs and risks and the progress-hindering potential of the latter are relatively negligible. But I do not see so much need for our engaging in the defence of such values, since they are already the main obsession of our entire culture. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 10:45:22 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 11:45:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Hard Takeoff In-Reply-To: <68615171-8482-4C00-AAD2-C3DCB7368344@mac.com> References: <68615171-8482-4C00-AAD2-C3DCB7368344@mac.com> Message-ID: On 29 November 2010 05:59, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Please make your informed argument why no takeoff is most likely if you believe this is the case. Hostility, indifference, short-termism, insufficient or non-existent investments in fundamental research, inertia, educational and cultural decline, slowing down of technological acceleration, inability to overcome dominant paradigms, de-industrialisation of the west, globalisation, lack of vision, epidemic neoluddism... Thus, a static Brave New World scenario would seem at least possible, or even probable. In any event, if you want to achieve something it is always better to be pessimistic on the difficulties you have to face. If you are lucky and things end up being actually better or easier than imagined, the desired outcome would be only even more assured, wouldn't it? -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 11:20:25 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:20:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Ray Kurzweil's predictions regarding the Singularity In-Reply-To: <4CF47673.5010504@satx.rr.com> References: <4CF47673.5010504@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 30 November 2010 04:58, Damien Broderick wrote: > With annual doubling, that would predict... 2016. For 100 petaflops. 2014 > looks right for 30 petaflops. With a half-decent database and a modest improvement in AI programming, this should be more than enough to make it competitive with ordinary, PC-like human beings as to their score in Turing tests... ;-) As to the "philosophical" questions, I maintain that most of them are too vague to admit sensible answers... -- Stefano Vaj From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 13:04:35 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 06:04:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hard Takeoff In-Reply-To: References: <68615171-8482-4C00-AAD2-C3DCB7368344@mac.com> Message-ID: Stefano wrote: Hostility, indifference, short-termism, insufficient or non-existent investments in fundamental research, inertia, educational and cultural decline, slowing down of technological acceleration, inability to overcome dominant paradigms, de-industrialisation of the west, globalisation, lack of vision, epidemic neoluddism... Thus, a static Brave New World scenario would seem at least possible, or even probable. >>> But the American military-industrial complex is a juggernaut of research programs for those subjects that it considers within it's defined interests. And so I see life extension/biotech generally being neglected (except for regeneration and various means to create superior warriors), but AGI in terms of robotics, cyberwarfare, etc., as being seen as a vital interest that will be heavily funded. I have read that nearly 40% of the U.S. military budget is classified, with only a very few knowing what the money is actually spent on. I have a feeling some very "transhumanist" research programs are going on, with budgets in the many millions or even billions, that you may not be hearing about for some time... John On 12/5/10, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 29 November 2010 05:59, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> Please make your informed argument why no takeoff is most likely if you >> believe this is the case. > > Hostility, indifference, short-termism, insufficient or non-existent > investments in fundamental research, inertia, educational and cultural > decline, slowing down of technological acceleration, inability to > overcome dominant paradigms, de-industrialisation of the west, > globalisation, lack of vision, epidemic neoluddism... > > Thus, a static Brave New World scenario would seem at least possible, > or even probable. > > In any event, if you want to achieve something it is always better to > be pessimistic on the difficulties you have to face. If you are lucky > and things end up being actually better or easier than imagined, the > desired outcome would be only even more assured, wouldn't it? > > -- > 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 Sun Dec 5 13:54:59 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 14:54:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Hard Takeoff In-Reply-To: References: <68615171-8482-4C00-AAD2-C3DCB7368344@mac.com> Message-ID: On 5 December 2010 14:04, John Grigg wrote: > Stefano wrote: >> Thus, a static Brave New World scenario would seem at least possible, >> or even probable. > > But the American military-industrial complex is a juggernaut of > research programs for those subjects that it considers within it's > defined interests. In fact, I suspect business, corporate-level competition to be a poor substitute for international, community-level competition in terms of technological accelerating factors. In this respect, real or perceived outside threats may be one's best chance to see a little public funds devoted to cutting-edge research rather than to appeasing the different constituencies of the political classes in power... We may like it or not, but it is undeniable that allegedly military-relevant research programmes are in a less comatose state, at least in the US, than the rest. In Europe, we cannot even console ourselves with that. -- Stefano Vaj From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 5 15:35:05 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 09:35:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> On 12/5/2010 4:30 AM, BillK wrote: >> > Presumably the photon is bumping into, and interacting with, all kinds of >> > things on the way to the cardboard, but they apparently don't count as >> > "measurements."> >> > Air molecules, say, So, for example, does the double slit gag work better, >> > more clearly, if it's done in vacuo rather than through the air of the lab? >> > What happens if you run your photons or electrons through water before they >> > hit the slits? > That's a simple question, but the answer gets as complicated as you like. :) > Basically light doesn't react with air molecules. Yes, that's the obvious reply, but evidently it didn't satisfy the two physicists quoted above from the essay you recommended. Can you bounce the light off a mirror, or send it through a lens, before running it through the two slits, and still get fringes? I would assume that you can't, because that *would* be a "measurement". Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 15:46:31 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 15:46:31 +0000 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Can you bounce the light off a mirror, or send it through a lens, before > running it through the two slits, and still get fringes? I would assume that > you can't, because that *would* be a "measurement". > > Yes, you can. A 'measurement' has to be a photo-sensitive surface of some kind that reacts with the photon. Just bouncing off a mirror doesn't affect the photon wave / particle. BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 15:50:53 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:50:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Hard Takeoff In-Reply-To: References: <810705.72511.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <001c01cb89c1$ea9974d0$bfcc5e70$@att.net> <670CF4BE-1C5C-4C8B-A50E-DCA517775DBC@mac.com> <007E90B0-6B7C-403A-995B-BB9AEAA07582@mac.com> Message-ID: On 5 December 2010 12:09, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Accordingly, I think that the mission of transhumanism is to present > the case for the second option, and organising grass-root activism to > this effect. Sure, as a citizen, I would be crazy to oppose security > and safety measures and sometimes reasonable compromises, especially > when the costs and risks and the progress-hindering potential of the > latter are relatively negligible. But I do not see so much need for > our engaging in the defence of such values, since they are already the > main obsession of our entire culture. Reading today for the first time: <> How can one say it any better? ;-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 5 15:50:56 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 07:50:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001701cb9494$35132970$9f397c50$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... >Can you bounce the light off a mirror, or send it through a lens, before running it through the two slits, and still get fringes? Yes to both, although I haven't actually done those experiments, so I am relying on my suspect understanding. A laser beam doesn't know it has been reflected off a mirror, as far as I can tell. In every case where I have used them, they behave the same coming off as they did coming into the mirror. Sending a light source thru a lens: the double slit result predates lasers by a long ways. I don't know how the beam was focused, but it stands to reason they did it somehow. > I would assume that you can't, because that *would* be a "measurement". Damien Broderick Excellent questions, but it isn't clear to me that sending photons at a mirror or thru a lens constitutes a measurement. I don't see how a mirror or refractive element gains any information about a photon with which it interacts. But I am no expert on this. Open to suggestion. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 16:05:40 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 09:05:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks Message-ID: A number of years ago I posted that the battle between Scientology and the net was a warm up for the days when a major government got in a fight with the net. Later I decided governments were not likely to get in a fight with the net because they learned that such battles are hopeless. The fight with Wikileaks indicates that governments didn't learn a thing from the battle with the cult. Once something is out there being copied, be it secret cult documents or State Dept cables, the *worse* thing an organization can do is to make a huge fuss about it. Sigh. Keith From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 17:06:10 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:06:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <001701cb9494$35132970$9f397c50$@att.net> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> <001701cb9494$35132970$9f397c50$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:50 AM, spike wrote: > Excellent questions, but it isn't clear to me that sending photons at a > mirror or thru a lens constitutes a measurement. ?I don't see how a mirror > or refractive element gains any information about a photon with which it > interacts. ?But I am no expert on this. ?Open to suggestion. Has anyone proposed an information theory explanation for wave/particle duality? Is the information itself relevant to the complexity of the experiment? From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Dec 5 17:57:23 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:57:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7AAE801D-D37F-44A1-B6A3-A2521E154BC4@bellsouth.net> On Dec 5, 2010, at 10:35 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Can you bounce the light off a mirror, or send it through a lens, before running it through the two slits, and still get fringes? I would assume that you can't, because that *would* be a "measurement". The history of the photon before it hit the mirror is irrelevant. You'd still get fringes UNLESS there was a measurement made AFTER the photon left the mirror to determine if the photon went through slit A or slit B; unless a measurement is made it is meaningless to ask which slit it went through, at least that's what you'd say if you believed in the Copenhagen interpretation. If you believed in the Many Worlds interpretation you'd say that when the photon approached the slits the universe split, but when they hit the film the 2 universes would recombine because there was no longer any difference between the 2 universes, but you'd still have evidence the photon went through slit A only and evidence it went through slit B only and that would produce fringes; measurement doesn't enter into it as the two universes would recombine even if you replaced the film with a brick wall, if you had neither film nor a brick wall and allowed the photons to go out into infinite space after passing the slits the universe would split and remain split because there would be an enduring difference between the 2 universes. Unfortunately there is no way to perform experiments on photons traveling in infinite space, and if they hit a photographic plate and are destroyed both Copenhagen and Many Worlds predict identical experimental results, that makes figuring out which is correct difficult. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 17:51:07 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 13:51:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Once something is out there being copied, be it secret cult documents or State Dept cables, the *worse* thing an organization can do is to make a huge fuss about it< It depends on your objective. If it's to keep the leaked information as low-key as possible even after its release it doesn't seem like a good strategy. But I think the goal here may be less about keeping the information secret than punishing those responsible for leaking it. Julian Assange has had his passport red-noticed by Interpol so he cannot travel outside of the U.K. where they suspect he's hiding, and his lawyers claimed recently they are being surveilled by U.S. intelligence services. The reason for the red-notice is a warrant for two sexual assault charges against Assange that conveniently appeared in Sweden just as this round of documents were leaked. Amazon was forced through political pressure to stop hosting Wikileaks, and U.S. State Department employees have been ordered not to look at the documents from work or even at home. Individuals, corporations, media and the general public have just been put on notice that the government will exercise its right to secrecy by whatever means it can. And its means are many. Perhaps that's why they think they can get away with it when others haven't. I think they're wrong too, of course. Civil disobedience inspires civil disobedience. I know if my government ordered me not to look at a document from the privacy of my own home, the first thing I would do is break the edict. In some ways Scientology is better equipped to handle such a battle than the U.S. government. They at least enjoy a slavish devotion and mindless obedience from the majority of their proponents. Democratic governments usually get less than half. Darren On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > A number of years ago I posted that the battle between Scientology and > the net was a warm up for the days when a major government got in a > fight with the net. > > Later I decided governments were not likely to get in a fight with the > net because they learned that such battles are hopeless. > > The fight with Wikileaks indicates that governments didn't learn a > thing from the battle with the cult. > > Once something is out there being copied, be it secret cult documents > or State Dept cables, the *worse* thing an organization can do is to > make a huge fuss about it. > > Sigh. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 5 18:35:49 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 10:35:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <7AAE801D-D37F-44A1-B6A3-A2521E154BC4@bellsouth.net> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> <7AAE801D-D37F-44A1-B6A3-A2521E154BC4@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <000c01cb94ab$3d783e40$b868bac0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark >. if the photon went through slit A or slit B; unless a measurement is made it is meaningless to ask which slit it went through, at least that's what you'd say if you believed in the Copenhagen interpretation.If you believed in the Many Worlds interpretation you'd say that when the photon approached the slits the universe split, but when they hit the film the 2 universes would recombine because there was no longer any difference between the 2 universes. John K Clark Hi John, I have pondered these and other explanations, but I find them all less than satisfactory, with the feel of absurdity. It is no more outlandish to say that quantum mechanics observations are an artifact of the limits of computation presented by the MBrain in which we are being simulated. Particle-wave duality, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the universal speed of light, quantum mechanics, could all be explained as limits of computation, only recently being glimpsed by us, of the emergent AI (us) within a universal simulation. I recognize that this explanation sounds like a religion-ish copout or artful dodge, but really it feels no more absurd than the Copenhagen, the Many Worlds, Feynman diagrams, and all the other crazy-ass notions, none of which have the ring of truth I so persistently seek and find in physical theory. I don't like it, but I must reluctantly grant the reality-as-an-MBrain-sim crowd nearly equal legitimacy with the real physicists. {8-[ spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Dec 5 18:40:50 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 13:40:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer In-Reply-To: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Dec 4, 2010, at 12:55 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > The tipoff that something was wrong was when Bem said his goal was ?to provide well-controlled demonstrations of psi"; so if his experiment did not give evidence for psi then he figured there must be something wrong with his methodology so he kept changing it until he got something compatible with his goal. His goal should have been to find out the truth about psi regardless of how painful and incompatible with previous beliefs that may be. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 5 18:52:14 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 10:52:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001d01cb94ad$891fb240$9b5f16c0$@att.net> Subject: Re: [ExI] Wikileaks >Once something is out there being copied, be it secret cult documents or State Dept cables, the *worse* thing an organization can do is to make a huge fuss about it<.Keith Ja, and it feels to me like they blame the wrong guy. Everywhere it is Assange this and Assange that, but they shoot the messenger. More guilty is PFC Manning, but even then, the real leakers are those who put anything potentially damaging on any network that had computers with a flash drive anywhere in the system. We have secure links for the purposes of handling secure and secret email traffic. In those, there are no flash drive ports, no floppy drives (remember those?), no wireless anything, not even any hard drives, and even the secure net printers are few, protected by heavy locked doors and every page carefully monitored by many watchful eyes. If an intranet fails in any of those criteria, then it is not a secure link, and should never be used to post secret or sensitive info. Proper secure links are secure and they don't leak. If these ambassadors were putting info that could endanger lives and international relations on a non-secure link accessible by a PRIVATE FIRST CLASS (fer crying out loud) then it is THEIR damn fault. Assange should be prosecuted for rape (if he did it) but for leaking, nah. He didn't leak the careless ambassadors did it. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 5 19:45:13 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:45:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer In-Reply-To: References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CFBEBC9.509@satx.rr.com> On 12/5/2010 12:40 PM, John Clark wrote: > he figured there must be something wrong with his methodology so he kept > changing it until he got something compatible with his goal. Read his rebuttal to this mischievous nonsense in my earlier post (12/4/2010 5:08 PM). Damien Broderick From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 22:04:15 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 23:04:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer In-Reply-To: References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: 2010/12/5 John Clark > The tipoff that something was wrong was when Bem said his goal was ?to > provide well-controlled demonstrations of psi"; so if his experiment did not > give evidence for psi then he figured there must be something wrong with his > methodology so he kept changing it until he got something compatible with > his goal. His goal should have been to find out the truth about psi > regardless of how painful and incompatible with previous beliefs that may > be.? > Come on. I am still perplexed on the results of such experiments (my only personal inclination is to give some credit to non-quantistic telepathic phenomena), but nobody would ever dream of criticising per se an effort "to provide well-controlled demonstrations of proton decay" or "of the life-extension effects of caloric restriction". Most discoveries originate anyway from experimental attempts, including failed attempts, to demonstrate a given hypothesis the experimenter is interested in. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at alice.it Sun Dec 5 22:15:13 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir at alice.it) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 23:15:13 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. Message-ID: <30988029.1700691291587313441.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Mike asked: -Has anyone proposed an information theory explanation for wave/particle duality? Sure! http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201026 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212084 -Is the information itself relevant to the complexity of the experiment? I do not understand "complexity". Information is essential from many p.o.v. In example if you have reasons to believe that a photon (whatever it is) will go through one of the slits (asymmetry of the beam, etc.) you are going to destroy partially the interference pattern. There is a smooth transition from the interferential pattern to a non interferential pattern, depending on the information (whose nature may also be probabilistic) you have. Not to say here that you can also erase that information ..... Alice body {margin:0;padding:0;} #footer { height:13px; font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif; color:#ADADAD; margin:0; padding:7px 12px; text-align:right; border-top:1px solid #dcdcdc; } #footer a { text-decoration:none; color:#ADADAD; } #footer a:hover { color:#848484; } Inviato dalla nuova Alice mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Sun Dec 5 23:54:03 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:54:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <001d01cb94ad$891fb240$9b5f16c0$@att.net> References: <001d01cb94ad$891fb240$9b5f16c0$@att.net> Message-ID: I wrote: >Julian Assange has had his passport red-noticed by Interpol so he cannot travel outside of the U.K. where they suspect he's hiding, and his lawyers claimed recently they are being surveilled by U.S. intelligence services. The reason for the red-notice is a warrant for two sexual assault charges against Assange that conveniently appeared in Sweden just as this round of documents were leaked.< Correction. I was just watching the evening news and it turns out he has not been charged nor has a warrant been issued for his arrest. He's been red noticed based on the allegations alone. Darren 2010/12/5 spike > > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Wikileaks > > > > >Once something is out there being copied, be it secret cult documents > or State Dept cables, the *worse* thing an organization can do is to > make a huge fuss about it > > > Ja, and it feels to me like they blame the wrong guy. Everywhere it is > Assange this and Assange that, but they shoot the messenger. More guilty is > PFC Manning, but even then, the real leakers are those who put anything > potentially damaging on any network that had computers with a flash drive > anywhere in the system. We have secure links for the purposes of handling > secure and secret email traffic. In those, there are no flash drive ports, > no floppy drives (remember those?), no wireless anything, not even any hard > drives, and even the secure net printers are few, protected by heavy locked > doors and every page carefully monitored by many watchful eyes. If an > intranet fails in any of those criteria, then it is not a secure link, and > should never be used to post secret or sensitive info. Proper secure links > are secure and they don?t leak. > > > > If these ambassadors were putting info that could endanger lives and > international relations on a non-secure link accessible by a PRIVATE FIRST > CLASS (fer crying out loud) then it is THEIR damn fault. Assange should be > prosecuted for rape (if he did it) but for leaking, nah. He didn?t leak the > careless ambassadors did it. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 6 04:49:13 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 20:49:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] reverse aging Message-ID: <440393.59678.qm@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ben Zaiboc > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 5:17:38 AM > Subject: Re: [ExI] reverse aging > > Interestingly, Aubrey de Grey's SENS includes a scheme for totally eliminating >all cancers, by taking the opposite approach:? Get rid of telomerase and all >other means of lengthening telomeres.? Of course, that brings its own problems, >but it stops cancer dead in its tracks. When I first read?this, I thought it was very naive.?So I looked up a detailed description of his strategy here: http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/WILT.pdf ? My objections to it follow: ? 1.?First what he was suggesting was similar to purposefully giving people?the equivalent of dyskeratosis congenita, a genetic birth defect where people are born without normal telomerase function. The problem is that?these people?are actually?*more* prone to cancer and start getting them around ten years old. You can find a complete medical description of dyskeratosis?here on pubmed for free: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20301779 ? ? 2. The?second?reason is that?once a cell violates its genetic programming and goes cancerous, all the rules go out the window.?If telomerase is available, it will?use it to lengthen its telomeres. If telomerase is not available it will start using?alternative methods to lengthen its telomeres like?using?the homologous recombination machinery normally reserved for DNA repair and meiosis of germline cells. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892175/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649016/?tool=pubmed ? And if that doesn't work, cancer?cells have no qualms against just?sticking chromosomes together end to end with non-homologous end joining. Cancer cells will?duplicate genes or entire chromosomes (polyploidy), lose genes or entire? chromosomes, and mix bits and pieces of different chromosomes together if need be. http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v21/n45/pdf/1205566a.pdf? ? So profound is a cancer cell's ability to mutate at fast speed that it can form structures known?as ring chromosomes that recapitulate the ancestral bacterium's circular telomere-independent chromosome. http://atlasgeneticsoncology.org/Deep/RingChromosID20030.html In short, cancer cells have all the tools of evolution at their disposal at speeds normally associated single-celled organisms. ? ? 3. The?next problem is that?de Grey's strategy underestimates the importance of?the immune system in cancer prevention. This process is called immunosurveillance and mice and people with defective immune systems are notoriously prone to cancer.??The white blood cells that?normally protect people from cancer *need* telomerase to function properly because the mechanism by which they operate depends on?the mass replication?of the?white blood cell lineages?that can recognize and kill tumor cells. ? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1857231/ ? Of course this mechanism of amplification of the efficacious clones is used to combat mundane infections as well. So not only would telomerase-deficiency make one prone to cancer, it would make one susceptible to death from?normally benign viral, bacterial, and fungal infections.? ? 4. De Grey's?solution to this problem is "reseeding" whereby engineered stem cells are periodically given to people to replace high turnover tissues such as the blood cells, skin, and gut epithelium. This?work-around however brings up?the next problem: The relationship?between cancer and stem cells is poorly understood and?these reseeded stem cells could very well *become* ?cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20688584 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19684619 ? And if the stem cells are treated to lack telomerase, like the rest of the cells of the body in WILT, they no longer qualify as stem cells since the capacity for self-renewal is one of the defining characteristics for stem cells. So these telomerase deficient stem cells would be the?medical equivalent of GM food crops that can't make seeds, requiring one to be beholden to whatever biotech company happens to be manufacturing your crippled stem cells for you.?If we are talking about immune system stem cells, then?catching a simple cold could deplete ones entire resevoir of non-self-renewing hematopietic stem cells.???? ? 5. Aside from the theoretical problems with the WILT strategy, the technical challenges would be horrendous. With the current state of the art, gene knockouts are a?messy and rather hit or miss affair. They involve?trying the targeted gene deletion?on?a great many embryos, then screening for that one precious embryo or cell line in which it worked. While this is feasible with mice, the bioethicists would have a?canniption if you?tried that with human embryos.?But what use is a gene knockout of an embryo going to be to an already full grown population of possible cancer victims??While gene knockouts are done routinely on human cells in a petri dish,?I am not aware of any existing technique that would allow one to delete a gene from all 10^14 cells of an adult human in vivo: ? http://www.biotechniques.com/BiotechniquesJournal/2006/September/Simple-one-week-method-to-construct-gene-targeting-vectors-application-to-production-of-human-knockout-cell-lines/biotechniques-40137.html?pageNum=3 ? So my final analysis is that de Grey's strategy is inelegant, convoluted, and unlikely to work?in a time and cost?frame that would make it competitive with other developing cancer?treatments. Top-down management seldom works in bottom-up organized systems. Such?seems to?be as true in biology as it is in economics.?? ? From: Adrian Tymes >To: ExI chat list >Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 9:26:33 AM >Subject: Re: [ExI] reverse aging >What if you extended the telomeres, such that the only way senescence would >set in is via damage leading to cancer? ? In theory, this could work but there are several very serious technical challenges involved. ? ? Maybe add in a very slow telomere >extending enzyme, that replaces telomeres fast enough for normal cell division >(to >replace worn out cells) but can't keep up - or even goes into reverse - if very > rapid >cell division is encountered (such as in cancer).? Might that work? The main technical challenges would be coming up with a molecular design for?your custom enzyme and then getting it into all the cells of the adult human, without disrupting any important housekeeping genes. ? Since using?protein folding at home, super computers, and other brute force methods give limited results on predicting the structure of existing proteins from their sequence data, it would be even more of a pain to?design?a novel?enzyme to fold and function the way you would like. Especially because you would need to figure out how to regulate its function based on the pace of?cell division as you envision it. Then, even if you had this fantastic new enzyme, how would you deliver it to?all the?10^14?cells in an adult? Most gene therapy vectors can only target a single cell type. Now you could transfect your custom enzyme gene?into human embryos and create a race of transgenic humans but?that doesn't do your average babyboomer any good. ? Now I am not trying to discourage anyone here, but bioengineering humans to live longer is not going to a quick fix. Part of the?problem is that human cells evolved to replicate like crazy?in the first?20 or so?years of life allowing for a single-celled embryo to become an adult human and then suddenly?cut back?to the?considerably slower?levels of cell replication?required for homeostatic maintenance for the remaining 60 years. ? Despite this fact, when high-turnover tissues are considered,?approximately?75% of these cell divisions happen?after maturity. So any?intervention to completely halt cell division in order to prevent cancer will likely end up being worse than the disease. ? ? Stuart LaForge "There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 6 06:36:29 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 22:36:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <000c01cb94ab$3d783e40$b868bac0$@att.net> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> <7AAE801D-D37F-44A1-B6A3-A2521E154BC4@bellsouth.net> <000c01cb94ab$3d783e40$b868bac0$@att.net> Message-ID: <000701cb950f$ea940b90$bfbc22b0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike . . I have pondered these and other explanations, but I find them all less than satisfactory. I don't like it, but I must reluctantly grant the reality-as-an-MBrain-sim crowd nearly equal legitimacy with the real physicists.spike It worries me even more when I drop a comment like that one, and no one even attempts to refute it, wildly or otherwise. Whaaaat, will I be taking up with that Terasem outfit next? Someone please reassure me I really am crazy. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 6 07:58:16 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 08:58:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <001d01cb94ad$891fb240$9b5f16c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101206075816.GX9434@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 07:54:03PM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: > Correction. I was just watching the evening news and it turns out he has not Always a bad idea. > been charged nor has a warrant been issued for his arrest. He's been red > noticed based on the allegations alone. I'm not sure discussing the person Assange is interesting or relevant. The reaction to the recent disclosure is much more interesting, especially in the view of future infrastructure, now that the press and public pump is primed. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 6 08:06:30 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 00:06:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks Message-ID: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> I find it strange that in all this discussion, nobody has brought up the fact?that Julian Assange was once a member of this list.?Doesn't anybody else remember him? I have old list emails in my inbox from him debating the nature of probability with Eliezer, Serafino,?and John Clark. He has also posted on the nature of consciousness/identity and Kurzweil. Most of these posts?date from 2005. In an age where government is groping into our underpants, I think Julian is a courageous hero. He is helping make the transparent society?cut both ways and I think that is a noble a calling as any. Why should the government get privacy and secrecy, if the people the government exists to serve are not entitled to it??I am shocked that you all would?be so apathetic toward one of our own becoming one of the most?wanted men on the planet for?no more than giving people access to the *truth* about their governments Stuart LaForge "There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower .? From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 6 11:15:32 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:15:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20101206111532.GZ9434@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 12:06:30AM -0800, The Avantguardian wrote: > I find it strange that in all this discussion, nobody has brought up the > fact?that Julian Assange was once a member of this list.?Doesn't anybody else Julian has been a member of several lists. > remember him? I have old list emails in my inbox from him debating the nature of > probability with Eliezer, Serafino,?and John Clark. He has also posted on the > nature of consciousness/identity and Kurzweil. Most of these posts?date from > 2005. What, is it another half decade already? > In an age where government is groping into our underpants, I think Julian is a > courageous hero. He is helping make the transparent society?cut both ways and I Don't forget PFC Manning, who's looking forward to an effective life sentence. > think that is a noble a calling as any. Why should the government get privacy > and secrecy, if the people the government exists to serve are not entitled to > it??I am shocked that you all would?be so apathetic toward one of our own I'm not sure we (who is this "we", kemo sabe?) are apathetic, and that Julian is "one of our own", whatever that might be. > becoming one of the most?wanted men on the planet for?no more than giving people If he was that, he'd be dead already. > access to the *truth* about their governments Information wants to be published in a distributed redundant anonymous uncensorable cryptographic filesystem. *And* it wants to be read. *And* it wants to be acted upon. > Stuart LaForge > > "There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, > and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower .? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From bbenzai at yahoo.com Mon Dec 6 13:24:26 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 05:24:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <288000.13198.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> spike the crazy Sim wrote: > . I have pondered these and other explanations, but I find > them all less > than satisfactory. I don't like it, but I must reluctantly > grant the > reality-as-an-MBrain-sim crowd nearly equal legitimacy with > the real > physicists.spike > > > It worries me even more when I drop a comment like that > one, and no one even > attempts to refute it, wildly or otherwise.? Whaaaat, > will I be taking up > with that Terasem outfit next?? Someone please > reassure me I really am > crazy. While(Tumbleweed.visible) { Tumbleweed.xcoord ++ } Ben Zaiboc From scerir at alice.it Mon Dec 6 15:11:33 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:11:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative LinkBetween Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <000701cb950f$ea940b90$bfbc22b0$@att.net> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> <7AAE801D-D37F-44A1-B6A3-A2521E154BC4@bellsouth.net><000c01cb94ab$3d783e40$b868bac0$@att.net> <000701cb950f$ea940b90$bfbc22b0$@att.net> Message-ID: <99E0C3FA40534F239A56438C942C63EF@PCserafino> > I have pondered these and other explanations, but I find them all less > than satisfactory. > [snip] > Someone please reassure me I really am crazy. > spike crazy enough? R.P. Feynman: .... simulating .... the two-slit ..... plus a little chapter on .... negative probabilities ... http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/feynman_ijtp_21_467_82.pdf R.P. Feynman: "What is the joint probability of finding the particle to go through hole 1 and be 180? out of phase with hole 2 (whatever that could mean)?". Experiment done by Scully & Walther: "We note that while each of these probability distributions may be negative, the physical meaningful constructive and destructive interference patterns are, however, everywhere positive ...." http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/scully_pra_49_1562_94.pdf From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Dec 6 16:10:45 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:10:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> On Dec 5, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > nobody would ever dream of criticising per se an effort "to provide well-controlled demonstrations of proton decay" Bullshit. The goal should be to find if proton decay exists, not to prove that it does. If you start out with the absolute certainty that proton decay exists then your only task is to find a formal proof of it so you can convince others. If you don't find proton decay in your experiments and its a metaphysical certitude that its there then the only logical conclusion is that there must be something wrong with the experiment, so you keep changing it until you find something that corresponds with your prejudice and makes you happy. That is not the way to do science but as I've said before if you want to find something that doesn't exist then a crappy experimenter will be much more successful than a good one. > crappyMost discoveries originate anyway from experimental attempts, including failed attempts, to demonstrate a given hypothesis the experimenter is interested in. In any field of physics, except for psi and cold fusion, this is the way things go: Somebody has an idea, they try some experiments, the new idea does not jive with the results of the experiment, the physicists sighs but accepts the bad news and moves on to new ideas and new experiments. But with psi and cold fusion there is such a enormously powerful visceral wish for it to be true that the true believers simply refuse to take "no" as an answer, so they demand that it be tested again, and again, and again, and again. In the case of psi this has been going on for CENTURIES, it's time to stop this ridiculous situation and say enough is enough. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Dec 6 16:25:30 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:25:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <000c01cb94ab$3d783e40$b868bac0$@att.net> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> <7AAE801D-D37F-44A1-B6A3-A2521E154BC4@bellsouth.net> <000c01cb94ab$3d783e40$b868bac0$@att.net> Message-ID: <0B730DA7-EB92-4C38-AB00-1731CB478E02@bellsouth.net> On Dec 5, 2010, at 1:35 PM, spike wrote: > It is no more outlandish to say that quantum mechanics observations are an artifact of the limits of computation presented by the MBrain in which we are being simulated. And the singularity at the center of a black hole might be a syntax error, or where god tried to divide by zero. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 6 16:37:50 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 08:37:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of The Avantguardian Subject: Re: [ExI] Wikileaks >...I find it strange that in all this discussion, nobody has brought up the fact?that Julian Assange was once a member of this list.?Doesn't anybody else remember him?... Huh. That's cool, no I don't remember him at all. >...?I am shocked that you all would?be so apathetic toward one of our own becoming one of the most?wanted men on the planet for?no more than giving people access to the *truth* about their governments...Stuart LaForge I mighta missed it in all the noise, but I never heard he was wanted for spilling secrets. Has any nation actually issued an arrest warrant for that? I heard he was wanted in one of the Islamic countries (Sweden?) for sexual assault, but not for leaking classified info. The info he put on his site would actually be more properly called "sensitive" rather than secret or classified, however CNN said there was classified info in there. If so, then whoever's name is on those documents as sender is in waaay big trouble for putting classified info on an unsecured link. Recall right after 9/11/2001, one of our regulars posted a whole bunch of stuff he later deeply regretted, then asked if it could be removed from the archives. We eventually figured out it really couldn't be done, not because we were unwilling but rather because it had been quoted numerous times and it was pretty much impossible to find it all. So we came up with an idea: cross post a bunch of stuff with each other's names on them, trying to imitate the style of the other person and so forth. We had fun with it. I got a huge laugh out of reading stuff that others wrote trying to imitate my thoughts. In the end game, what that did was allow perfect deniability for anything in the archives. What occurred to me is that Assange or anyone could insert anything they wanted into Wikileaks, and make it look like it was written by anyone. So anything that is found in there carries deniability. So it isn't even worth the time to dig through Wikileaks, because we can't distinguish the genuine from the counterfeit there any better than we can here. spike From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Dec 6 17:39:22 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 10:39:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:06 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > In an age where government is groping into our underpants, I think Julian is a > courageous hero. Big time. > He is helping make the transparent society?cut both ways and I > think that is as noble a calling as any. David Brin's prediction is coming into being even as we speak. > Why should the government get privacy > and secrecy, if the people the government exists to serve are not entitled to > it? Why, indeed? The govt is being dragged into the future kicking and screaming in protest. Government resistance to its loss of power/control is to be expected. The rise of openness and the increasing power of the new cyber-citizen -- ie cultural evolution in the internet age --no matter that it is utilitarian or right or inevitable is still the greatest of all horrors to the "ruling elite". I didn't see this fight coming -- because I didn't think about it -- but I should have. The future, however, has the upper hand (or so I think and hope. We shall see.) > I am shocked that you all would?be so apathetic toward one of our own "One of our own" is tribalist phrasing, slightly off-putting to me, and ineffective (for me). Seeking to garner support in the struggle for transparency?, permit me to rephrase: "I am shocked that you would be apathetic toward so robust a battle for the advancement of transhumanist values." To which I respond, "Who you callin' apathetic there, Stuart?" ;-} Seemingly apathetic, perhaps, but not actually. I for one am transfixed, captivated, and thrilled. The squealing of the government minions, and the protest of their quisling enablers, is music to this boy's ears. The drama too, is exquisite. Assange is a cross between Bill Gates, Robin Hood, and Tom Paine. Bradley Manning seems the new Nathan Hale. Another metaphor from the American Revolution could paint the pro-Wikileaks forces as latter day Minutemen, and the ossified old guard with their kool-aid necromonger legions as the Tories. In short Stuart, I have been waiting for the list to take up the matter. Till then, let us not speak of apathy. Best, Jeff Davis "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mahatma Gandhi > "There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, > and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower . > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 6 18:29:09 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 13:29:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks. In-Reply-To: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2010, at 3:06 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > I find it strange that in all this discussion, nobody has brought up the > fact that Julian Assange was once a member of this list. Doesn't anybody else > remember him? I have old list emails in my inbox from him debating the nature of > probability with Eliezer, Serafino, and John Clark. He has also posted on the > nature of consciousness/identity and Kurzweil. Most of these posts date from > 2005. The name didn't ring a bell but when I looked deep into the bowels of my computer I find you are correct; the oldest message from him to this list that I can find was on August 16 1999. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 6 18:53:26 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 10:53:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004b01cb9576$de0f3810$9a2da830$@att.net> ... >...?I am shocked that you all would?be so apathetic toward one of our own becoming one of the most?wanted men on the planet for?no more than giving people access to the *truth* about their governments...Stuart LaForge But hoooow do we know it is *the truth* about their governments? It came from unsecured links (this we know because it was downloaded by a junior person with a flash drive) so I can imagine tons of decoys, Trojan horses, booby traps and e-trackers in that "truth." PFC Manning could have been fooled into leaking bogus info, which Assange merely passed along, which could then phone home and be used to net jillions of amateur terrorists. spike From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 6 19:07:04 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:07:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <0B730DA7-EB92-4C38-AB00-1731CB478E02@bellsouth.net> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> <7AAE801D-D37F-44A1-B6A3-A2521E154BC4@bellsouth.net> <000c01cb94ab$3d783e40$b868bac0$@att.net> <0B730DA7-EB92-4C38-AB00-1731CB478E02@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <004c01cb9578$c58da680$50a8f380$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. On Dec 5, 2010, at 1:35 PM, spike wrote: It is no more outlandish to say that quantum mechanics observations are an artifact of the limits of computation presented by the MBrain in which we are being simulated. And the singularity at the center of a black hole might be a syntax error, or where god tried to divide by zero.John K Clark Ah yes, but of course dividing by zero is not necessarily a syntax error, if god multiplies the result by zero. The result might be infinite, or it might be zero, or any finite between those two. That is how we know god is a bastard, for inventing such a system. Furthermore, how can god be sure the singularity is at the *center* of the black hole? If the black hole is being orbited by a massive body outside the event horizon, then the event horizon does not form a sphere, but rather an ellipsoid, with the singularity not at the center but rather at one of the foci. If god went inside that event horizon to find out, even he couldn't get back out. John thanks for putting up an objection however. I don't like the idea of QM as an artifact of computation limits any more than you do. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 6 19:47:09 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 13:47:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks. In-Reply-To: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CFD3DBD.7000902@satx.rr.com> On Dec 6, 2010, at 3:06 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > I find it strange that in all this discussion, nobody has brought up the > fact that Julian Assange was once a member of this list. Doesn't > anybody else > remember him? Also posting, his brother, Daniel Assange, I assume (then studying at Melbourne University). -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Dec 6 19:59:16 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:59:16 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <004b01cb9576$de0f3810$9a2da830$@att.net> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <004b01cb9576$de0f3810$9a2da830$@att.net> Message-ID: <4CFD4094.8060802@aleph.se> On 06/12/2010 18:53, spike wrote: > But hoooow do we know it is *the truth* about their governments? It came > from unsecured links (this we know because it was downloaded by a junior > person with a flash drive) so I can imagine tons of decoys, Trojan horses, > booby traps and e-trackers in that "truth." PFC Manning could have been > fooled into leaking bogus info, which Assange merely passed along, which > could then phone home and be used to net jillions of amateur terrorists. (Hi there!) That would have been a neat trick. However, given the fallout in diplomatic circles ("Nobody wants to talk to us anymore" as one senior diplomat apparently complained) and across a vast number of national interests (everything from copyright treaties over trade deals to the relationship to various nations) it would be a very costly strategy. Maybe that is just to make it more plausible, but so far there has not been anything in the leak that seems so enticing that it would net any terrorists worth the rest of the trouble. Of course, maybe the real source was some intelligence agency that was uninterested in that it messed up things for nearly all other foreign-oriented parts of the government... in which case Heads Will Roll when that comes to light internally. The trouble with conspiracy theory is that it assumes people are really competent and know what they are doing. (According to my contacts in relevant Swedish networks, the sex accusations against Assange are likely less of a devious set-up and more of a collision of a number of people with bad judgement. Any court case will be sleazy and embarassing for anybody involved, the Swedish court included.) -- Dr Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 6 20:23:12 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:23:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <004b01cb9576$de0f3810$9a2da830$@att.net> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <004b01cb9576$de0f3810$9a2da830$@att.net> Message-ID: <006901cb9583$685e3550$391a9ff0$@att.net> ... But hoooow do we know it is *the truth* about their governments?... spike Do let us go back to the early 90s. How many here remember when Microsloth first introduced macros in excel? They called it VBA then, about in the spring of 1994. Before that, one could use Microsloth BASIC to write a proto-macro, but it was clumsy as all get out. I was doing that back in those days, mostly to have software extract data from Excel tables, before Excel had the embedded VLOOKUP and HLOOKUP functions. This is what I did for fun back before I had actual adult responsibilities. When Excel 5 hit the streets, it was a breakthrough because it functionally embedded BASIC into a spreadsheet and made them play together so that Excel went from being a toy to an extremely powerful engineering tool. After spring 1994, it was clear Microsloth had won the spreadsheet competition; we put away all the other spreadsheets (some excellent ones, such as Wingz) and invested all our efforts towards mastering Excel, which eventually caused Microsloth to win the word processor competition and the biz presentation competition. Today most office people use Excel, Word and PowerPoint. The first macro language VBA had no safety rails. It would do exactly what you told it, so it was possible to create viruses even accidentally (spoken by one who did exactly that.) You could rename files, open and rearrange files without renaming (effectively wrecking the file), whatever you wanted. You could use VBA to generate, name and save documents, open applications, such as Outlook, and email files to anyone. No trigger safety on that gun. Excel 5 was a powerful but dangerous device. Later versions defeated those features. I was given and still have a copy of Excel 5, still in the original shrink wrap, with the authentication codes and all, so I could theoretically load that on my computer. I still know how to program in VBA, having written *plenty* of code in that format. The Wikileaks discussion caused me to realize we could use Excel 5 to create a crimebot. We have freedom of speech, but it is considered a crime to write threatening comments and post them to a public forum. But one could write code that randomly generates threatening email to a randomly chosen politician for instance, and it would be so simple that even *I* could write it: "I don't like the policies of {insert random party} and so I will go harm or severely kill {insert randomly chosen politician} forthwith, signed {randomly chosen poster}." So one could make a crimebot. The same tool could be used to obscure one's internet past, an excel 5 based camo-bot. It could randomly generate emails that kinda look like your own (again a task that even I could write) and then archives would all have complete deniability. This deniability is made even stronger by the fact that excel 5 was so obedient that it really would do *anything* you ask, to the point of introducing danger of accidentally making a virus merely by forgetting to hit the "stop recording" button. Hey I did it. Ended up sending copies of my to-dos and grocery lists to my own boss and his boss for three weeks, every time I hit CTRL S. Fortunately, they had a sense of humor about it, thought it was funny. I discovered this accidentally, so it must have been recognized by others a long time ago. I can easily imagine that there is some kind of software tool in use that generates bogus email to camouflage sensitive info on intranets like the one Assange is publishing. So anything on Wikileaks has deniability, and anything in the ExI-chat archives has deniability. Anything in there could have been generated by software. I still have a fresh copy of Excel 5, and I know how to use it. (Bwaaaahahahahahaaaaaa...) spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 6 21:20:12 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:20:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] reverse aging In-Reply-To: <440393.59678.qm@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <440393.59678.qm@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CFD538C.7010209@satx.rr.com> On 12/5/2010 10:49 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > When I first read this, I thought it was very naive. So I looked up a detailed > description of his strategy here: > > http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/WILT.pdf > > My objections to it follow: Aubrey replies: "Stuart's questions/concerns are very sensible. I have somewhat answered them in my Frontiers in Bioscience paper (a followup to the one Stuart has read) and in the chapter in the recent book that [Dr. Steven Coles] co-edited, but I will provide specific answers to these questions here too. I am very busy and/or travelling for the next two days... I'll post my reply as soon as possible." From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Dec 6 22:00:42 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 17:00:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <006901cb9583$685e3550$391a9ff0$@att.net> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <004b01cb9576$de0f3810$9a2da830$@att.net> <006901cb9583$685e3550$391a9ff0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:23 PM, spike wrote: > I still have a fresh copy of Excel 5, and I know how to use it. > (Bwaaaahahahahahaaaaaa...) > So what's next, countermeasures written in qbasic? dos .bat files? If you're going to threaten the world with computer supervirii - you need to exploit Flash Or maybe figure out an Apple virus - because, like the Inquisition, nobody expects an Apple virus... From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Dec 6 21:02:55 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:02:55 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks. In-Reply-To: <4CFD3DBD.7000902@satx.rr.com> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4CFD3DBD.7000902@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: 2010/12/7 Damien Broderick : > On Dec 6, 2010, at 3:06 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > >> I find it strange that in all this discussion, nobody has brought up the >> fact that Julian Assange was once a member of this list. Doesn't anybody >> else >> remember him? > > Also posting, his brother, Daniel Assange, I assume (then studying at > Melbourne University). Or his son? http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/my_wiki_dad_just_awful_with_the_lPuc6BTUKeNNMwZLeUTFJK -- Stathis Papaioannou From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Dec 6 21:38:30 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 13:38:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks. In-Reply-To: References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <279265.83714.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Reminds me of that saying about "six degrees of separation." By the way, another interesting story related to this: http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/03/leaker-calls-on-leaker-to-leak Regards, Dan From: John Clark To: ExI chat list Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 1:29:09 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Wikileaks. On Dec 6, 2010, at 3:06 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: I find it strange that in all this discussion, nobody has brought up the >fact?that Julian Assange was once a member of this list.?Doesn't anybody else >remember him? I have old list emails in my inbox from him debating the nature of > >probability with Eliezer, Serafino,?and John Clark. He has also posted on the >nature of consciousness/identity and Kurzweil. Most of these posts?date from >2005. > The name didn't ring a bell but when I looked deep into the bowels of my computer I find you are correct; the oldest message from him to this list that I can find was on August 16 1999. ?John K Clark ?? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Dec 6 21:47:48 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:47:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <004c01cb9578$c58da680$50a8f380$@att.net> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> <7AAE801D-D37F-44A1-B6A3-A2521E154BC4@bellsouth.net> <000c01cb94ab$3d783e40$b868bac0$@att.net> <0B730DA7-EB92-4C38-AB00-1731CB478E02@bellsouth.net> <004c01cb9578$c58da680$50a8f380$@att.net> Message-ID: 2010/12/6 spike : > > John thanks for putting up an objection however.? I don?t like the idea of > QM as an artifact of computation limits any more than you do. > QM as artifact of incomplete model? Black & White TV was good enough until the world turned color in 1946... then we suffered with Standard Definition for a long time before HD was realized. Maybe someday QM will be obsolete as B&W TV? From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 6 22:58:00 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:58:00 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks. In-Reply-To: References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4CFD3DBD.7000902@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CFD6A78.5010507@satx.rr.com> On 12/6/2010 3:02 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> Also posting, his brother, Daniel Assange, I assume (then studying at >> > Melbourne University). > > Or his son? > > http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/my_wiki_dad_just_awful_with_the_lPuc6BTUKeNNMwZLeUTFJK Ah, right. So Daniel was 15 when he was posting here. I see he makes these comments under that New York Post story: <08/27/2010 9:18 AM My comments were very much tongue-in-cheek and not intended as serious character assessment (nor indeed to be made public in this manner). I have a great deal of respect for my father and his work, and no doubt that the accusations against him have no basis in reality. This is another piece of sensationalistic idiocy from the NYP. - Daniel.> Damien Broderick From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Dec 6 23:30:14 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 00:30:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/12/6 John Clark > Bullshit. The goal should be to find if proton decay exists, not to prove > that it does. If you start out with the absolute certainty that proton decay > exists then your only task is to find a formal proof of it so you can > convince others. If you don't find proton decay in your experiments and its > a metaphysical certitude that its there then the only logical conclusion is > that there must be something wrong with the experiment, so you keep changing > it until you find something that corresponds with your prejudice and makes > you happy. That is not the way to do science but as I've said before if you > want to find something that doesn't exist then a crappy experimenter will be > much more successful than a good one. > This sounds very naive. The usual way of doing science is to pick a hypothesis, because you have dreamt of it, or satisfy your aesthetical sense, or simply is yours and nobody ever thought about it, and try to confirm it.. If you have a metaphysical certitude you do not need to embark in experiments at all. On the other hand, recent history of science is full of more or less friendly rivalries, school partisans, and even not-so-jocular bets. What's the big deal? The trial system, e.g., works at its best when both parties' advocates are competent and skilled and motivated, and do everything within a given set of rules and on a level playing field to win their cases. Not when they are supposed to try and reach an unlikely olympic indifference as to the outcome of their debate. But with psi and cold fusion there is such a enormously powerful visceral > wish for it to be true that the true believers simply refuse to take "no" as > an answer, so they demand that it be tested again, and again, and again, and > again. In the case of psi this has been going on for CENTURIES, it's time to > stop this ridiculous situation and say enough is enough. > This is an interesting sociological remark, but of little epistemological relevance. One could reasonably object that limited public or private fundings should not be wasted in pursuing human flight when past experience did not make the idea especially plausible in spite of the obsession of a few with the subject, but the psychological grounds of the latter did not really tell us anything as to the merits or not of the research concerned. But if something does not exist, no matter how much money and energy and emotion and iterations are invested in searching it, the conclusion would not change a iota, and a critical approach to experimental results showing otherwise might even teach as something. On methodologies or statistics, if anything. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 7 00:58:35 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:58:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> On 12/6/2010 5:30 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: [John K Clark:] > Bullshit. The goal should be to find if proton decay exists, not to > prove that it does. If you start out with the absolute certainty > that proton decay exists then your only task is to find a formal > proof of it so you can convince others. If you don't find proton > decay in your experiments and its a metaphysical certitude that its > there then the only logical conclusion is that there must be > something wrong with the experiment, so you keep changing it until > you find something that corresponds with your prejudice and makes > you happy. That is not the way to do science but as I've said before > if you want to find something that doesn't exist then a crappy > experimenter will be much more successful than a good one. > This sounds very naive. John is surprisingly naive about science. I suspect that this is because he's an engineer, trained to apply what is known to be the case, to get the job done. > The usual way of doing science is to pick a > hypothesis, because you have dreamt of it, or satisfy your aesthetical > sense, or simply is yours and nobody ever thought about it, and try to > confirm it. Well, confirming doesn't work either, as Popper showed. I'm enough of a falsificationist to think that what you should try to do is find a bunch of ways to disconfirm your idea, test them, and if your good guess doesn't get disconfirmed accept it (provisionally) until you or someone else comes up with a better, more comprehensive, more powerful idea that doesn't also *unexplain* findings already pretty well corroborated by earlier experiments. What's interesting about John's approach to Professor Bem's recent work is that he adamantly refuses to take issue with Bem's careful reply to his critic Alcock, but is happy to accept Alcock's botched criticism *ex cathedra*. Why is this? It's because... If you start out with the absolute certainty that psi does not exist then your only task is to deny its existence, hoping you can convince others without either evidence or formal proof. If someone finds psi in experiments but you have a metaphysical certainty that it's not there then the only logical conclusion is that there must be something wrong with the experiment, so you keep looking for ever more absurd loopholes and objections until you contrive something that corresponds with your prejudice and makes you happy. Damien Broderick From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 05:29:37 2010 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 00:29:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <7AAE801D-D37F-44A1-B6A3-A2521E154BC4@bellsouth.net> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> <7AAE801D-D37F-44A1-B6A3-A2521E154BC4@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: Just for the record, I am completely boggled by the Copenhagen interpretation - it appears to be such absolute nonsense that I can't understand why it was proposed in the first place, why it was accepted, and why only 50% of physicists have so far have rejected it. One thing I don't understand about many worlds which so cleanly explains the double slit experiment is why it triggers an emotional rejection reaction in so many people. Eliezer provided a very fine explication of the Copenhagen-Multiverse issue on Overcoming Bias a couple of years ago. Highly recommended. Rafal From agrimes at speakeasy.net Tue Dec 7 06:49:58 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 01:49:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The tyranny of context free grammars. Message-ID: <4CFDD916.5080902@speakeasy.net> om. While I should be sleeping right now, I was thinking about my extensive library of books and was inspired to break character and write an inspirational piece about some transhumanist research that can be done by anyone with little or no equipment. Most of my books on computer science present context free grammars as the one and only way to program computers. It is true that languages such as Perl do have some context sensitivity but that doesn't disprove the point. The point is that all of computer programming and compiler design is nested in the ontology of the Chomsky Heirarchy. The reason for this is that Chomsky grammars provably solve the problem of describing and classifying computations so why not simply teach that and then move on to programming them? Because it is a difficult problem, there seems to be only one widely known solution. While it is possible to prove that it solves the problem of describing computations, I seriously doubt that it is either a unique or optimal solution. In my 6-core phenom machine, I have, lets say, four ALUs per core, so if given an optimal workload, I can compute a maximum of 64 * 4 * 6 * 3.2 = 4.9 trillion bit operations per second, absolute maximum under optimal conditions. But the more interesting thing is that I only have 1536 bits of general purpose computing in my late model machine. (there are some other computational circuits devoted to managing the instruction stream and accessing memory that are not general purpose). When contemplating (om) an optimal computational substrate in what we believe to be the 3D nature of our real world, we are lead to an architecture that resembles the human brain in many respects. The gray mater would be a 3D cellular automata architecture. Then, in order to maximize bandwidth between distant nodes, a substantial portion of the available volume would consist of communication channels of some sort so that distant parts of the network could communicate at low latency. Each cell would be comparable in size to 3 or 4 cache cells on a processor of a similar process technology, so my 9 megs of cache would equate to roughly two or three MILLION computational units ( as opposed to the number just over 1,500 given above). What we lack, of course, is a good way to design and program these CAM cells so that they can be used for high performance computing. Some basic work has been done with Conway's game of life. Reportedly, there have been implementations of turing machines in the form of gliders and other structures in the CAM matrix. What is really needed is a serious re-evaluation of everything the textbooks say we know for certain about computer science to achieve the conceptual breakthrough required to really master this type of programming. I would consider this important basic research and the tools required to carry it out are already in front of you. om -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From scerir at alice.it Tue Dec 7 07:40:27 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:40:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net><000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net><003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net><005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net><4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com><4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com><7AAE801D-D37F-44A1-B6A3-A2521E154BC4@bellsouth.net><000c01cb94ab$3d783e40$b868bac0$@att.net><0B730DA7-EB92-4C38-AB00-1731CB478E02@bellsouth.net><004c01cb9578$c58da680$50a8f380$@att.net> Message-ID: Mike: > QM as artifact of incomplete model? QM as an incomplete theory! New qm-theories are on the stage, in example: the Time-Symmetric Formulation, by Aharonov et al. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.1232v1.pdf (a shorter, much more readable paper is available, but not online, I can send it to anyone interested.) s. "This statistical interpretation is now universally accepted as the best possible interpretation for quantum mechanics, even though many people are unhappy with it. People had got used to the determinism of the last century, where the present determines the future completely, and they now have to get used to a different situation in which the present only gives one information of a statistical nature about the future. A good many people find this unpleasant; Einstein has always objected to it. The way he expressed it was: 'The good God does not play with dice'. Schroedinger also did not like the statistical interpretation and tried for many years to find an interpretation involving determinism for his waves. But it was not successful as a general method. I must say that I also do not like indeterminism. I have to accept it because it is certainly the best that we can do with our present knowledge. One can always hope that there will be future developments which will lead to a drastically different theory from the present quantum mechanics and for which there may be a partial return of determinism. However, so long as one keeps to the present formalism, one has to have this indeterminism." - P.A.M. Dirac, 'The Development Of Quantum Mechanics', Conferenza Tenuta il 14 Aprile 1972, Roma, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1974. From ryanobjc at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 07:25:25 2010 From: ryanobjc at gmail.com (Ryan Rawson) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 23:25:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The tyranny of context free grammars. In-Reply-To: <4CFDD916.5080902@speakeasy.net> References: <4CFDD916.5080902@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: Having known a few compiler writers, they seem to resoundingly come down against LALR parsers for implementing CFGs. Alternatives to CFGs maybe might be nice, but to what end? The advantage of the CFG is it's simplicity in both usage and development (compiler side). I'd be careful about pining for more languages like perl, you have obviously never maintained significant systems written in perl. To be avoided if at all possible. I'd also like to leave you with this gem by the (in)famous Dijkstra: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667.html "On the foolishness of "natural language programming"." -ryan On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Alan Grimes wrote: > om. > > While I should be sleeping right now, I was thinking about my extensive > library of books and was inspired to break character and write an > inspirational piece about some transhumanist research that can be done > by anyone with little or no equipment. > > Most of my books on computer science present context free grammars as > the one and only way to program computers. It is true that languages > such as Perl do have some context sensitivity but that doesn't disprove > the point. The point is that all of computer programming and compiler > design is nested in the ontology of the Chomsky Heirarchy. The reason > for this is that Chomsky grammars provably solve the problem of > describing and classifying computations so why not simply teach that and > then move on to programming them? > > Because it is a difficult problem, there seems to be only one widely > known solution. While it is possible to prove that it solves the problem > of describing computations, I seriously doubt that it is either a unique > or optimal solution. > > In my 6-core phenom machine, I have, lets say, four ALUs per core, so if > given an optimal workload, I can compute a maximum of > > 64 * 4 * 6 * 3.2 = 4.9 trillion bit operations per second, absolute > maximum under optimal conditions. But the more interesting thing is that > I only have 1536 bits of general purpose computing in my late model > machine. (there are some other computational circuits devoted to > managing the instruction stream and accessing memory that are not > general purpose). > > When contemplating (om) an optimal computational substrate in what we > believe to be the 3D nature of our real world, we are lead to an > architecture that resembles the human brain in many respects. The gray > mater would be a 3D cellular automata architecture. Then, in order to > maximize bandwidth between distant nodes, a substantial portion of the > available volume would consist of communication channels of some sort so > that distant parts of the network could communicate at low latency. Each > cell would be comparable in size to 3 or 4 cache cells on a processor of > a similar process technology, so my 9 megs of cache would equate to > roughly two or three MILLION computational units ( as opposed to the > number just over 1,500 given above). > > What we lack, of course, is a good way to design and program these CAM > cells so that they can be used for high performance computing. Some > basic work has been done with Conway's game of life. Reportedly, there > have been implementations of turing machines in the form of gliders and > other structures in the CAM matrix. > > What is really needed is a serious re-evaluation of everything the > textbooks say we know for certain about computer science to achieve the > conceptual breakthrough required to really master this type of programming. > > I would consider this important basic research and the tools required to > carry it out are already in front of you. > > om > > -- > DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. > DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. > Powers are not rights. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 7 08:10:49 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:10:49 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > What's interesting about John's approach to Professor Bem's recent work is > that he adamantly refuses to take issue with Bem's careful reply to his > critic Alcock, but is happy to accept Alcock's botched criticism *ex > cathedra*. Why is this? It's because... > > If you start out with the absolute certainty that psi does not exist then > your only task is to deny its existence, hoping you can convince others > without either evidence or formal proof. If someone finds psi in experiments > but you have a metaphysical certainty that it's not there then the only > logical conclusion is that there must be something wrong with the > experiment, so you keep looking for ever more absurd loopholes and > objections until you contrive something that corresponds with your prejudice > and makes you happy. > > The problem for skeptics (as you well know when you are not propagandizing psi) is that these experiments don't demonstrate psi effects. They demonstrate a very small statisical oddity which could have many much more ordinary causes. Even if you allow more extraordinary causes, there is still no reason to make a preference for psi, rather than other woo-woo. Any of them 'might' be the cause. BillK From scerir at alice.it Tue Dec 7 11:27:03 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:27:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net><000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net><003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net><005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net><4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com><4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com><7AAE801D-D37F-44A1-B6A3-A2521E154BC4@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <02A84D32E23F4B0B86692799622FFF7D@PCserafino> Rafal: > One thing I don't understand about many worlds which so cleanly > explains the double slit experiment is why it triggers an emotional > rejection reaction in so many people. There are many different MWI ("many worlds", "many minds", etc.), So, to grasp the true meaning of it, we must fix which sub-interpretation we are talking about. "It is better to think of parts of the universe as splitting. As Everett once said (roughly), if a mouse observes the universe, the mouse, not the universe, is changed. I would say, if a human mind observes the universe, the mind, not the universe, is split." - Frank J. Tipler (2002) "Many worlds" appears to be a realistic interpretation, in the sense that there are "many" real "worlds", created - somehow - during a "measurement" (whatever "measurement" means). But "world" is a classical term, not a quantish term, so we must use a special sound judgment here. And also there are difficulties with conservation principles .... (It seems that conservation principles should be re-formulated.) "Now, there isn't really a story to tell about what the total energy in individual universes is during that whole process. Because the universes are not autonomous during it. But one thing's for sure, there is no way of construing it so that the energy in each particular universe is conserved, for the simple reason that the whole system starts out the same on each run of the experiment (before the non-sharp state is created), and ends up different". - David Deutsch "In more general cases, where there are superpositions of states of different energy, energy can increase in one universe at the cost of decreasing in another." - David Deutsch From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 12:40:02 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:40:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> Message-ID: On 6 December 2010 17:37, spike wrote: > I mighta missed it in all the noise, but I never heard he was wanted for > spilling secrets. Has any nation actually issued an arrest warrant for > that? I heard he was wanted in one of the Islamic countries (Sweden?) for > sexual assault, but not for leaking classified info. > Why, I would say that the important thing to the US, both in terms of damage control and of deterrence of such initiatives, is to get him framed, if possible by a non-US law enforcement agency, wouldn't it? Moreover, sex assault charges as bogus as they may be in fact and in principle ("My consent was not free, as I was not informed at the time of the intercourse that he was sleeping as well with my best friend...") do not offer the kind of martyrdom amplification that espionnage charges, kidnapping or assassination may involve; and imply as well a welcome stigma on the target. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 12:54:31 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:54:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> Message-ID: Stefano wrote: >Moreover, sex assault charges as bogus as they may be in fact and in principle ("My consent was not free, as I was not informed at the time of the intercourse that he was sleeping as well with my best friend...") do not offer the kind of martyrdom amplification that espionnage charges, kidnapping or assassination may involve; and imply as well a welcome stigma on the target.< He was arrested this morning in the U.K. Even my father, not exactly a political radical, laughed at how transparent the timing. I agree with Stefano -- the charges are perfect in terms of stigmatizing him. Who cares if he's a champion of free speech or freedom of information or a new transparency? The important thing is he's a pervert, so nothing he does or says can be taken seriously. And sexual assault charges have an added benefit -- those with such charges against them are almost always viewed as guilty by the majority whether proven innocent in court or not. Michael Jackson is a good example. Darren 2010/12/7 Stefano Vaj > On 6 December 2010 17:37, spike wrote: > >> I mighta missed it in all the noise, but I never heard he was wanted for >> spilling secrets. Has any nation actually issued an arrest warrant for >> that? I heard he was wanted in one of the Islamic countries (Sweden?) for >> sexual assault, but not for leaking classified info. >> > > Why, I would say that the important thing to the US, both in terms of > damage control and of deterrence of such initiatives, is to get him framed, > if possible by a non-US law enforcement agency, wouldn't it? > > Moreover, sex assault charges as bogus as they may be in fact and in > principle ("My consent was not free, as I was not informed at the time of > the intercourse that he was sleeping as well with my best friend...") do not > offer the kind of martyrdom amplification that espionnage charges, > kidnapping or assassination may involve; and imply as well a welcome stigma > on the target. > > -- > Stefano Vaj > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 7 13:14:57 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 14:14:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101207131457.GS9434@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 08:54:31AM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: > He was arrested this morning in the U.K. Even my father, not exactly a > political radical, laughed at how transparent the timing. I agree with If a travesty of justice is sufficiently transparent, it will backfire. Right now quite a few newly realize that they're not in Kansas anymore, Toto. > Stefano -- the charges are perfect in terms of stigmatizing him. Who cares > if he's a champion of free speech or freedom of information or a new The person is not important, the press waking up to the possibility of using the Internet as an anonymous, uncensorable informant platform is. That this is decades-old-hat to the digerati is irrelevant, critical threshold in public perception (not that this worth so much) is. Once this pump is primed there will be successor platforms. Run by anonymous volunteers, on their own budget, with no drama but also no way to shut it all down. John Young deliberately staid out of the limelight with the Cryptome, which never reached that threshold. Now we will see how much appetite for disclosure the general public really has -- oh, a bright and shiny object! Dude... wait... what? > transparency? The important thing is he's a pervert, so nothing he does or > says can be taken seriously. And sexual assault charges have an > added benefit -- those with such charges against them are almost always > viewed as guilty by the majority whether proven innocent in court or not. > Michael Jackson is a good example. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 13:49:46 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:49:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <20101207131457.GS9434@leitl.org> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> <20101207131457.GS9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen wrote: >The person is not important, The person is very important, because how he and others involved are dealt with will determine the level of risk others are willing to take to accomplish similar ventures in future. I'd say the press is more focussed on Assange than the content of the leaks precisely because they understand this. >the press waking up to the possibility of using the Internet as an anonymous, uncensorable informant platform is.< If you're a decent journalist, you probably already know this. What you don't know is if a government is unable to censor the information, how effective will it be in censoring the person or persons responsible for leaking it? Because as you know, *nothing* is anonymous on the Internet. That's the great irony of our age. An unfathomable sea of information, with your signature on every molecule of data you contribute, if someone is determined and technically equipped and proficient enough to look for it. Darren -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 14:02:26 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:02:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <20101207131457.GS9434@leitl.org> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> <20101207131457.GS9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 7 December 2010 14:14, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > He was arrested this morning in the U.K. Even my father, not exactly a > > political radical, laughed at how transparent the timing. I agree with > > If a travesty of justice is sufficiently transparent, it will backfire. > To an extent. The political costs of overt censorship or assassination is usually even higher. ;-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 14:14:10 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:14:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 7 December 2010 01:58, Damien Broderick wrote: > Well, confirming doesn't work either, as Popper showed. I'm enough of a > falsificationist to think that what you should try to do is find a bunch of > ways to disconfirm your idea, test them, and if your good guess doesn't get > disconfirmed accept it (provisionally) until you or someone else comes up > with a better, more comprehensive, more powerful idea that doesn't also > *unexplain* findings already pretty well corroborated by earlier > experiments. > Yes, this is in fact more accurate. And in any event I think any science involves some inevitable Occam-razor's assumption. In this respect, the real debate is what may be the most economical explanations for "psi" phenomena. If I have to suppose that some angels from dimension X jumped out of a time machine to falsify the data, telepathy sounds as a more plausible explanation until and unless otherwise excluded. Every time a phenomenon can be explained as a statistical artifact, I would be more inclined to go with this solution... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 14:27:39 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:27:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> <20101207131457.GS9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: "technically equipped" That should have been 'technologically equipped.' I'm taking a cold medicine and I just checked the ingredients. It has pseudo-ephedrine in it, and that always fuzzes up my thinking a bit. I have a chemistry exam in 20 minutes. Sloppy writing may be the least of my academic problems today. :) Darren On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Darren Greer wrote: > Eugen wrote: > > >The person is not important, > > The person is very important, because how he and others involved are dealt > with will determine the level of risk others are willing to take to > accomplish similar ventures in future. I'd say the press is more focussed on > Assange than the content of the leaks precisely because they understand > this. > > >the press waking up to the possibility of using the Internet as an > anonymous, uncensorable informant platform is.< > > If you're a decent journalist, you probably already know this. What you > don't know is if a government is unable to censor the information, how > effective will it be in censoring the person or persons responsible for > leaking it? Because as you know, *nothing* is anonymous on the Internet. > That's the great irony of our age. An unfathomable sea of information, > with your signature on every molecule of data you contribute, if someone > is determined and technically equipped and proficient enough to look for it. > > Darren > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 7 14:38:57 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:38:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> <20101207131457.GS9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101207143856.GU9434@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 09:49:46AM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: > The person is very important, because how he and others involved are dealt > with will determine the level of risk others are willing to take to That's just the point: a successor platform to Wikileaks has no monetary streams to trace or block, and it does not expose operators, and actively hides contributors. > accomplish similar ventures in future. I'd say the press is more focussed on > Assange than the content of the leaks precisely because they understand > this. The press is of some relevance on the short run, but on the long run the press as we know is has gone to party with the buggy whip makers. > >the press waking up to the possibility of using the Internet as an > anonymous, uncensorable informant platform is.< > > If you're a decent journalist, you probably already know this. What you Somebody fetch me a decent journalist. These have been lately in short supply. In fact, even bad journalists are getting hard to pay lately. Lack of revenue will do that to you. > don't know is if a government is unable to censor the information, how > effective will it be in censoring the person or persons responsible for > leaking it? Because as you know, *nothing* is anonymous on the Internet. There are anonymizing overlays of existing Internet which are quite hard to trace (even for a TLA), especially if you remove the realtime communication requirement part. Distributed cryptographic filesystems like Tahoe can be made very, very difficult to attack -- both at the reader, content blocking, or publisher layer. The problem with journalists is that they wouldn't know how to use such platforms. For them Wikileaks will be a gentle introduction. > That's the great irony of our age. An unfathomable sea of information, with > your signature on every molecule of data you contribute, if someone is > determined and technically equipped and proficient enough to look for it. If you know what the signature is, it's pretty easy to remove. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 16:11:33 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:11:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <20101207143856.GU9434@leitl.org> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> <20101207131457.GS9434@leitl.org> <20101207143856.GU9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: >The press is of some relevance on the short run, but on the long run the press as we know is has gone to party with the buggy whip makers.< Agreed. Canada has a few decent journalists left. John Ibbitson is one I would invite to dinner. There are others. One of the problems with mainstream press here in Canada is that they try so hard to be unbiased that they are easily manipulated. >That's just the point: a successor platform to Wikileaks has no monetary streams to trace or block, and it does not expose operators, and actively hides contributors.< So what do you do? You can't punish contributors, so you punish those who make it possible to contribute and are trying to protect those involved. It's not just Assange and Wikileaks here. Amazon has paid a price for hosting the site. An independent cooperation forced by political pressure to remove it? Someone somewhere can always be forced to be take responsibility, even if it's way down the line. You're right that the battle is not really about these people or Assange. It's a public relations battle in the long run. But forcing these people into the public eye is key to it. >If you know what the signature is, it's pretty easy to remove.< Perhaps. I don't know enough about internet technology to say for certain. But Spike mentioned in this thread that someone in this group was once worried about some things he had posted. Since it turned out to be impossible to remove the comments from the database, the group just started imitating each other's style and posting along similar lines so that it would be difficult to tell who was posting what and the guy with the original concern would get lost in the shuffle. The question I asked myself when I read that is how did that person originally communicate his concern over what he posted? Via the group? How was the plan of action communicated to everyone involved? Also via the group? Private e-mails? Snail mail. Code? Given world enough and time, to quote Andrew Marvel, you could probably get to the bottom of it. There's a trail somewhere. Not just via the web, but through traditional tracking systems -- real world intelligence services, courts, subpoenas, etc. In most cases, the effort is just not worth it. In this case, however, some governments have decided it is. They will fail miserably, and for all I know there may be a million ways to keep your activities on the web a secret from all, including determined government agencies and hackers from China and internet service providers and the like. But when the people doing the looking are as good if not better than those doing the hiding, nothing is for certain. Anyway. It seems to me there is nothing new taking place here. Just another information power struggle similar to the one five hundred years ago when William Tyndale translated the bible into English and was killed for it. Mean-time it was too late: it had already had been copied and distributed and Tyndale became a martyr for the faith. I'm not saying Assange will have the same fate, but if they keep it up, he'll be a digital saint before sundown. Darren On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 09:49:46AM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: > > > The person is very important, because how he and others involved are > dealt > > with will determine the level of risk others are willing to take to > > That's just the point: a successor platform to Wikileaks has > no monetary streams to trace or block, and it does not expose > operators, and actively hides contributors. > > > accomplish similar ventures in future. I'd say the press is more focussed > on > > Assange than the content of the leaks precisely because they understand > > this. > > The press is of some relevance on the short run, but on the long > run the press as we know is has gone to party with the buggy whip > makers. > > > >the press waking up to the possibility of using the Internet as an > > anonymous, uncensorable informant platform is.< > > > > If you're a decent journalist, you probably already know this. What you > > Somebody fetch me a decent journalist. These have been lately in > short supply. In fact, even bad journalists are getting hard to > pay lately. Lack of revenue will do that to you. > > > don't know is if a government is unable to censor the information, how > > effective will it be in censoring the person or persons responsible for > > leaking it? Because as you know, *nothing* is anonymous on the Internet. > > There are anonymizing overlays of existing Internet which are quite > hard to trace (even for a TLA), especially if you remove the realtime > communication requirement part. Distributed cryptographic filesystems > like Tahoe can be made very, very difficult to attack -- both at the > reader, content blocking, or publisher layer. > > The problem with journalists is that they wouldn't know how to > use such platforms. For them Wikileaks will be a gentle introduction. > > > That's the great irony of our age. An unfathomable sea of information, > with > > your signature on every molecule of data you contribute, if someone is > > determined and technically equipped and proficient enough to look for it. > > If you know what the signature is, it's pretty easy to remove. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 7 16:16:11 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:16:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CFE5DCB.6010203@satx.rr.com> On 12/7/2010 8:14 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Every time a phenomenon can be explained as a statistical artifact, I > would be more inclined to go with this solution... Agreed, of course, that's the only rational attitude. I'm waiting to hear from critics what the artifacts are in Bem's case. This is why it's important to pay attention to even the shoddy attempted refutation of Bem's work by Alcock. But *only* if equal attention is paid to Bem's response. It might turn out that Bem (or any other psi researcher) has left serious holes in his protocol, or used the wrong analytical, evaluative methods, etc. Because that's always possible, it's necessary to have strenuous criticism. But it's pointless saying, as BillK just did, "Even if you allow more extraordinary causes, there is still no reason to make a preference for psi, rather than other woo-woo. Any of them 'might' be the cause," unless you can make a stab at showing what sorts of errors might yield those results in a given experiment. Science doesn't falsify an experiment by shouting "BULLSHIT! I don't believe that, and I don't have to say why in this case because the whole idea is *crazy*." A lot of people thought QT was crazy and intolerable, but they didn't think they'd got rid of the results just by saying so. They tried their best to find countervailing evidence and explanations for the annoying data--and failed to. Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 7 16:20:51 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:20:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > The usual way of doing science is to pick a hypothesis, because you have dreamt of it, or satisfy your aesthetical sense, or simply is yours and nobody ever thought about it, and try to confirm it. But the hard truth is that good ideas are very rare and your new idea that you love so very much is almost certainly worthless as experiments can prove; they don't usually prove the idea is wrong, it's very hard to prove a negative, but they can prove the idea is silly, that is to say its not worth your time and it could be better spent doing other things. There is no disgrace in having an idea that doesn't work out, all the great scientists have been wrong about something, the disgrace is in not admitting defeat and moving on. >> But with psi and cold fusion there is such a enormously powerful visceral wish for it to be true that the true believers simply refuse to take "no" as an answer, so they demand that it be tested again, and again, and again, and again. In the case of psi this has been going on for CENTURIES, it's time to stop this ridiculous situation and say enough is enough. > This is an interesting sociological remark, but of little epistemological relevance. At one time it was thought that heavy objects fell faster in a gravitational field than light ones if they were in a vacuum, and even today the intuition of most people tells them that is the case; however it is easy with a few simple experiments to convince them it is not true. The reason it is so easy is that the law of falling bodies caries little emotional baggage, if it had as much as psi then even today hundreds of years after Galileo people would be insisting that if scientists dropped heavy and light weights one more time off the Leaning Tower of Pisa they would find that this time the heavy one would indeed fall faster than the light. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 7 16:26:15 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:26:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net><000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net><003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net><005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net><4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com><4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com><7AAE801D-D37F-44A1-B6A3-A2521E154BC4@bellsouth.net><000c01cb94ab$3d783e40$b868bac0$@att.net><0B730DA7-EB92-4C38-AB00-1731CB478E02@bellsouth.net><004c01cb9578$c58da680$50a8f380$@att.net> Message-ID: <004201cb962b$78f19710$6ad4c530$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of scerir Subject: Re: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. Mike: >> QM as artifact of incomplete model? >QM as an incomplete theory! ... Even the masters of QM do not claim it is a *complete* theory, or even unified with gravity. It is a stubborn fact (which I recognize and accept) that QM works better than any alternative theory in physics and better than any mathematical model we have in any field of science, with the possible exception of relativity, with which it is not unified. It is the only theory I know of which can make accurate predictions of particles we have never seen, and predict their masses so accurately. QM is the ultimate pragmatist's theory: we disdain it, we don't understand it, but we use it, and it works great. If QM didn't work so well, no one would take it seriously. spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 7 16:48:32 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:48:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <51D151A5-8F24-45E6-92CF-96D03E750F96@bellsouth.net> On Dec 6, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > John is surprisingly naive about science. I suspect that this is because he's an engineer, trained to apply what is known to be the case, to get the job done. If part of the job includes figuring out what avenues are worth pursuing and which are likely to be a silly waste of time then I plead guilty. > If you start out with the absolute certainty that psi does not exist[...] But I don't have absolute certainty that psi does not exist, I just have absolute certainty that psi is a silly waste of time. In fact, not only am I absolutely certain I'm probably correct too. > Well, confirming doesn't work either, as Popper showed. Popper did some good stuff but I'm much less a fan than I once was. For most of his life Popper did not approve of Evolution; as late as 1976 Popper said ?Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program?. His opposition did a lot of harm too, to this day Bible thumpers use Popper quotations in their legal briefs to try to get creationism taught in the classroom. To his credit in 1978 at the ripe old age of 76 Popper reversed his position and said ?I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation?. So 119 years after the publication of "The Origin Of Species", perhaps the greatest scientific book ever written, this philosopher of science came to the conclusion that maybe Darwin was on to something after all. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 16:41:24 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:41:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: <4CFE5DCB.6010203@satx.rr.com> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> <4CFE5DCB.6010203@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > It might turn out that Bem (or any other psi researcher) has left serious > holes in his protocol, or used the wrong analytical, evaluative methods, > etc. Because that's always possible, it's necessary to have strenuous > criticism. But it's pointless saying, as BillK just did, "Even if you allow > more extraordinary causes, there is still no reason to make a preference for > psi, rather than other woo-woo. Any of them 'might' be the cause," unless > you can make a stab at showing what sorts of errors might yield those > results in a given experiment. > > It is a two-step criticism. The first step is, as you say, to prove that the statistical oddity actually exists, is a repeatable finding by unbiased researchers, and the statistical analysis is believed by most mathematicians. Step One is still unresolved to most scientists satisfaction. The second step is to find the cause of the statistical oddity. Try to prove that psychic powers, and nothing but psychic powers, causes the oddity. Step Two will never be resolved until some testable mechanism can be provided that can detect whether 'psychic powers' are operating or not. At present, 'psi' relies on after the fact analysis and saying 'Oh look, he must have been psychic in those tests last week'. This is a totally unsatisfactory misuse of the scientific method. BillK From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 7 16:58:12 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:58:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> <20101207131457.GS9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <004901cb962f$ef1cea30$cd56be90$@att.net> Subject: Re: [ExI] Wikileaks Eugen wrote: >The person is not important. . >>>>>> spike wrote: The person becomes extremely important if they get to the conviction phase regarding leaking info. I am not referring to Julian or Private Manning, but rather the people who put classified info on an unsecure link. When one gets a clearance, one of the things they hammer is that you are legally liable if you put classified info on any unsecure link, regardless of whether or not it leaks. Of course, if ianything is revealed in Wikileaks, it is impossible to determine who actually wrote what and if so, what the person actually wrote, or how it was modified after the fact by unknown persons. spike >>>>> spike wrote: I didn't write that. spike >>>> spike wrote: You did so. spike >>> spike wrote: Did not. spike >> spike wrote: Did SO. spike > spike wrote: Did NOT. spike Well, OK I might have written it, or part of it. Maybe. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at alice.it Tue Dec 7 17:43:22 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:43:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link BetweenQuantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <004201cb962b$78f19710$6ad4c530$@att.net> References: om> <004201cb962b$78f19710$6ad4c530$@att.net> Message-ID: > QM is the ultimate pragmatist's theory: we disdain it, we don't understand it, but we > use it, and it works great. If QM didn't work so well, no one would take it seriously. > > spike I can only add few, but salty, quotes! The underlying error may be the conviction that the system itself has to be represented in order to represent our actions upon it. In quantum theory we represent actual operations and the relations among them, not a hypothetical reality on which they act. Quantum theory is a theory of actuality, not reality. I have taken this term from Whitehead's writings. -David Finkelstein, in 'The State of Quantum Physics'. Unfortunately, quantum theory is incompatible with the proposition that "measurements" are processes by means of which we discover some unknown but preexisting reality. -Asher Peres, "What is a state vector?" , Am. J. Phys. 52 (7), July 1984 We are thus led to the conclusion that the _psi_ symbol (the so-called "state" or "wavefunction") is not an attribute of a _system_ but of a _procedure_. A single physical system has no state. One might be tempted to say that a system prepared by procedure _psi_ "is in state _psi_". However, this seemingly innocuous phrase leads to paradoxes whenever a measurement is performed and the state "collapses", as shown in Sec.II. -Asher Peres, "What is a state vector?" , Am. J. Phys. 52 (7), July 1984 Schr?dinger was wrong. Entanglement is not the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics. Entanglement is a symptom. It points to a deeper mystery. This mystery is the fact that no property is a possessed property unless it is measured. -Ulrich Mohrhoff In an experiment the state reflects not what is actually known about the system, but rather what is knowable, in principle, with the help of auxiliary measurements that do not disturb the original experiment. By focusing on what is knowable in principle, and treating what is known as largely irrelevant, one completely avoids the anthropomorphism and any reference to consciousness that some physicists have tried to inject into quantum mechanics. -Leonard Mandel (Rev. Mod. Phys.,1999, p.S-274) The superposition of amplitudes is only valid if there is no way to know, even in principle, which path the particle took. It is important to realize that this does not imply that an observer actually takes note of what happens. It is sufficient to destroy the interference pattern, if the path information is accessible in principle from the experiment or even if it is dispersed in the environment and beyond any technical possibility to be recovered, but in principle 'still out there'. -Anton Zeilinger, (Rev. Mod. Phys., 1999, p. S-288) Either the wavefunction, as given by the Schroedinger equation, is not everything, or it is not right. -J.S.Bell, 'Are there quantum jumps', in 'Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics' Years ago [1993], I once argued that the many-worlds doesn't seem compatible with Occam's razor principle. As answer I got the following: "Occam's razor should not be applied to the physical world, but be applied to the Schroedinger equation; don't add any term to this beautiful equation" [D. Zeh]. The linearity of the Schroedinger equation was assumed more real than our physical Universe! -Nicolas Gisin Interpretations of quantum mechanics, unlike Gods, are not jealous, and thus it is safe to believe in more than one at the same time. So if the many-worlds interpretation makes it easier to think about the research you're doing in April, and the Copenhagen interpretation makes it easier to think about the research you're doing in June, the Copenhagen interpretation is not going to smite you for praying to the many-worlds interpretation. At least I hope it won't, because otherwise I'm in big trouble. -Peter Shor >From these two basic ideas alone -- indefiniteness and the superposition principle -- it should be clear already that quantum mechanics conflicts sharply with common sense. If the quantum state of a system is a complete description of the system, then a quantity that has an indefinite value in that quantum state is objectively indefinite; its value is not merely unknown by the scientist who seeks to describe the system. Furthermore, since the outcome of a measurement of an objectively indefinite quantity is not determined by the quantum state, and yet the quantum state is the complete bearer of information about the system, the outcome is strictly a matter of objective chance -- not just a matter of chance in the sense of unpredictability by the scientist. Finally, the probability of each possible outcome of the measurement is an objective probability. Classical physics did not conflict with common sense in these fundamental ways. -Abner Shimony Basically, quantum mechanics is the operating system that other physical theories run on as application software (with the exception of general relativity, which hasn't yet been successfully ported to this particular OS). -Scott Aaronson From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 7 18:07:03 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:07:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: <51D151A5-8F24-45E6-92CF-96D03E750F96@bellsouth.net> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> <51D151A5-8F24-45E6-92CF-96D03E750F96@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CFE77C7.7090609@satx.rr.com> On 12/7/2010 10:48 AM, John Clark wrote: >> Well, confirming doesn't work either, as Popper showed. > Popper did some good stuff but I'm much less a fan than I once was. I'm surprised that you'd kvetch about this particular point. "Confirming" doesn't settle anything, because often a number of explanations lead to the same prediction or expectation. That's why it is helpful to try to falsify each one in a test that leaves one or more of the alternatives standing. In fact, I would expect you to be arguing that proponents of psi are guilty of the confirmation error, since (you might claim) they assume that the statistical and other errors they stupidly make confirm psi rather than their incompetence as experimenters. Of course you'd then have to show what those errors are, which is difficult when you refuse to waste your time reading the experimental reports. Damien Broderick From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 18:13:03 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:13:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The tyranny of context free grammars Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:00 AM, wrote: snip > ?I'd be careful about pining for more languages like > perl, you have obviously never maintained significant systems written > in perl. ?To be avoided if at all possible. I am not an expert on Perl . . . About a dozen years ago I needed to solve a simple problem. In those days, a GB was a big disk. An office network was being served page images from a raid server backed up (if the image was not found) by a CDROM jukebox. It took upwards of 20 seconds to load a CD. The image files were all unique names and chances were high that the image you wanted was on someone's disk on the local network, but where? It took me several days to figure out how to do this in Perl, which has got to be the least productive language in terms of lines of code per day. I think the server side and client side together were less than a dozen lines. It worked just fine, with the server pinging the local network if it couldn't find the requested image and the listening client machines telling the server if they had the image. Done in C it would have taken hundreds of lines and a lot of effort to debug. I agree with Ryan that Perl (and Forth) are nearly impossible to maintain. That's because it's nearly impossible to read code and figure out what it does. Keith From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 7 18:25:01 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:25:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <89B5E3F8-51C6-4544-93D2-EC35959D5DA9@bellsouth.net> On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > the real debate is what may be the most economical explanations for "psi" phenomena. No, the real debate, if you want to glorify it with that noble word, is something that should have ended to everybody's satisfaction centuries ago, namely, is there a phenomenon that even deserves an explanation? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 18:43:39 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 14:43:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <004901cb962f$ef1cea30$cd56be90$@att.net> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> <20101207131457.GS9434@leitl.org> <004901cb962f$ef1cea30$cd56be90$@att.net> Message-ID: >>>>> spike wrote: I didn?t write that. spike >>>> spike wrote: You did so. spike >>> spike wrote: Did not. spike >> spike wrote: Did SO. spike > spike wrote: Did NOT. spike Well, OK I might have written it, or part of it. Maybe. spike You do admit to being a suspicious personage involved in semi-covert, deliberately obfuscating and border-line subversive activity, though, right? Rats in a face-cage for you, Winston. :) Darren 2010/12/7 spike > > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Wikileaks > > > > Eugen wrote: > > > > >The person is not important? > > ? > > > > >>>>>> spike wrote: The person becomes extremely important if they get to > the conviction phase regarding leaking info. I am not referring to Julian > or Private Manning, but rather the people who put classified info on an > unsecure link. When one gets a clearance, one of the things they hammer is > that you are legally liable if you put classified info on any unsecure link, > regardless of whether or not it leaks. Of course, if ianything is revealed > in Wikileaks, it is impossible to determine who actually wrote what and if > so, what the person actually wrote, or how it was modified after the fact by > unknown persons. spike > > > > >>>>> spike wrote: I didn?t write that. spike > > > > >>>> spike wrote: You did so. spike > > > > >>> spike wrote: Did not. spike > > > > >> spike wrote: Did SO. spike > > > > > spike wrote: Did NOT. spike > > > > Well, OK I might have written it, or part of it. Maybe. spike > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 7 18:44:44 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:44:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: <4CFE77C7.7090609@satx.rr.com> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> <51D151A5-8F24-45E6-92CF-96D03E750F96@bellsouth.net> <4CFE77C7.7090609@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <53B9FFB3-317F-4FE9-8BC2-F9FD8F3C73AA@bellsouth.net> On Dec 7, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Of course you'd then have to show what those errors are, which is difficult when you refuse to waste your time reading the experimental reports. As I've said before, until the results are repeated by somebody I respect I am not even certain there ARE experimental results and not just stuff some guy typed. And speaking of things said before, I recall that well over a decade ago you urged me to read some other long forgotten psi experiment that was hot at the time, I don't recall my exact response but it was along the lines of that it would be a complete waste of time and I'd rather watch paint dry. Time has proven my judgment correct as that experiment has entered the black hole of oblivion, and I'm sure this one will too; I believe you think the same thing otherwise you would have taken me up on my bet. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 7 18:49:24 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:49:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> <20101207131457.GS9434@leitl.org> <20101207143856.GU9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <007301cb963f$78118030$68348090$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Darren Greer . >.Spike mentioned in this thread that someone in this group was once worried about some things he had posted. Since it turned out to be impossible to remove the comments from the database, the group just started imitating each other's style and posting along similar lines .Darren It might be time to repeat that exercise. I got to thinking about it and realized that much of that predated the 9/11/01 attack. After Extro5, we had a huge blowout party at my house, with guys coming thru all day. I would estimate about 40 were here at one time or another, so I had them all write something and sign it as coming from me. We had a blast. Since then friends have visited, and I always have them post something from my computer, just to add to the confusion and fun. Now I have complete control over my own written past. If anyone cites anything I ever wrote, I can ask to see it, to determine if I actually wrote it, or part of it, with the option of disowning anything, or for that matter, owning anything you wrote on ExI. The person who later asked for an archive purge was one of those who wrote messages that day in June 2001, and has done so on at least three different occasions, from my house, in the subsequent years. I invite anyone here to write a post and sign it by me. Let us keep it in good fun, for it is just a game, with a point. I may or may not have written the above, but I cannot be certain. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 19:00:23 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 20:00:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> <20101207131457.GS9434@leitl.org> <004901cb962f$ef1cea30$cd56be90$@att.net> Message-ID: As a pragmatist I know that some secrecy is advisable on occasions in the interest of all parties, so my position cannot be black or white. But I will join the rally for "Nobel for Peace to Julian!" and I am looking for a way to donate to Wikileaks (now that it has been dumped by Paypal and Master and Visa). From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 19:31:17 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 20:31:17 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: <53B9FFB3-317F-4FE9-8BC2-F9FD8F3C73AA@bellsouth.net> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> <51D151A5-8F24-45E6-92CF-96D03E750F96@bellsouth.net> <4CFE77C7.7090609@satx.rr.com> <53B9FFB3-317F-4FE9-8BC2-F9FD8F3C73AA@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/12/7 John Clark > As I've said before, until the results are repeated by somebody I respect I > am not even certain there ARE experimental results and not just stuff some > guy typed. > The problem is: if you would not respect anybody returning certain experimental results, this quickly become a circular issue. I do consider myself rather skeptical of many phenomena which appear to be taken almost for granted in the psi circles - say, remote viewing... - but the methodological problem is important to me, as I think that our age is equally dominated by pop quackery and eccessive academic dogmatism. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 7 19:40:29 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 13:40:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: <53B9FFB3-317F-4FE9-8BC2-F9FD8F3C73AA@bellsouth.net> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> <51D151A5-8F24-45E6-92CF-96D03E750F96@bellsouth.net> <4CFE77C7.7090609@satx.rr.com> <53B9FFB3-317F-4FE9-8BC2-F9FD8F3C73AA@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CFE8DAD.6000302@satx.rr.com> On 12/7/2010 12:44 PM, John Clark wrote: > As I've said before, until the results are repeated by somebody I > respect I am not even certain there ARE experimental results and not > just stuff some guy typed. So a Cornell professor publishing a peer-reviewed paper in one of the most prestigious journals of his discipline fails the test of being somebody you respect, simply because you don't like his results. The term "barricaded prejudice" comes to mind. At this point you're just being ridiculous. Awaiting further replication is sensible; implying that Bem and the journal's reviewers and editors are liars and idiots is... not. Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 7 20:01:42 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 21:01:42 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The tyranny of context free grammars In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20101207200142.GP9434@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:13:03AM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: > I agree with Ryan that Perl (and Forth) are nearly impossible to It is quite possible to write very readable, verbose Perl. It is also quite possible to write extremely terse, incomprehensible Perl. Forth isn't really a good comparison, because you typically implement a DSL in Forth, which then can have arbitrary syntax. Consider the following Forth sources written for this minimal CPU (defined in VeriLog: http://excamera.com/files/j1demo/verilog/j1.v ) This implements the basic Forth words from primitives: http://excamera.com/files/j1demo/docforth/basewords.fs.html This is an Ethernet driver: http://excamera.com/files/j1demo/docforth/eth-ax88796.fs.html ARP: http://excamera.com/files/j1demo/docforth/arp.fs.html IP: http://excamera.com/files/j1demo/docforth/ip.fs.html UDP: http://excamera.com/files/j1demo/docforth/udp.fs.html etc, see http://excamera.com/sphinx/fpga-j1.html > maintain. That's because it's nearly impossible to read code and > figure out what it does. Only if the programmer is trying to be too clever for their own good. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 7 21:34:47 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 22:34:47 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> <20101207131457.GS9434@leitl.org> <20101207143856.GU9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101207213447.GQ9434@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 12:11:33PM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: > So what do you do? You can't punish contributors, so you punish those who > make it possible to contribute and are trying to protect those involved. In practice, if you have thousands and ten thousands (or hundreds thousands and millions) of nodes spread all over the world, run by volunteers (and nonvolunteers, see the average botnet) the enforcement is completely impractical. > It's not just Assange and Wikileaks here. Amazon has paid a price for > hosting the site. An independent cooperation forced by political pressure to That's just the point: a single site is a single point of attack. What do you attack if the only thing the publishers and the readers see is localhost? DDoS 127.0.0.1 or ::1? Won't work too well, I'm afraid. How do you forge document references like http://127.0.0.1/uri/URI:DIR2:ctmtx2awdo4xt77x5xxaz6nyxm:n5t546ddvd6xlv4v6se6sjympbdbvo7orwizuzl42urm73sxazqa/ ? How do you abuse the network if you need reputation in order to be able to publish, and the only way to gain reputation is to prove you're serving reliably, without knowing what you're serving, and hence not being able to censor other than denying service, and thus being denied reputation in turn? > remove it? Someone somewhere can always be forced to be take responsibility, > even if it's way down the line. You're right that the battle is not really Spread the risk over many buckets, including involuntary volunteers. Send the SWATs to Redmond and Cupertino. That'll teach'em. > about these people or Assange. It's a public relations battle in the long > run. But forcing these people into the public eye is key to it. > > >If you know what the signature is, it's pretty easy to remove.< > > Perhaps. I don't know enough about internet technology to say for certain. A number of psedonymous/anonymous and outright dark networks are in operation on the Internet. They are only a minor nuisance to the authorities, and furthermore useful as training sandboxes, so but for minor harassments their operators are left in peace. If the stakes are raised high enough no doubt at least parts of the network will go underground, and hence entirely out of reach of law enforcement. > But Spike mentioned in this thread that someone in this group was once > worried about some things he had posted. Since it turned out to be > impossible to remove the comments from the database, the group just started > imitating each other's style and posting along similar lines so that it > would be difficult to tell who was posting what and the guy with the In the case of leaks, you're just the conduit. If you're a smart leaker, to take great pains to not put your own fingerprints on the material. You must take care to not leak anything watermarked to you personally. > original concern would get lost in the shuffle. The question I asked myself > when I read that is how did that person originally communicate his concern > over what he posted? Via the group? How was the plan of > action communicated to everyone involved? Also via the group? Private > e-mails? Snail mail. Code? If you don't want to be known, use a nym. If you don't want to produce style fingerprints linkable to a different nym, do not post under a different nym. > Given world enough and time, to quote Andrew Marvel, you could probably get > to the bottom of it. There's a trail somewhere. Not just via the web, but You're in a maze of twisty passages, all alike. > through traditional tracking systems -- real world intelligence services, Their possibilities are limited. So they've got network probes upstream of all those ~1 k public Tor nodes, so what? Leaker network can easily tolerate ~h latencies, so put that into your chaffed onion mix cascade, and smoke it. > courts, subpoenas, etc. In most cases, the effort is just not worth it. In > this case, however, some governments have decided it is. They will fail > miserably, and for all I know there may be a million ways to keep > your activities on the web a secret from all, including determined > government agencies and hackers from China and internet service providers > and the like. But when the people doing the looking are as good if not > better than those doing the hiding, nothing is for certain. The people doing the hiding need only to install a piece of hardware. The expertise needs to reside with people who designed and implemented said piece of software. Most operators can be Mallory, a properly designed system should be able to deal with that. > Anyway. It seems to me there is nothing new taking place here. Just > another information power struggle similar to the one five hundred years ago > when William Tyndale translated the bible into English and was killed for Arguably we're at the stage of Gutenberg, where the means of mass production of text were taken out of the hands of professional scribes and exacerbated the "problem" of proliferation of unsanctioned thoughts. > it. Mean-time it was too late: it had already had been copied and > distributed and Tyndale became a martyr for the faith. I'm not saying > Assange will have the same fate, but if they keep it up, he'll be a digital > saint before sundown. http://mrhoovler.com/Documents/Repent%20Harlequin.pdf -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 7 21:51:04 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 22:51:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <20101207213447.GQ9434@leitl.org> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> <20101207131457.GS9434@leitl.org> <20101207143856.GU9434@leitl.org> <20101207213447.GQ9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101207215103.GV9434@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 10:34:47PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > The people doing the hiding need only to install a piece of hardware. I usually don't bother self-correcting, but this one is of course software, not hardware. (Though, of course, said software installed on disposable hardware (aka plug computer) and installed in random, undocumented locations adds some considerable mischief to the mix). From max at maxmore.com Tue Dec 7 23:13:31 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 17:13:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative LinkBetween Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. Message-ID: <201012072340.oB7NeJmm020289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> spike wrote: >Ah yes, but of course dividing by zero is not necessarily a syntax >error, if god multiplies the result by zero. The result might be >infinite, or it might be zero, or any finite between those >two. That is how we know god is a bastard, for inventing such a system. Hey! What is this harsh prejudice against bastards? I happen to be a bastard too, in the most literal sense. Why is this an insult? If God is really a bastard, how is it His fault? At least point the finger at father-of-God. God (if He/it really existed) would have a LOT to answer for, but not for being bastard. Sheesh. Max (Complete and utter bastard.) ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader The Proactionary Project Vice Chair, Humanity+ Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 8 00:40:31 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:40:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative LinkBetween Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <201012072340.oB7NeJmm020289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201012072340.oB7NeJmm020289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000f01cb9670$84d73130$8e859390$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Max More Subject: Re: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative LinkBetween Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. spike wrote: >>...that is how we know god is a bastard, for inventing such a system. Max wrote: >Hey! What is this harsh prejudice against bastards? I happen to be a bastard too, in the most literal sense... Hey, me three! {8-] >Why is this an insult? If God is really a bastard, how is it His fault? At least point the finger at father-of-God...Max One is immune from criticism for using any politically incorrect term, so long as one is one oneself. {8^D spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 8 01:03:12 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 17:03:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFB2F0F.1050405@satx.rr.com> <4CFBB129.2000500@satx.rr.com> <7AAE801D-D37F-44A1-B6A3-A2521E154BC4@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <212510.91828.qm@web65608.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Rafal Smigrodzki > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 9:29:37 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum >Non-Locality and Uncertainty. > > Just for the record, I am completely boggled by the Copenhagen > interpretation - it appears to be such absolute nonsense that I can't > understand why it was proposed in the first place, why it was > accepted, and why only 50% of physicists have so far have rejected it. > One thing I don't understand about many worlds which so cleanly > explains the double slit experiment is why it triggers an emotional > rejection reaction in so many people. In MWI, the universe splits to allow for all possible outcomes of an experiment to occur in their own respective?universes. This implies that if you were to perform an experiment to determine if either MWI or the Copenhagen interpretation?was the correct interpretation of QM, then in at least?one of the universes, Copehagen?would be correct.??? Stuart LaForge "There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower From ryanobjc at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 02:22:39 2010 From: ryanobjc at gmail.com (Ryan Rawson) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:22:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The tyranny of context free grammars In-Reply-To: <20101207200142.GP9434@leitl.org> References: <20101207200142.GP9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: I was merely pointing out the downfall of a context-ful grammar, since the original poster makes it seem like "if only we shed the shackles of CFGs we'd be better for it". There is a dark side of that though, and perl is one of them... I've written a few thousand lines of perl, it's great for hacking things out, but trying to re-discover what you coded a few weeks/months/years ago can be... difficult. I also noted that Dijkstra noted that there is strength in formalisms that seem simple but allow people to do much more complex things. >From his article, we probably don't want to go back to arguing algebra without the symbolism. That is what context free grammars (CFGs as I have been saying) deliver - simplicity at the base level, but anyone who knows languages like haskell, lisp, etc know that complexity abounds and amazing things can happen. I was particularly enthused by the 'list processing module' tidbits from Kurzweil's talk at the singularity summit this summer here in SF. I haven't spent any time on it though. -ryan On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:13:03AM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: > >> I agree with Ryan that Perl (and Forth) are nearly impossible to > > It is quite possible to write very readable, verbose Perl. > It is also quite possible to write extremely terse, incomprehensible > Perl. > > Forth isn't really a good comparison, because you typically implement > a DSL in Forth, which then can have arbitrary syntax. > > Consider the following Forth sources written for this minimal > CPU (defined in VeriLog: > http://excamera.com/files/j1demo/verilog/j1.v ) > > This implements the basic Forth words from primitives: > http://excamera.com/files/j1demo/docforth/basewords.fs.html > > This is an Ethernet driver: > http://excamera.com/files/j1demo/docforth/eth-ax88796.fs.html > > ARP: http://excamera.com/files/j1demo/docforth/arp.fs.html > > IP: http://excamera.com/files/j1demo/docforth/ip.fs.html > > UDP: http://excamera.com/files/j1demo/docforth/udp.fs.html > > etc, see http://excamera.com/sphinx/fpga-j1.html > >> maintain. ?That's because it's nearly impossible to read code and >> figure out what it does. > > Only if the programmer is trying to be too clever for their > own good. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A ?7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From agrimes at speakeasy.net Wed Dec 8 03:14:22 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 22:14:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The tyranny of context free grammars In-Reply-To: References: <20101207200142.GP9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4CFEF80E.50308@speakeasy.net> Ryan Rawson wrote: > was merely pointing out the downfall of a context-ful grammar, since > the original poster makes it seem like "if only we shed the shackles > of CFGs we'd be better for it". There is a dark side of that though, > and perl is one of them... I've written a few thousand lines of perl, > it's great for hacking things out, but trying to re-discover what you > coded a few weeks/months/years ago can be... difficult. Not quite. I was pointing out that the paradigm of the chomsky heirarchy is limiting in that it has failed to provide us with the tools we need to design software for CAM architectures which would seem to enable, with today's technology, several orders of magnitude more performance per transistor than is possible with von-neuman machines because millions of bits could be computed per clock cycle instead of a few thousand... Of course there could be problems with the idea of the cellular automata as being an optimal computing architecture. In any event, computronium is not just a fabrication issue, it's also a computer science issue. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 12:22:49 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:22:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <20101207215103.GV9434@leitl.org> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <002501cb9563$ec6230b0$c5269210$@att.net> <20101207131457.GS9434@leitl.org> <20101207143856.GU9434@leitl.org> <20101207213447.GQ9434@leitl.org> <20101207215103.GV9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen: Thanks for this. Very useful information here, especially if I decide to leak something. :) Seriously though, thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed it. I learn a lot from people on this list. Darren On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 10:34:47PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > The people doing the hiding need only to install a piece of hardware. > > I usually don't bother self-correcting, but this one is of course software, > not hardware. (Though, of course, said software installed on disposable > hardware (aka plug computer) and installed in random, undocumented > locations adds some considerable mischief to the mix). > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Dec 8 16:47:45 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:47:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: <4CFE8DAD.6000302@satx.rr.com> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> <51D151A5-8F24-45E6-92CF-96D03E750F96@bellsouth.net> <4CFE77C7.7090609@satx.rr.com> <53B9FFB3-317F-4FE9-8BC2-F9FD8F3C73AA@bellsouth.net> <4CFE8DAD.6000302@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1866C35E-7486-42A0-A8EE-BD3A76075B49@bellsouth.net> On Dec 7, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > So a Cornell professor publishing a peer-reviewed paper in one of the most prestigious journals of his discipline The most prestigious in his discipline? That's a little like being the thinest kid at fat camp. > fails the test of being somebody you respect Yep. > simply because you don't like his results. Simply because his results are incredible, and not in the good sense. Simply because his experiment employes no new instruments or methods so with only slight variation it could have been employed in the 17th century. Simply because if this distinguished Cornell professor really did know the tail end of his gastrointestinal tract from a hole in the ground the existence of psi would have been demonstrated to everyone satisfaction 400 years ago, and it wasn't. Simply because I believe, and you do too apparently, that nobody worth a damn will successfully reproduce his results and Bem's work will have zero effect on the development of science or technology. > The term "barricaded prejudice" comes to mind. At this point you're just being ridiculous. Awaiting further replication is sensible; implying that Bem and the journal's reviewers and editors are liars and idiots is... not. I'm not implying that Bem and the journal's reviewers and editors are liars or idiots. I'm saying as overtly as I can that Bem and the journal's reviewers and editors are liars or idiots; and I think history will prove me correct just as it did the last time we had a similar conversation. But if you think I'm wrong this time you know how to make money off my error. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 8 17:01:45 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:01:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch Message-ID: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> A pal writes: This morning reading the news on my iPad, I noticed that SpaceX was going to launch their Falcon 9 rocket with the first flight of their Dragon cargo spacecraft in an hour. This launch is the first time a commercial company has a license to re-enter a spacecraft from orbit. I'd been to a Shuttle launch before back in 1983 (the first night launch), so I wondered what it would be like. Now I don't follow space activities that closely anymore, but I figured they would have a webcast and I was right. It was incredible. The launch was a beautiful explosion of light and sound. And the audio wasn't the polished NASA media speak. It felt real. Within 5 min of launch, the first stage separated and the video from the rocket showed the curve of the Earth in space. It was like I was on the rocket being lifted off into orbit peering out the porthole. I felt like I was an old time rocketeer who had just gone out to the space port to watch the rockets take off on lazy sunday afternoon. Kinda like the thrill that I imagined in all those 1950s SF stories. Private companies launching rockets almost to the point of becoming routine. Fiction become reality. Thanks to all the SF writers and their imaginations who inspired these people (and many others) to dream big. We're getting there. Not in the way I imagined, nor as quickly, but better with the internet as we can all observe. Now I'm off to see if they are going to webcast the re-entry in a couple of hours. =========== Some video at From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Dec 8 16:57:35 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:57:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative LinkBetween Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <201012072340.oB7NeJmm020289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201012072340.oB7NeJmm020289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <4DB84E9D-C724-415D-95E4-68468BE564C5@bellsouth.net> spike wrote: > >> > we know god is a bastard But god is real, unless declared an integer. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed Dec 8 17:16:31 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:16:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] SpaceX Falcon on orbit? Message-ID: <42103.27905.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Seems like they launched successfully a few minutes ago. Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 8 17:52:36 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:52:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative LinkBetween Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <4DB84E9D-C724-415D-95E4-68468BE564C5@bellsouth.net> References: <201012072340.oB7NeJmm020289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4DB84E9D-C724-415D-95E4-68468BE564C5@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <007801cb9700$b374edd0$1a5ec970$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 8:58 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative LinkBetween Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. spike wrote: we know god is a bastard But god is real, unless declared an integer. John K Clark That bastards who invented that system should be scorned. In mathematics, all integers are real. Computer science should not have used that terminology. The use of the term integer is OK, but instead of real, the floating point variable should have been called. floating point, or decimal or EE or something besides real. Real is taken. Computer science is filled with mathematical ugliness. Consider the command X = X+1 Aaaarg! To a mathematics fan, it just looks wrong and ugly. It is = abuse. It implies that 1=0. We know it is shorthand, and actually means X(t+1) = X(t) + 1 but I have never liked the shorthand version of it. The FORTRAN guys set the precedent, which messed up a lot of later computer languages. They should have used the <- symbol as ADA does, instead of the =, because dammit, = is sacred! When you see = that means the stuff on the left of that = is the same as the stuff on the right! = is powerful! It forms the basis for =ity, which is good. = should always = = and only =. Otherwise it sounds like ".depends on what your definition of is is." Well, is is is, and = = =! = is is! Is = =! I = }8-[ about integer not = real. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Wed Dec 8 17:59:14 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:59:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Damien wrote: >The launch was a beautiful explosion of light and sound. And the audio >wasn't the polished NASA media speak. It felt real. I heard about it in time to watch the feed from SpaceX. I love that the launch was delayed a day by a crack in a nozzle that they fixed by trimming the nozzle 4". Imagine the launch delay if this had been NASA. Only downside was the propulsion engineer who looked like he'd stepped out of a 1980s porn movie. Next question is whether it splashes down without incident. -- David. From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 8 19:23:52 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 13:23:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: <1866C35E-7486-42A0-A8EE-BD3A76075B49@bellsouth.net> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> <51D151A5-8F24-45E6-92CF-96D03E750F96@bellsouth.net> <4CFE77C7.7090609@satx.rr.com> <53B9FFB3-317F-4FE9-8BC2-F9FD8F3C73AA@bellsouth.net> <4CFE8DAD.6000302@satx.rr.com> <1866C35E-7486-42A0-A8EE-BD3A76075B49@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CFFDB48.1030203@satx.rr.com> On 12/8/2010 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote: > I'm not implying that Bem and the journal's reviewers and editors are > liars or idiots. I'm saying as overtly as I can that Bem and > the journal's reviewers and editors are liars or idiots; and I think > history will prove me correct just as it did the last time we had a > similar conversation. But if you think I'm wrong this time you know how > to make money off my error. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect you've just provided Professor Bem with an opportunity to make money from you. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 8 19:13:07 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:13:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <009601cb970b$f2d411d0$d87c3570$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of David Lubkin ... >...Only downside was the propulsion engineer who looked like he'd stepped out of a 1980s porn movie.-- David. I don't understand, why is that the *down* side? I can imagine some 80s porn star looking at him or herself in the mirror after a hard day's night and moaning, Ah Jeez, I looked like stepped out of some 2010 propulsion engineering job. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 8 19:31:58 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 13:31:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: <53B9FFB3-317F-4FE9-8BC2-F9FD8F3C73AA@bellsouth.net> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> <51D151A5-8F24-45E6-92CF-96D03E750F96@bellsouth.net> <4CFE77C7.7090609@satx.rr.com> <53B9FFB3-317F-4FE9-8BC2-F9FD8F3C73AA@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CFFDD2E.7040309@satx.rr.com> On 12/7/2010 12:44 PM, John Clark wrote: > I recall that well over a decade ago you urged me to read some other > long forgotten psi experiment that was hot at the time, I don't recall > my exact response but it was along the lines of that it would be a > complete waste of time and I'd rather watch paint dry. Time has proven > my judgment correct as that experiment has entered the black hole of > oblivion, John, I don't recall what this was, and my computers have suffered terrible atrocities since then. Since I understand that you still have a complete file of old ExI posts, could you retrieve that and let me know which psi experiment you're talking about? I'm guessing it would be a physiological presentiment experiment of the same general kind that Bem works with now, and if so it certainly hasn't vanished into oblivion, it's part of the growing body of empirical evidence for this effect. If it is, Bem's paper is just the kind of replication of the effect that you denied would ever be published in a serious peer reviewed scientific journal. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 8 19:48:37 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:48:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <009a01cb9710$e7bbb320$b7331960$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of David Lubkin... >...I love that the launch was delayed a day by a crack in a nozzle that they fixed by trimming the nozzle 4"... This is a perfectly reasonable way to deal with this kind of problem. Experiment: take a piece of paper, make a 3 inch tear, take hold either side of the tear and pull apart. Note how little force it takes to increase the length of the tear. This is kinda analogous to crack propagation by stress concentration. Aluminum is especially bad for this. Now cut 4 inches off to completely take away the tear, making sure to include the end of the tear where the stress concentration was. Now take either side and pull, note how much force is required to start a new tear. Cutting 4" off the nozzle would reduce its performance some, cost ya a few percent, since the exhaust would be more underexpanded on exit (which sounds like a contradiction in terms) but the nozzle would still work. You just need to have had enough margin to start with. >... Imagine the launch delay if this had been NASA... Ja. NASA seldom went with the poor man's approach to anything. In the nozzle example, they sometimes used nozzles which circulated cryo-fuels thru the nozzle itself, which heated and turned the fuel to gas before injecting into the combustion chamber, while cooling the nozzle simultaneously. Cooool, high performance, but a very expensive approach, and of course if you get a crack anywhere in that kind of nozzle it is unlikely to be repairable, so that one goes to the scrap heap, which is already piled high with expensive hardware. If you ever get a chance to see 60s era NASA space hardware, you will marvel at how high techy everything is. The term gold-plated is an understatement: they actually used 20 karat gold as solder in a bunch of their circuit boards. Makes beautiful hardware, do let me assure you, but that approach is expensive as all hell. I am happy to see alternatives coming up. Good luck and nobodyspeed SpaceX! {8-] spike From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Dec 8 19:42:01 2010 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:42:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative LinkBetween Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <007801cb9700$b374edd0$1a5ec970$@att.net> References: <201012072340.oB7NeJmm020289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4DB84E9D-C724-415D-95E4-68468BE564C5@bellsouth.net> <007801cb9700$b374edd0$1a5ec970$@att.net> Message-ID: > I = }8-[ about integer not = real. > > Thank you, spike! :) Regards, MB From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed Dec 8 20:06:12 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 12:06:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yahoo says it splashed down and was recovered. Regards, Dan From: David Lubkin To: ExI chat list Sent: Wed, December 8, 2010 12:59:14 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] SpaceX launch Damien wrote: >The launch was a beautiful explosion of light and sound.? And the audio >wasn't the polished NASA media speak.? It felt real. I heard about it in time to watch the feed from SpaceX. I love that the launch was delayed a day by a crack in a nozzle that they fixed by trimming the nozzle 4". Imagine the launch delay if this had been NASA. Only downside was the propulsion engineer who looked like he'd stepped out of a 1980s porn movie. Next question is whether it splashes down without incident. -- David. _______________________________________________ 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 lubkin at unreasonable.com Wed Dec 8 21:54:01 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:54:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Dan wrote: >Yahoo says it splashed down and was recovered. I just watched the press conference with Musk et al on NASA TV. Everything worked better than they'd planned. 17 of 18 engines were fine, 1 burbled. 1 of 3 chutes needed to land, but all worked. Wanted to land within 10 km of target, looks like it was 800 m. All comm systems worked. Landed within 50 seconds of pre-launch prediction. Heat shields designed for Mars or lunar re-entry; heated to 1% of capacity. Launched a micro-sat for the Army from the second stage (first Army launch in 50 years). Flight would have been nominal for passengers -- max 5G. NASA said if this went well, they'd okay the next flight going to the ISS; Musk expects this will happen. Only downside is that they didn't get the first stage, but he says that wasn't a mission goal. Coming soon -- LEM-style landing on helipad, retaining the fallback to parachute. -- David. From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 8 22:54:11 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:54:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] New Yorker article: The Truth Wears Off In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D000C93.3090603@satx.rr.com> anyone have access to the full text? Jonah Lehrer, Annals of Science, ?The Truth Wears Off,? The New Yorker, December 13, 2010, p. 52 Read the full text of this article in the digital edition. (Subscription required.) December 13, 2010 Issue ABSTRACT: ANNALS OF SCIENCE about the decline effect. On September 18, 2007, a few dozen neuroscientists, psychiatrists, and drug-company executives gathered in a hotel conference room in Brussels to hear some startling news. It had to do with a class of drugs known as atypical or second-generation antipsychotics, which came on the market in the early nineties. The therapeutic power of the drugs appeared to be steadily falling. A recent study showed an effect that was less than half of that documented in the first trials, in the early nineties. Before the effectiveness of a drug can be confirmed, it must be tested again and again. The test of replicability, as it?s known, is the foundation of modern research. It?s a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It?s as if our facts are losing their truth. This phenomenon doesn?t yet have an official name, but it?s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology. When Jonathan Schooler was a graduate student at the University of Washington, he discovered a surprising phenomenon having to do with language and memory that he called verbal overshadowing. While Schooler was publishing his results in journals, he noticed that it was proving difficult to replicate his earlier findings. Mentions psychologist Joseph Banks Rhine, who conducted several experiments dealing with E.S.P. In 2004, Schooler embarked on an imitation of Rhine?s research in an attempt to test the decline effect. The most likely explanation for the decline is an obvious one: regression to the mean. Yet the effect?s ubiquity seems to violate the laws of statistics. Describes Anders M?ller?s discovery of the theory of fluctuating asymmetry in sexual selection. Mentions Leigh Simmons and Theodore Sterling. Biologist Michael Jennions argues that the decline effect is largely a product of publication bias. Biologist Richard Palmer suspects that an equally significant issue is the selective reporting of results?that is, the subtle omissions and unconscious misperceptions, as researchers struggle to make sense of their results. Mentions John Ioannidis. In the late nineteen-nineties, neuroscientist John Crabbe investigated the impact of unknown chance events on the test of replicability. The disturbing implication of his study is that a lot of extraordinary scientific data is nothing but noise. This suggests that the decline effect is actually a decline of illusion. Many scientific theories continue to be considered true even after failing numerous experimental tests. The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer#ixzz17Yvyi1Kl -- From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Dec 8 23:27:15 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:27:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] New Yorker article: The Truth Wears Off In-Reply-To: <4D000C93.3090603@satx.rr.com> References: <4D000C93.3090603@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20101208182715.23ykllu0lc8wgscs@webmail.natasha.cc> Thanks for posting this. N Quoting Damien Broderick : > anyone have access to the full text? > > > Jonah Lehrer, Annals of Science, ?The Truth Wears Off,? The New Yorker, > December 13, 2010, p. 52 > Read the full text of this article in the digital edition. > (Subscription required.) > December 13, 2010 Issue > > ABSTRACT: ANNALS OF SCIENCE about the decline effect. On September 18, > 2007, a few dozen neuroscientists, psychiatrists, and drug-company > executives gathered in a hotel conference room in Brussels to hear some > startling news. It had to do with a class of drugs known as atypical or > second-generation antipsychotics, which came on the market in the early > nineties. The therapeutic power of the drugs appeared to be steadily > falling. A recent study showed an effect that was less than half of > that documented in the first trials, in the early nineties. Before the > effectiveness of a drug can be confirmed, it must be tested again and > again. The test of replicability, as it?s known, is the foundation of > modern research. It?s a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. But > now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have > started to look increasingly uncertain. It?s as if our facts are losing > their truth. This phenomenon doesn?t yet have an official name, but > it?s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to > ecology. When Jonathan Schooler was a graduate student at the > University of Washington, he discovered a surprising phenomenon having > to do with language and memory that he called verbal overshadowing. > While Schooler was publishing his results in journals, he noticed that > it was proving difficult to replicate his earlier findings. Mentions > psychologist Joseph Banks Rhine, who conducted several experiments > dealing with E.S.P. In 2004, Schooler embarked on an imitation of > Rhine?s research in an attempt to test the decline effect. The most > likely explanation for the decline is an obvious one: regression to the > mean. Yet the effect?s ubiquity seems to violate the laws of > statistics. Describes Anders M?ller?s discovery of the theory of > fluctuating asymmetry in sexual selection. Mentions Leigh Simmons and > Theodore Sterling. Biologist Michael Jennions argues that the decline > effect is largely a product of publication bias. Biologist Richard > Palmer suspects that an equally significant issue is the selective > reporting of results?that is, the subtle omissions and unconscious > misperceptions, as researchers struggle to make sense of their results. > Mentions John Ioannidis. In the late nineteen-nineties, neuroscientist > John Crabbe investigated the impact of unknown chance events on the > test of replicability. The disturbing implication of his study is that > a lot of extraordinary scientific data is nothing but noise. This > suggests that the decline effect is actually a decline of illusion. > Many scientific theories continue to be considered true even after > failing numerous experimental tests. The decline effect is troubling > because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. > > > Read more > http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer#ixzz17Yvyi1Kl > > > > > > > -- > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pharos at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 23:37:43 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:37:43 +0000 Subject: [ExI] New Yorker article: The Truth Wears Off In-Reply-To: <4D000C93.3090603@satx.rr.com> References: <4D000C93.3090603@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > anyone have access to the full text? > > > Jonah Lehrer, Annals of Science, ?The Truth Wears Off,? The New Yorker, > Ask and ye shall receive........ BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 9 01:18:22 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:18:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] New Yorker article: The Truth Wears Off In-Reply-To: References: <4D000C93.3090603@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4D002E5E.8080000@satx.rr.com> On 12/8/2010 5:37 PM, BillK wrote: > Ask and ye shall receive........ Triffic, thanks! From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 9 02:58:34 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 18:58:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] New Yorker article: The Truth Wears Off In-Reply-To: References: <4D000C93.3090603@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <003601cb974c$f8892fc0$e99b8f40$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] New Yorker article: The Truth Wears Off On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > anyone have access to the full text? > >> Jonah Lehrer, Annals of Science, "The Truth Wears Off," The New Yorker, > >Ask and ye shall receive... BillK Is it not a remarkable coincidence that the efficacy of any medication tends to decline in such a way that it reaches zero at the exact moment the patent on that medication expires. Fortunately, there is always a new medication with a fresh patent, that appears to be miraculously effective in treating whatever malady the now-defunct medication once cured. spike From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 12:43:29 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:43:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] META: Finance: USAians - Get your property tax appeal in quick! Message-ID: Tax Appeals Swamp U.S. Cities, Towns as Property Prices Plunge A fiscal flood that threatens to swamp local government budgets across the U.S. overflows from file cabinets in the office of Patty Halm, chair of the Michigan Tax Tribunal. The backlog of cases from taxpayers seeking to lower property-tax bills of more than $100,000 shot up to 14,236 this year from an annual average of about 6,000 during the past decade. The backlog of smaller claims was at 28,558 at the end of September, eight times higher than a decade ago, according to records at the tribunal, a Lansing-based administrative court. BillK From lubkin at unreasonable.com Thu Dec 9 13:31:01 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 08:31:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks. In-Reply-To: <279265.83714.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <279265.83714.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <201012091330.oB9DU46j029693@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Dan wrote: >Reminds me of that saying about "six degrees of separation." There's an interesting question here. We talk about dangerous ideas. There are people here, or who used to be here, or who are sufficiently linked to us, who do things. Now it's Assange. Last year, I noted that I was in several future-tech groups in LinkedIn with Russian spy Anna Chapman. Tim May was a regular back when, and seems to have gone off the bend. Of course, Keith has had his ... challenges with the Elron crowd. And much of what we discuss is deeply threatening to (shall we say) neo-Luddites. Not that it's just here. Joel Rosenberg from my SFWA world was recently arrested for carrying guns into a courthouse (a deliberate act of civil disobedience; he posted a video on YouTube). And some of the players in the TSA screening furor are libertarian activists, a degree away from being guests at my parties. Since some of us have known each other for thirty years or more, we're not likely to be untangleable. Natasha was concerned enough about our affecting Alcor last year to nix discussion here. I'm not going anywhere, but I have a nagging suspicion about whose enemies lists we might be on. -- David. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 9 13:17:20 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 05:17:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] PSI, PSI*, and Psi Message-ID: <625847.26314.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html While I myself?had, during my college classes, been indoctrinated into the?"shut up and calculate" school of quantum mechanics,?here is a description of an interpretation of quantum mechanics that does stimulate?my imagination. I find it more parsimonious than the many worlds interpretation and it certainly is an improvement over the Copenhagen interpretation because?it gives me a mental picture of what's going on without offending my?credulity,?the way MWI does. It explains?amongst other things,?where the Born rule comes from and also explains what PSI* is. As I was?educated by standard academia on the subject of QM, ?PSI* was always explained simply?as the complex conjugate of PSI, the wave equation, and we had to keep track of it because we used it to calculate the probability?of a particular quantum state which was equal?PSI X PSI*.?Never did anyone explain why PSI* is important in the mathematical formalism of QM?other than as a mathematical trick to convert a complex numbered?probability amplitude into a real numbered probability. In the transactional interpretation, PSI* is the?equation of the "confirmation wave"?which is?a wave propagating backward in time (an advanced wave)?from the absorber of a quantum of energy to the emitter of a quantum of energy. While the normal PSI is the "offer wave" propagating forward in time (a retarded wave) from the emitter to the absorber. If the phases of the?offer wave and the conformation wave contructively interfere, you get a "transaction"?that is an event where?a?quantum of energy is transfererred from the emitter to the absorber. It turns out that electromagnetic?waves propagating backwards in time were part of the mathematical formalism of physics as far back as Maxwell's equations where the?terms "advanced waves" and "retarded waves" were coined. It just so happened that physicists of Maxwell's era would simply discard the advanced waves as meaningless mathematical artifacts. While?advanced waves don't show up in solutions to the standard?Shrodinger's equation, which were largely time independant, they do show up in Dirac's?relativistic QM equations. I am still trying to wrap my head around?this particular interpretation but it is noteworthy that the perception of?advanced waves might be?the elusive?mechanism by which?the paranormal phenomenon of Psi manifests itself. I mean, it wouldn't be the first time that the math knew more about what's going on than the physicist. Just think of the?cosmological constant and Einstein's self-admitted biggest blunder.???? ?Stuart LaForge "There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower From lubkin at unreasonable.com Thu Dec 9 13:43:21 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 08:43:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <001d01cb94ad$891fb240$9b5f16c0$@att.net> References: <001d01cb94ad$891fb240$9b5f16c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <201012091342.oB9DgQA0015968@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Spike wrote: >Ja, and it feels to me like they blame the wrong guy. Everywhere it >is Assange this and Assange that, but they shoot the >messenger. More guilty is PFC Manning, but even then, the real >leakers are those who put anything potentially damaging on any >network that had computers with a flash drive anywhere in the system. There are two aspects, which both need to be safeguarded. Can you access secure information and can you remove it from the secure location? There needs to be both technical and human monitoring, appropriate to the information being protected. Safeguarding against this was already old tech thirty years ago. Limit what people have access to. Log what they do access. Raise a flag if they're trying to do more than they should be. In this case, the bare fact of the leaks means that someone (presumably PFC Manning) *did* access enough material that, even if it was part of his job, a security event should have triggered that mandated prompt alerting of and then review by a security officer. He did get it out from his secure workspace, whether by removable media or by network. And he did slip through the safeguards that are supposed to weed out people who will pass along classified information. -- David. From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 9 13:56:05 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:56:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks. In-Reply-To: <201012091330.oB9DU46j029693@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <279265.83714.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012091330.oB9DU46j029693@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20101209135605.GP9434@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:31:01AM -0500, David Lubkin wrote: > I'm not going anywhere, but I have a nagging suspicion about whose > enemies lists we might be on. It's pretty well known that TLAs do FOAF network clustering, and of course if persecution level is dialed up sufficiently high such lists act as a self denial of service, which would be self defeating, unless you're into tabula rasa approaches a la Mr. Dzhugashvili. And these typically take some setup time, so there's plenty of warning. So apart from nutters, which are rare, I wouldn't worry too much. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 14:44:40 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:44:40 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <201012091342.oB9DgQA0015968@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <001d01cb94ad$891fb240$9b5f16c0$@att.net> <201012091342.oB9DgQA0015968@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:43 PM, David Lubkin wrote: > There are two aspects, which both need to be safeguarded. Can you access > secure information and can you remove it from the secure location? There > needs to be both technical and human monitoring, appropriate to the > information being protected. > > Safeguarding against this was already old tech thirty years ago. Limit what > people have access to. Log what they do access. Raise a flag if they're > trying to do more than they should be. > > In this case, the bare fact of the leaks means that someone (presumably PFC > Manning) *did* access enough material that, even if it was part of his job, > a security event should have triggered that mandated prompt alerting of and > then review by a security officer. He did get it out from his secure > workspace, whether by removable media or by network. And he did slip > through the safeguards that are supposed to weed out people who will pass > along classified information. > > The problem is that in the internet age security is actually a very hard problem. All large organisations are struggling to solve this problem. And organisations don't come much larger than the US government. Manning accessed SIPRNet. Quote: A 1993 GAO report estimated more than 3 million US military and civilian personnel had clearance, and access is also available to a "...small pool of trusted allies, including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand...". ------- So, try and secure that! Not only US computers, but allies computers as well. The big problem with role-based security is that staff roles change all the time. And it is difficult to decide what level the 'need to know' stops at. So most organisations give people more clearance than they need, 'just in case'. Staff regard security as an obstacle to doing their job and quickly find ways to bypass security measures that get in their way. Everything from holding the security door open, to passwords stuck on the screen, to 'Can I borrow your signon for this job?' If you want a hopeful spin on all this, it is that perhaps the US government will adopt the 'Don't be evil' motto. If you don't behave badly then you don't have to worry if your security fails. And, of course, if you don't behave in ways that make people despise or hate you, this is an additional security measure because then your staff won't be motivated to harm or expose your misdeeds. BillK From bbenzai at yahoo.com Thu Dec 9 14:40:23 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 06:40:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <504936.9234.qm@web114404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> "spike" frothed: > Computer science is filled with mathematical > ugliness.? Consider the command > > X = X+1 > > Aaaarg! > > To a mathematics fan, it just looks wrong and ugly.? > It is = abuse.? It > implies that 1=0.? > > We know it is shorthand, and actually means > > X(t+1) = X(t) + 1 > ... > dammit, = is sacred!? When you see = that means the > stuff on the left of > that = is the same as the stuff on the right! In maths, yes. In programming, no. OK, some programming languages are worse than others, but in most of the decent ones, = means only one thing, assignment, and == means the stuff on the left is equal to the stuff on the right, but it's still not the same as maths equality, because it can be true or false. In maths, it's only allowed to be true. I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. It's not maths. It's an instruction, not a description. And you're using an example from a pretty awful language, as well. X++ is a better example. That can't be confused with any mathematical statement (afaik). I don't understand what X(t+1) = X(t) + 1 is, or what it has to do with the operation of adding one to X. In maths, its a valid statement, in programming, its not. >? = is > powerful!? It forms the > basis for =ity, which is good.? = should always = = > and only =.? Otherwise > it sounds like ".depends on what your definition of is is." It depends on the context you are using it in, as does everything else. You might as well complain that psychologists are misusing the term 'positive' because positive people don't attract negatively-charged objects. > is is is, and = = =! = is is! Is = =! but = != != :>> Ben Zaiboc From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Dec 9 14:28:46 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 06:28:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <982457.58240.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks for the update. It sounds like an all around success. What I'm really waiting to see is private launcher to a private space station -- not a private launcher that's merely another government contractor. Regards, Dan From: David Lubkin To: ExI chat list Sent: Wed, December 8, 2010 4:54:01 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] SpaceX launch Dan wrote: > Yahoo says it splashed down and was recovered. I just watched the press conference with Musk et al on NASA TV. Everything worked better than they'd planned. 17 of 18 engines were fine, 1 burbled. 1 of 3 chutes needed to land, but all worked. Wanted to land within 10 km of target, looks like it was 800 m. All comm systems worked. Landed within 50 seconds of pre-launch prediction. Heat shields designed for Mars or lunar re-entry; heated to 1% of capacity. Launched a micro-sat for the Army from the second stage (first Army launch in 50 years). Flight would have been nominal for passengers -- max 5G. NASA said if this went well, they'd okay the next flight going to the ISS; Musk expects this will happen. Only downside is that they didn't get the first stage, but he says that wasn't a mission goal. Coming soon -- LEM-style landing on helipad, retaining the fallback to parachute. -- David. _______________________________________________ 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 lubkin at unreasonable.com Thu Dec 9 15:09:43 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:09:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks. In-Reply-To: <20101209135605.GP9434@leitl.org> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <279265.83714.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012091330.oB9DU46j029693@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20101209135605.GP9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <201012091508.oB9F8jgK011255@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Eugen wrote: >So apart from nutters, which are rare, I wouldn't worry too much. As I noted, our friends (e.g., Keith) have already attracted the attention of nutters who keep enemies lists, so it's not all that rare. I'm personally less concerned about governmental TLAs. I was working with classified material when I was twelve, so it's really late for me to avoid being in someone's file. -- David. From anders at aleph.se Thu Dec 9 14:49:33 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:49:33 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks. In-Reply-To: <20101209135605.GP9434@leitl.org> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <279265.83714.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012091330.oB9DU46j029693@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20101209135605.GP9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4D00EC7D.9080303@aleph.se> Eugen Leitl wrote: > > It's pretty well known that TLAs do FOAF network clustering, > and of course if persecution level is dialed up sufficiently high > such lists act as a self denial of service, which would be self > defeating, unless you're into tabula rasa approaches a la > Mr. Dzhugashvili. And these typically take some setup time, > so there's plenty of warning. > I wonder how sensitive these algorithms are to salting? Suppose each of us joins a randomly selected sinister group/mailinglist, or a random group in general, what would that do to the network clustering? From what I know of network clustering algorithms, this could mess up statistics with noise fairly well. Of course, TLAs and network sociologists are working on robust estimators and pattern finding. But even against robust algorithms, in some data mining domains it is known that an aware enemy can mess up classification (even when the algorithm is unknown). It is fun to run this kind of network analysis. One can use it against one's enemies too - I am somewhat worried about "DIY illuminati software" making it so easy to mine and attack social networks that we get a lot of social noise. > So apart from nutters, which are rare, I wouldn't worry too much No, nutters are common. It is just that most of they do not matter. (proud recipient of two crazy missives today) -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 9 15:21:45 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:21:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: <001d01cb94ad$891fb240$9b5f16c0$@att.net> <201012091342.oB9DgQA0015968@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20101209152145.GX9434@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 02:44:40PM +0000, BillK wrote: > The problem is that in the internet age security is actually a very > hard problem. The Internet has nothing to do with it. > All large organisations are struggling to solve this problem. > And organisations don't come much larger than the US government. > > Manning accessed SIPRNet. Which is not top-secret (nevermind higher classification), so really nothing to see here, move along. Still enough egg on collective faces to be pulled the plug on. The network is down, but the practices continue. > > Quote: > A 1993 GAO report estimated more than 3 million US military and > civilian personnel had clearance, and access is also available to a > "...small pool of trusted allies, including Australia, Canada, the > United Kingdom and New Zealand...". > ------- > > So, try and secure that! Not only US computers, but allies computers as well. Typically you compartmentalize by need to know basis. You can use smart tokes for authentication and serve information keyed to said token, and use secure terminals in secure location. It is also easy to log access, lock out on recognized access patterns, introduce watermarks to each analyst account. Just because it has not been done in this case it doesn't mean it can't be done. > The big problem with role-based security is that staff roles change > all the time. And it is difficult to decide what level the 'need to If you don't revoke access when the role changed than you know what you're doing wrong (or right) already. > know' stops at. So most organisations give people more clearance than > they need, 'just in case'. Spooks are not most organisations. > Staff regard security as an obstacle to doing their job and quickly > find ways to bypass security measures that get in their way. You know what do with such staff. > Everything from holding the security door open, to passwords stuck on > the screen, to 'Can I borrow your signon for this job?' In some places, that's a firing offense. Of the court-martial firing-squad kind. > If you want a hopeful spin on all this, it is that perhaps the US > government will adopt the 'Don't be evil' motto. If you don't behave You're really funny. > badly then you don't have to worry if your security fails. And, of > course, if you don't behave in ways that make people despise or hate > you, this is an additional security measure because then your staff > won't be motivated to harm or expose your misdeeds. The world doesn't work that way. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From giulio at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 14:41:01 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 15:41:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] New Yorker article: The Truth Wears Off In-Reply-To: <003601cb974c$f8892fc0$e99b8f40$@att.net> References: <4D000C93.3090603@satx.rr.com> <003601cb974c$f8892fc0$e99b8f40$@att.net> Message-ID: A very pragmatic, common sense and probably correct explanation of this effect. -- Giulio Prisco giulio at gmail.com (39)3387219799 On Dec 9, 2010 4:12 AM, "spike" wrote: ... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] New Yorker article: The Truth Wears Off On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > anyone have access to the full text? > >... Is it not a remarkable coincidence that the efficacy of any medication tends to decline in such a way that it reaches zero at the exact moment the patent on that medication expires. Fortunately, there is always a new medication with a fresh patent, that appears to be miraculously effective in treating whatever malady the now-defunct medication once cured. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 16:15:57 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:15:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Light Touch Brightens Nanotubes [Rice University] Message-ID: http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=15137 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Dec 9 16:04:17 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 11:04:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: <4CFFDB48.1030203@satx.rr.com> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> <51D151A5-8F24-45E6-92CF-96D03E750F96@bellsouth.net> <4CFE77C7.7090609@satx.rr.com> <53B9FFB3-317F-4FE9-8BC2-F9FD8F3C73AA@bellsouth.net> <4CFE8DAD.6000302@satx.rr.com> <1866C35E-7486-42A0-A8EE-BD3A76075B49@bellsouth.net> <4CFFDB48.1030203@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <526510F4-5333-43ED-A12E-115DB6255C0E@bellsouth.net> On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > >> I'm not implying that Bem and the journal's reviewers and editors are >> liars or idiots. I'm saying as overtly as I can that Bem and >> the journal's reviewers and editors are liars or idiots; and I think >> history will prove me correct just as it did the last time we had a >> similar conversation. But if you think I'm wrong this time you know how >> to make money off my error. > > I am not a lawyer, but I suspect you've just provided Professor Bem with an opportunity to make money from you. Given our idiotic legal system you could be right. James (The Amazing) Randi has been sued by Uri Geller many times for pointing out the obvious fact that the man was a fraud, and one time he even won; a court in Japan found Randi guilty not of libel but of "insult", in Japan it can be illegal to say something bad about someone even if its true. Science writer Simon Singh was sued for pointing out the obvious fact that Homeopathic medicine, drugs that have been diluted so much that not even one of the molecules could remain, could not work. Singe eventually won the case but not before paying out over a million dollars in legal bills and putting his writing career on hold for over a year. Astrologers have sued newspapers for saying it didn't work, and in Israel a politician of all people was convicted of pointing out on live television the obvious fact that a prominent local astrologer was a fake. The junk science people have learned how to use the legal system. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Thu Dec 9 16:51:55 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:51:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <20101209152145.GX9434@leitl.org> References: <001d01cb94ad$891fb240$9b5f16c0$@att.net> <201012091342.oB9DgQA0015968@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20101209152145.GX9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <201012091650.oB9Govpc015503@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Eugen wrote: > > Everything from holding the security door open, to passwords stuck on > > the screen, to 'Can I borrow your signon for this job?' > >In some places, that's a firing offense. Of the court-martial firing-squad >kind. Remember Feynman's stories about security at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project? Security lapses are still common, whether by Poobahs who think the rules don't apply to *them* or (particularly) engineers and scientists who prefer to ignore any rules that don't make sense to *them*. Part of the problem is that a typical security officer is a mockable dullard. >if you don't behave in ways that make people despise or hate >you, this is an additional security measure because then your staff >won't be motivated to harm or expose your misdeeds. As I recall, money was the universal solvent for intelligence recruitment. It was both a primary inducement and locked in people who'd initially been recruited on another basis (blackmail, ideology, etc.). -- David. From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 9 17:06:59 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:06:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <201012091342.oB9DgQA0015968@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <001d01cb94ad$891fb240$9b5f16c0$@att.net> <201012091342.oB9DgQA0015968@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <005a01cb97c3$7e7c3fc0$7b74bf40$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of David Lubkin Subject: Re: [ExI] Wikileaks Spike wrote: >>Ja, and it feels to me like they blame the wrong guy...the real leakers are those who >>put anything potentially damaging on any network that had computers >>with a flash drive anywhere in the system. >There are two aspects, which both need to be safeguarded. Can you access secure information and can you remove it from the secure location? There needs to be both technical and human monitoring, appropriate to the information being protected. >Safeguarding against this was already old tech thirty years ago. Limit what people have access to. Log what they do access. Raise a flag if they're trying to do more than they should be. >In this case, the bare fact of the leaks means that someone (presumably PFC Manning) *did* access enough material ... And he did slip through the safeguards that are supposed to weed out people who will pass along classified information. -- David. There is an interesting aspect of this which is consistently being overlooked in the mainstream press. *Any* info that can be downloaded on a flash drive is not legitimately classified info, even if it is improperly marked as such. If anyone put actual classified info on that kind of system, that person is in big trouble, and may lose their clearance. Any info on an open system like that cannot be verified as having not been corrupted. There is no control over what Assange or anyone else could have composed, deleted or inserted among apparent diplomatic posts. None of this material is of any value, and isn't worth the effort to comb thru it. spike From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 9 17:19:40 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:19:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks. In-Reply-To: <20101209135605.GP9434@leitl.org> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <279265.83714.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012091330.oB9DU46j029693@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20101209135605.GP9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <005b01cb97c5$43cf6d50$cb6e47f0$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl Subject: Re: [ExI] Wikileaks. On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:31:01AM -0500, David Lubkin wrote: >> I'm not going anywhere, but I have a nagging suspicion about whose enemies lists we might be on... >So apart from nutters, which are rare, I wouldn't worry too much.--Eugen* Leitl Hope you are right Eugen. I have been appalled to see in modern times *blasphemy* returning to the status of a crime in too many places, including the USA. Pakistan is trying to decide if it will hang a blasphemer. Good thing I don't live there. spike From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Dec 9 17:42:17 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:42:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] New Yorker article: The Truth Wears Off In-Reply-To: References: <4D000C93.3090603@satx.rr.com> <003601cb974c$f8892fc0$e99b8f40$@att.net> Message-ID: <617792.34179.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This seems similar to sports arenas. Before their built, those lobbying for them (the sports franchises, the building contractors, potential concession owners, etc.)?pull out all kinds of studies showing how the arena, to be built at public expense, is going to bring in more money to the community and pay for itself. But then, years later, when the same lobbying groups want to tear down the old arena and build a new one, they pull out all kinds of studies showing how the old?arena?actually cost the community money and shouldn't merely be repaired, but, of course, the newly proposed one will "bring in more money to the community and pay for itself." Yet few seen to recall these promises?were made the last time around. Regards, Dan From: Giulio Prisco To: ExI chat list Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 9:41:01 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] New Yorker article: The Truth Wears Off A very pragmatic, common sense and probably correct explanation of this effect. -- Giulio Prisco giulio at gmail.com (39)3387219799 On Dec 9, 2010 4:12 AM, "spike" wrote: > > >... On Behalf Of BillK >Subject: Re: [ExI] New Yorker article: The Truth Wears Off > >On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > anyone have access to >the full text? > >...Is it not a remarkable coincidence that the efficacy of any >medication tends >to decline in such a way that it reaches zero at the exact moment the patent >on that medication expires. ?Fortunately, there is always a new medication >with a fresh patent, that appears to be miraculously effective in treating >whatever malady the now-defunct medication once cured. > >spike > >_______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 17:26:03 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:26:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: <982457.58240.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <982457.58240.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: First, get a private space station. Until then, launching to what space station there is will have to suffice, so far as the launcher end of things is concerned. 2010/12/9 Dan : > Thanks for the update. It sounds like an all around success. > > What I'm really waiting to see is private launcher to a private space > station -- not a private launcher that's merely another government > contractor. > > Regards, > > Dan > From: David Lubkin > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Wed, December 8, 2010 4:54:01 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] SpaceX launch > > Dan wrote: > >> Yahoo says it splashed down and was recovered. > > I just watched the press conference with Musk et al on NASA TV. Everything > worked > better than they'd planned. 17 of 18 engines were fine, 1 burbled. 1 of 3 > chutes > needed to land, but all worked. Wanted to land within 10 km of target, looks > like it > was 800 m. All comm systems worked. Landed within 50 seconds of pre-launch > prediction. Heat shields designed for Mars or lunar re-entry; heated to 1% > of capacity. > Launched a micro-sat for the Army from the second stage (first Army launch > in 50 > years). Flight would have been nominal for passengers -- max 5G. NASA said > if this > went well, they'd okay the next flight going to the ISS; Musk expects this > will happen. > Only downside is that they didn't get the first stage, but he says that > wasn't a mission > goal. Coming soon -- LEM-style landing on helipad, retaining the fallback to > parachute. > > -- David. > _______________________________________________ > 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 9 18:27:35 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:27:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] PSI, PSI*, and Psi In-Reply-To: <625847.26314.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <625847.26314.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D011F97.5060109@satx.rr.com> On 12/9/2010 7:17 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > I am still trying to wrap my head around this particular interpretation but it > is noteworthy that the perception of advanced waves might be the > elusive mechanism by which the paranormal phenomenon of Psi manifests itself. It sounds as if the TI is new to you, Stuart. It seems to me that some TI version is the only way to make sense of the empirical world as I understand it (including presentiment, etc). But Cramer's approach has been critiqued in, e.g., Michael Price's Many World's FAQ: < 5) Transactional model [C]. Explicitly non-local. An imaginative theory, based on the Feynman-Wheeler absorber-emitter model of EM, in which advanced and retarded probability amplitudes combine into an atemporal "transaction" to form the Born probability density. It requires that the input and output states, as defined by an observer, act as emitters and absorbers respectively, but not any internal states (inside the "black box"), and, consequently, suffers from the familiar measurement problem of the Copenhagen interpretation. If the internal states did act as emitters/absorbers then the wavefunction would collapse, for example, around one of the double slits (an internal state) in the double slit experiment, destroying the observed interference fringes. In transaction terminology a transaction would form between the first single slit and one of the double slits and another transaction would form between the same double slit and the point on the screen where the photon lands. This never observed.> Damien Broderick From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 17:36:32 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 13:36:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks. In-Reply-To: <4D00EC7D.9080303@aleph.se> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <279265.83714.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012091330.oB9DU46j029693@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20101209135605.GP9434@leitl.org> <4D00EC7D.9080303@aleph.se> Message-ID: Anders wrote: >No, nutters are common. It is just that most of they do not matter. (proud recipient of two crazy missives today)< Since 2001 it's been very difficult to determine who may be nutters and who may not. Someone mentioned the likelihood of people on this group being on enemy lists (can't find the post now but I know I read it.) I can say from experience it doesn't take much to make them. After the U.S. invaded Iraq I began writing some unflattering essays on U.S. foreign and domestic security policy and published some of them in a book of essays released in 2005 in Canada. It was then that I began to notice some unusual traffic on my .ca website -- U.S. government agencies, including the FBI, were regularly crawling it. Hardly anyone read or bought that book, but someone apparently noticed it. I took the site down eventually. A few years later when living in California I became friends with an infamous gay pornographer who had been called by a Tuft's University professor in a lecture on 21st century morality "the embodiment of the post-human." Because of this friendship, I again went on the U.S. intelligence radar. I am now the proud owner of an FBI file. I would not even have known this much if I hadn't been introduced in San Francisco to an ex-FBI agent who was a friend of a friend. I really don't understand the world of intelligence and enemy lists and national security anyway. The lines between what is considered subversive activity, and even thinking, and what is civically acceptable are so blurred that the whole thing has become one big, sinister mess. It was easier in the old days, when you could be black-listed for carrying a copy of Das Capital across the border but the kind of sex you preferred would only affect your chances for getting elected to public office. Darren On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Eugen Leitl wrote: > >> >> It's pretty well known that TLAs do FOAF network clustering, >> and of course if persecution level is dialed up sufficiently high >> such lists act as a self denial of service, which would be self >> defeating, unless you're into tabula rasa approaches a la >> Mr. Dzhugashvili. And these typically take some setup time, >> so there's plenty of warning. >> >> > > I wonder how sensitive these algorithms are to salting? Suppose each of us > joins a randomly selected sinister group/mailinglist, or a random group in > general, what would that do to the network clustering? From what I know of > network clustering algorithms, this could mess up statistics with noise > fairly well. Of course, TLAs and network sociologists are working on robust > estimators and pattern finding. But even against robust algorithms, in some > data mining domains it is known that an aware enemy can mess up > classification (even when the algorithm is unknown). > > It is fun to run this kind of network analysis. One can use it against > one's enemies too - I am somewhat worried about "DIY illuminati software" > making it so easy to mine and attack social networks that we get a lot of > social noise. > > > So apart from nutters, which are rare, I wouldn't worry too much >> > > No, nutters are common. It is just that most of they do not matter. (proud > recipient of two crazy missives today) > > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Future of Humanity Institute > Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 9 19:45:52 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:45:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] New Yorker article: The Truth Wears Off In-Reply-To: References: <4D000C93.3090603@satx.rr.com> <003601cb974c$f8892fc0$e99b8f40$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D0131F0.5010206@satx.rr.com> >> On Dec 9, 2010 4:12 AM, "spike" > Is it not a remarkable coincidence that the efficacy of any medication >> tends to decline in such a way that it reaches zero at the exact moment the >> patent on that medication expires. On 12/9/2010 8:41 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > A very pragmatic, common sense and probably correct explanation of this > effect. It's hard to see how that applies to most of the cases mentioned in the article under discussion, and the attempted generalization from Dr. Schooler's findings. Does corporate manipulation really explain why observed symmetry in barn swallows declines over time? Why "a wide range of subjects in ecology and evolutionary biology" shows decline effects (according to the article)? Damien Broderick From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Dec 9 20:46:00 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:46:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks. In-Reply-To: References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <279265.83714.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012091330.oB9DU46j029693@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20101209135605.GP9434@leitl.org> <4D00EC7D.9080303@aleph.se> Message-ID: <612553.76224.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I don't think that's true. Sexual preferences?have often been used to blackmail people -- and, in terms of security, has often been seen as a liability because someone might be blackmailed. In other words, if you were gay and in the closet, this might be seen as a way that foreign agents might manipulate you -- even if you were not, say, on their side ideologically, in their pay, or perhaps had a desire to change history. Regards, Dan From: Darren Greer To: ExI chat list Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 12:36:32 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Wikileaks. Anders wrote: >No, nutters are common. It is just that most of they do not matter. (proud >recipient of two crazy missives today)< > Since 2001 it's been very difficult to determine who may be nutters and who may not. Someone mentioned the likelihood of people on this group being on enemy lists (can't find the post now but I know I read it.) I can say from experience it doesn't take much to make them. After the U.S. invaded Iraq I began writing some unflattering essays on U.S. foreign and domestic security policy and published some of them in a book of essays released in 2005 in Canada. It was then that I began to notice some unusual traffic on my .ca website -- U.S. government agencies, including the FBI, were regularly crawling it. Hardly anyone read or bought that book, but someone apparently noticed it. I took the site down eventually. A few years later when living in California I became friends with an infamous gay pornographer who had been called by a Tuft's University professor in a lecture on 21st century morality "the embodiment of the post-human." Because of this friendship, I again went on the U.S. intelligence radar. I am now the proud owner of an FBI file. I would not even have known this much if I hadn't been introduced in San Francisco to an ex-FBI agent who was a friend of a friend. I really don't understand the world of intelligence and enemy lists and national security anyway. The lines between what is considered subversive activity, and even thinking, and what is civically acceptable are so blurred that the whole thing has become one big, sinister mess.? It was easier in the old days, when you could be black-listed for carrying a copy of Das Capital across the border but the kind of sex you preferred would only affect your chances for getting elected to public office.? ? Darren -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Dec 9 20:42:02 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:42:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <982457.58240.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <169969.1441.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I believe it's already being worked on by Bigelow, no? Regards, Dan From: Adrian Tymes To: ExI chat list Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 12:26:03 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] SpaceX launch First, get a private space station. Until then, launching to what space station there is will have to suffice, so far as the launcher end of things is concerned. 2010/12/9 Dan : > Thanks for the update. It sounds like an all around success. > > What I'm really waiting to see is private launcher to a private space > station -- not a private launcher that's merely another government > contractor. > > Regards, > > Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 21:36:18 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:36:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? was Re: Wikileaks Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM, David Lubkin wrote: snip > And he did slip through the > safeguards that are supposed to weed out people who will pass along > classified information. >From what I have heard, he seemed to be a reasonably patriotic sort of guy before he (for some reason) got to reading the materials. The trouble with weeding out is that you can't catch people who change after you have decided they are safe. On the other hand, perhaps the guy is still a patriot who just thinks what he found was so off the rails that it needed to be corrected and this was the only way he figured it could be done. It's a problem you get from people running up against real life when they have been taught American idealism in school. I was taught that one of the functions of the government is to protect people from criminals, not act in concert with them. Silly me. There are perhaps 10-50,000 people who know that the wife of a certain cult leader I should not name has been missing for years now, locked up in a private prison or maybe even dead. Hundreds of those are law enforcement people. Will any one of them look into the matter? Far as I know, they won't even consider it. Keith From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 9 21:36:40 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 22:36:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <982457.58240.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20101209213640.GC9434@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 09:26:03AM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > First, get a private space station. The interesting part is getting >300 kg to LEO. Plasma thrusters will go a long way. > Until then, launching to what space station there is will have to suffice, > so far as the launcher end of things is concerned. Please do not top-post and please trime your mail. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 9 21:49:40 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 22:49:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: <169969.1441.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <982457.58240.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <169969.1441.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20101209214940.GD9434@leitl.org> . On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 12:42:02PM -0800, Dan wrote: > I believe it's already being worked on by Bigelow, no? > > Regards, > > Dan > > > From: Adrian Tymes > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 12:26:03 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] SpaceX launch > > First, get a private space station. > > Until then, launching to what space station there is will have to suffice, > so far as the launcher end of things is concerned. > > 2010/12/9 Dan : > > Thanks for the update. It sounds like an all around success. > > > > What I'm really waiting to see is private launcher to a private space > > station -- not a private launcher that's merely another government > > contractor. > > > > Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 9 21:49:55 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 22:49:55 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks. In-Reply-To: <612553.76224.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <279265.83714.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012091330.oB9DU46j029693@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20101209135605.GP9434@leitl.org> <4D00EC7D.9080303@aleph.se> <612553.76224.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20101209214955.GE9434@leitl.org> . On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 12:46:00PM -0800, Dan wrote: > I don't think that's true. Sexual preferences?have often been used to blackmail > people -- and, in terms of security, has often been seen as a liability because > someone might be blackmailed. In other words, if you were gay and in the closet, > this might be seen as a way that foreign agents might manipulate you -- even if > you were not, say, on their side ideologically, in their pay, or perhaps had a > desire to change history. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > From: Darren Greer > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 12:36:32 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Wikileaks. > > Anders wrote: > >No, nutters are common. It is just that most of they do not matter. (proud > >recipient of two crazy missives today)< > > > > Since 2001 it's been very difficult to determine who may be nutters and who may > not. Someone mentioned the likelihood of people on this group being on enemy > lists (can't find the post now but I know I read it.) I can say from experience > it doesn't take much to make them. After the U.S. invaded Iraq I began writing > some unflattering essays on U.S. foreign and domestic security policy and > published some of them in a book of essays released in 2005 in Canada. It was > then that I began to notice some unusual traffic on my .ca website -- U.S. > government agencies, including the FBI, were regularly crawling it. Hardly > anyone read or bought that book, but someone apparently noticed it. I took the > site down eventually. > > A few years later when living in California I became friends with an infamous > gay pornographer who had been called by a Tuft's University professor in a > lecture on 21st century morality "the embodiment of the post-human." Because of > this friendship, I again went on the U.S. intelligence radar. I am now the proud > owner of an FBI file. I would not even have known this much if I hadn't been > introduced in San Francisco to an ex-FBI agent who was a friend of a friend. I > really don't understand the world of intelligence and enemy lists and national > security anyway. The lines between what is considered subversive activity, and > even thinking, and what is civically acceptable are so blurred that the whole > thing has become one big, sinister mess.? > > It was easier in the old days, when you could be black-listed for carrying a > copy of Das Capital across the border but the kind of sex you preferred would > only affect your chances for getting elected to public office.? > > ? > Darren > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From atymes at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 22:28:45 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:28:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: <20101209213640.GC9434@leitl.org> References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <982457.58240.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20101209213640.GC9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 09:26:03AM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> First, get a private space station. > > The interesting part is getting >300 kg to LEO. Plasma > thrusters will go a long way. Indeed. I would very much like to see viable plasma thrusters that can generate 1G+ of thrust. The trick seems to be either generating or storing that much plasma, without ruining the thrust to weight ratio (when including the plasma generating/storing equipment, including any power supplies that need to be carried by the rocket). I wonder if there's a chemical reaction that can take its reactants up to plasma phase, without need of external input? >> Until then, launching to what space station there is will have to suffice, >> so far as the launcher end of things is concerned. > > Please do not top-post and please trime your mail. Please typo-check and please don't quote entire emails without adding anything but a period and your signature (as your email immediately following this one did). From atymes at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 22:30:26 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:30:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: <169969.1441.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <982457.58240.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <169969.1441.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/12/9 Dan : > I believe it's already being worked on by Bigelow, no? "Being worked on" is not the same as actually having a private space station in orbit. Until that happens, no private launcher can actually launch to it - so they have to settle for launching to the ISS. From scerir at alice.it Thu Dec 9 22:49:11 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir at alice.it) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 23:49:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] R: PSI, PSI*, and Psi Message-ID: <23634886.250491291934951769.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Stuart, you are right, even more than in TI, the idea of two times is developed in the two-state time-symmetric quantum mechanics where the kets |> and the bras <| have .... opposite 'times'. But the original idea is written already in one of the fundamental papers by Schroedinger (circa 1926-1927) http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507269 http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1347 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0606208 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105101 Alice body {margin:0;padding:0;} #footer { height:13px; font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif; color:#ADADAD; margin:0; padding:7px 12px; text-align:right; border-top:1px solid #dcdcdc; } #footer a { text-decoration:none; color:#ADADAD; } #footer a:hover { color:#848484; } Inviato dalla nuova Alice mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 9 23:03:41 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 15:03:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <982457.58240.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20101209213640.GC9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <000601cb97f5$52dbcf70$f8936e50$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes ... >I wonder if there's a chemical reaction that can take its reactants up to plasma phase, without need of external input? Adrian No. The ionization energy and Gibbs free energy numbers for all the elements are enough to prove there is no magic chemical reaction waiting to be discovered. Those numbers show that hydrogen and oxygen is waaay good, with only wacky hard to control stuff like hydrogen and fluorine being better. If we could handle liquid fluorine we could do *a little* better than the hydrogen and oxygen reaction, but we might have complaints from the local proletariat should we leave behind huge clouds of hydrofluoric acid etching to opacity the windshields on their Detroits and so forth. {8^D You could theoretically make plasma with a self contained chemical reaction if you superheat the reactants before you combine them, but I don't think that is what you meant. That would wreck the nozzle in any case. spike From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 23:19:55 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 19:19:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks. In-Reply-To: <612553.76224.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <279265.83714.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012091330.oB9DU46j029693@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20101209135605.GP9434@leitl.org> <4D00EC7D.9080303@aleph.se> <612553.76224.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dan wrote: >Sexual preferences have often been used to blackmail people -- and, in terms of security, has often been seen as a liability because someone might be blackmailed. In other words, if you were gay and in the closet, this might be seen as a way that foreign agents might manipulate you -- even if you were not, say, on their side ideologically, in their pay, or perhaps had a desire to change history.< This was an issue in the 90's but not anymore, at least not in my country. Here's a quote from website I just googled that deals with security clearance issues in the U.S. Of the approximately 1160 cases decided by administrative judges at Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) in 2009 only 36 cited ?Sexual Behavior? as a security/suitability issue. Almost all of these 36 cases involved criminal conduct, and about half involved criminal convictions for sexual offenses. Only 2 cases cited extramarital affairs, and both of these cases involved current sexual relationships about which their spouses were unaware. Involvement with prostitutes was cited in 4 cases, 5 cases cited possession of child pornography, and 15 cases cited sexual acts with children. The remaining cases involved voyeurism, exhibitionism, and compulsive, self-destructive viewing of pornography. It goes on to say that: sodomy, promiscuity, adultery, group sex, cyber-sex, swinging, pornography, sadism, masochism, fetishism, bondage and degradation, homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexualism, and transvestism are not disqualifying conditions for a security clearance. Full article here. http://www.clearancejobs.com/cleared-news/117/sexual-behavior-and-security-clearances The irony with the policy even when it was in effect was that the majority of gay men and women I knew in the 90's with high security clearance in federal positions stayed in the closet not because of their fear of public exposure but because if they did come out they would lose their clearance and jobs. If you did come out, you lost your clearance because it was said you could be black-mailed. If you didn't, you kept the clearance but then you really could be black-mailed, depending on the level of your fear of exposure. If you admitted to being gay in the job interview or if it turned up in your security back-ground check, you got neither the job nor the clearance. The whole thing was simply bigotry disguised as policy, in my opinion. Although it's not polite to say it, and no-one ever does, a long-time friend in the Canadian diplomatic core informed me that the bronze statue of Sir Lancelot in front of the peace tower in Ottawa was cast in the likeness of Prime Minster Lester B Pearson's young male lover. And he won the nobel peace prize. Pearson, I mean. I don't think the young guy won anything. To my knowledge. Darren 2010/12/9 Dan > I don't think that's true. Sexual preferences have often been used to > blackmail people -- and, in terms of security, has often been seen as a > liability because someone might be blackmailed. In other words, if you were > gay and in the closet, this might be seen as a way that foreign agents might > manipulate you -- even if you were not, say, on their side ideologically, in > their pay, or perhaps had a desire to change history. > > Regards, > > Dan > > *From:* Darren Greer > *To:* ExI chat list > *Sent:* Thu, December 9, 2010 12:36:32 PM > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Wikileaks. > > Anders wrote: > > >No, nutters are common. It is just that most of they do not matter. (proud > recipient of two crazy missives today)< > > Since 2001 it's been very difficult to determine who may be nutters and who > may not. Someone mentioned the likelihood of people on this group being on > enemy lists (can't find the post now but I know I read it.) I can say from > experience it doesn't take much to make them. After the U.S. invaded Iraq I > began writing some unflattering essays on U.S. foreign and domestic security > policy and published some of them in a book of essays released in 2005 in > Canada. It was then that I began to notice some unusual traffic on my .ca > website -- U.S. government agencies, including the FBI, were regularly > crawling it. Hardly anyone read or bought that book, but someone apparently > noticed it. I took the site down eventually. > > A few years later when living in California I became friends with an > infamous gay pornographer who had been called by a Tuft's University > professor in a lecture on 21st century morality "the embodiment of the > post-human." Because of this friendship, I again went on the U.S. > intelligence radar. I am now the proud owner of an FBI file. I would not > even have known this much if I hadn't been introduced in San Francisco to an > ex-FBI agent who was a friend of a friend. I really don't understand the > world of intelligence and enemy lists and national security anyway. The > lines between what is considered subversive activity, and even thinking, and > what is civically acceptable are so blurred that the whole thing has become > one big, sinister mess. > > It was easier in the old days, when you could be black-listed for carrying > a copy of Das Capital across the border but the kind of sex you preferred > would only affect your chances for getting elected to public office. > > > Darren > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 00:06:06 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:06:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: <000601cb97f5$52dbcf70$f8936e50$@att.net> References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <982457.58240.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20101209213640.GC9434@leitl.org> <000601cb97f5$52dbcf70$f8936e50$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:03 PM, spike wrote: > You could theoretically make plasma with a self contained chemical reaction > if you superheat the reactants before you combine them, but I don't think > that is what you meant. ?That would wreck the nozzle in any case. If one can superheat the fuel anyway, one might as well simply superheat it directly to plasma and don't bother reacting it. Unless one includes a short-lived fusion reactor as part of the engine, of course. Then again, that's "short-lived" as in "approximately 10 minutes", whereas with modern experimental fusion reactors, 10 seconds is considered a very long reaction. (Which makes me wonder how they think they'll get it to commercial practicality, which requires sustained power output for hours at least. I also can't help but wonder if engineering for extremely short reactions is part of the reason why big fusion reactors have not produced progress commensurate with their expense.) Might anyone know of experiments in long duration plasma containment? From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 10 00:58:35 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:58:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! Message-ID: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 01:12:09 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 21:12:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Thanks for posting Damien. Big Johnathon Coulton fan here. My favourite is The Mandelbrot Set song, with the video made by some Cornell students. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES-yKOYaXq0 Darren 2010/12/9 Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 10 01:27:38 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:27:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> I suppose that should have been a "Soylent Night" Xmas... Damien Broderick From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 22:43:52 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:43:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Halcyon Molecular interview Message-ID: Halycon Molecular interview http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/interview-of-gene-sequencing-expert.html """ Here is the William Andregg interview by Sander Olson. Mr. Andregg is the CEO and founder of Halcyon Molecular . Along with his brother, Michael, William invented the core polymer placement technology which allows rapid and inexpensive sequencing of DNA. Mr. Andregg is confident that by 2015 complete human genomes will be sequenced for only $1,000. He believes that DNA sequencing will eventually become sufficiently sophisticated, automated, and inexpensive that scientists will be able to sequence every tree in a forest, and may lead to advanced nanotechnology. In a recent episode of TechCrunch TV?s ?Speaking Of..?, Halcyon Molecular CEO William Andregg spoke about his dream to extend human lifespans long enough to travel to other star systems. William explains how his early focus on astronomy and physics eventually gave way to intense study of biology for that reason. In the video, he says how he is fascinated by long-living creatures like the Gal?pagos tortoise and bowhead whale, and expresses optimism about how advanced biotechnology could determine their longevity-relevant molecular differences and use that knowledge to develop life-extension therapies for humans. *Question*: How much does it currently cost to sequence ones genome? *Answer*: Depends on what you mean by ?sequence ones genome?. If you want a truly complete sequence, you can?t get that now. You could spend millions of dollars and you still wouldn?t have even a single truly complete human genome. There are much cheaper options to get something far less accurate and useful- getting down to about $10,000 currently. But we?re hoping that in five years when people talk about ?sequencing ones genome?, they really mean it- really sequencing the whole thing, not just seeing part of it. *Question*: How much of the entire human genome have we currently sequenced? *Answer*: The most comprehensive reference assembly for the human genome still contains hundreds of gaps as of 2010, with millions and millions of missing bases. *Question*: Current gene sequencing techniques employ short reads. What is the limitation with this approach? *Answer*: Think of jigsaw puzzles. If a jigsaw puzzle has just a few big pieces like the ones they make for three year olds, it?s trivial to solve. But if it has tens of thousands of pieces like some expert-level jigsaw puzzles do, then it?s going to be a huge pain. That?s current sequencing technology. Short reads are the tiny jigsaw puzzle pieces. We want to solve the puzzle of the genome using the biggest pieces possible. *Question*: So does that also help make the sequencing faster as well? *Answer*: Yes, it makes putting the whole genome together less computationally intensive and thereby faster. It also improves the overall accuracy because with longer reads you can be more confident in the ordering of repetitive regions. *Question*: You claim that DNA sequencing has the potential to "turn medicine into an information science". What exactly do you mean by that? *Answer*: Taking the guesswork out of it, making it a precise, predictive science and less an art. In ten years you?ll have orders of magnitude more information about your own body and biology, and the sequencing revolution will be a big part of that. Biomedical researchers will also have orders of magnitude more information in general about how life works, and how health turns to illness. *Question*: How do your views on longevity and life extension compare with those of Aubrey de Grey and Ray Kurzweil? *Answer*: Parts of SENS urgently should be funded and tested. That being said, I work on sequencing and not on SENS, because our approach to curing aging is first to turn biology into an information science- actually getting to untangling the morass of metabolism that SENS does an end run around. I believe we can get to a complete mechanistic understanding of human biology in only a few decades, which is a timeline more like Kurzweil?s. On the other hand, if SENS were being vigorously pursued today, it might save millions of lives before the total understanding approach avails us. It is good to have multiple bets. As for Kurzweil, maybe this isn?t fair, and I?d like to hear his thoughts on it, but I?m afraid his books demotivate people who would otherwise contribute to the cause, maybe by giving the impression to some that the Singularity is not only coming, but actually inevitable. Eat right, exercise, take these pills, and don?t worry- those smart hardworking scientists over there will solve everything for you. In contrast, a great thing about Aubrey as a leader is that he harangues people to actually get off their asses and make a contribution. We might not survive the next twenty years. We may never cure aging. There is nothing inevitable about our success. Everyone who is talented enough to make a contribution should be trying to help, on all fronts, by any ethical means, like it?s life and death- because it is. And the very most talented ones should send their resumes immediately to Halcyon. *Question*: How will high-throughput DNA sequencing directly benefit longevity research? *Answer*: We?ll sequence the genomes of every centenarian and every supercentenarian, and find out which genes directly relate to longevity and to early morbidity and mortality. We?ll sequence long-lived organisms, like the Galapagos tortoise, the bowhead whale, the bristlecone pine. We?ll sequence all species of Rockfish, a whole genus where there?s almost an order of magnitude difference in maximum lifespans between evolutionary close cousins. And all of that just scrapes the iceberg- that?s not even the imaginative or ambitious answer. The grand design is to read, write, program DNA. The better and faster and cheaper you do that, the sooner we?ll hack biology and be free from disease. Billions of individual human genomes, and billions of genomes of domesticated animals, is only the beginning. The amount of genomic information on this planet that might help us hack biology is orders of magnitude vaster than that. You have quadrillions of unique genomes in your body, counting the metagenome of all your individual genomically different cells and the metagenome of all the stuff living in and on you. Someone will probably want to sequence every tree in a forest, or every leaf on a tree, or every bacterium in a speck of seawater. Someone will definitely sequence every ear of corn in a cornfield. We?ll probably sequence all the charismatic megafauna we can find on the planet, and all the trillions of less glamorous animals as well. But even that is only the beginning. People will do forward genetics studies where they sequence trillions of individual cells or model organisms. And there may be just as much or more sequencing of artificial genomes or genetic constructs in the course of solving synthetic biology- the writing and programming part of the grand design. Tangentially, synthetic biology might be the least insanely difficult way to robust nanotechnology, making anything you want from spoons to space elevators, just like your cells build things with atomic precision all the time, using a billion year old programming language that we aim to completely understand. And so sequencing might turn out to be upstream of a lot more than merely freeing humanity from all disease. *Question*: Is Halcyon Molecular expanding? Are there any plans for an IPO? *Answer*: Expanding carefully, with an extremely high bar. We only want the best of the best, of the best of the best of the best- iterating that to somewhere way above the 99th percentile. And the team we?ve built so far is like that, just unbelievably good. I think the level of talent in the Halcyon project might be every bit as elite as it was in the teams that worked on the Manhattan or Apollo projects. And given what we?re trying to do, that?s exactly how it should be. As for the IPO question, if doing an IPO is consistent with the mission, we?ll do it. Halcyon is a mission with a company, not the other way around. Right now only people who care first and foremost about the mission have significant stock in the company. We?d have to think long and hard about letting that change. *Question*: Who is funding Halcyon? *Answer*: Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Founders Fund, and several angels. We?ve also won about three million dollars in grants from NIH and other government agencies. *Question*: How long will it take before sequencing the human genome falls to $1,000? *Answer*: Well, right now it has infinity to fall from, because you can?t buy a complete human genome yet at any price. But as soon as that?s available- I think 2012 is a good guess- then we?ll see a thousand dollar complete genome in 2013. *Question*: How much progress in this field can be expected by 2020? *Answer*: Probably depends on how many of your most brilliant readers send me their CV?s today. Individual choices are what really matter to the arc of history. """ - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 02:55:26 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 19:55:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: I was really hoping the human family would be rescued, but I suppose they were being realistic... Well, at least Eliezer's friendly AI programming kept them from being exterminated! ; ) Merry Christmas everyone!!! John On 12/9/10, Damien Broderick wrote: > I suppose that should have been a "Soylent Night" Xmas... > > Damien Broderick > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 03:39:56 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 20:39:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] rocke fuel was Re: SpaceX launch Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:41 PM, "spike" wrote: > ... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > ... > >>I wonder if there's a chemical reaction that can take its reactants up to > plasma phase, without need of external input? Adrian > > No. ?The ionization energy and Gibbs free energy numbers for all the > elements are enough to prove there is no magic chemical reaction waiting to > be discovered. ?Those numbers show that hydrogen and oxygen is waaay good, > with only wacky hard to control stuff like hydrogen and fluorine being > better. ?If we could handle liquid fluorine we could do *a little* better > than the hydrogen and oxygen reaction, but we might have complaints from the > local proletariat should we leave behind huge clouds of hydrofluoric acid > etching to opacity the windshields on their Detroits and so forth. ?{8^D Spike is correct here. The best you can do with hydrogen and oxygen is about 4.5 km/sec exhaust velocity. You need about twice that to get a mass ratio 3 rocket into LEO. Heating hydrogen to 3000 deg K will get you 9.8 km/sec exhaust velocity. It's entirely possible to do this with a big laser beam, several GW, for a reasonable sized vehicle. 3000 deg K is 600 deg under the melting point of tungsten. The trick is to co-flow the gas and laser light to reduce the reradiation. Keith > You could theoretically make plasma with a self contained chemical reaction > if you superheat the reactants before you combine them, but I don't think > that is what you meant. ?That would wreck the nozzle in any case. > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 19:19:55 -0400 > From: Darren Greer > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Wikileaks. > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Dan wrote: > >>Sexual preferences have often been used to blackmail people -- and, in > terms of security, has often been seen as a liability because someone might > be blackmailed. In other words, if you were gay and in the closet, this > might be seen as a way that foreign agents might manipulate you -- even if > you were not, say, on their side ideologically, in their pay, or perhaps had > a desire to change history.< > > This was an issue in the 90's but not anymore, at least not in my country. > Here's a quote from website I just googled that deals with security > clearance issues in the U.S. > > Of the approximately 1160 cases decided by administrative judges at Defense > Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) in 2009 only 36 cited ?Sexual > Behavior? as a security/suitability issue. Almost all of these 36 cases > involved criminal conduct, and about half involved criminal convictions for > sexual offenses. Only 2 cases cited extramarital affairs, and both of these > cases involved current sexual relationships about which their spouses were > unaware. Involvement with prostitutes was cited in 4 cases, 5 cases cited > possession of child pornography, and 15 cases cited sexual acts with > children. The remaining cases involved voyeurism, exhibitionism, and > compulsive, self-destructive viewing of pornography. > > It goes on to say that: > > sodomy, promiscuity, adultery, group sex, cyber-sex, swinging, pornography, > sadism, masochism, fetishism, bondage and degradation, homosexuality, > bisexuality, transsexualism, and transvestism are not disqualifying > conditions for a security clearance. > > Full article here. > > http://www.clearancejobs.com/cleared-news/117/sexual-behavior-and-security-clearances > > The irony with the policy even when it was in effect was that the majority > of gay men and women I knew in the 90's with high security clearance in > federal positions stayed in the closet not because of their fear of public > exposure but because if they did come out they would lose their clearance > and jobs. ?If ?you did come out, you lost your clearance because it was said > you could be black-mailed. If you didn't, you kept the clearance but then > you really could be black-mailed, depending on the level of your fear of > exposure. If you admitted to being gay in the job interview or if it turned > up in your security back-ground check, you got neither the job nor the > clearance. > > The whole thing was simply bigotry disguised as policy, in my opinion. > Although it's not polite to say it, and no-one ever does, a long-time friend > in the Canadian diplomatic core informed me that the bronze statue of Sir > Lancelot in front of the peace tower in Ottawa was cast in the likeness of > Prime Minster Lester B Pearson's young male lover. And he won the nobel > peace prize. Pearson, I mean. I don't think the young guy won anything. To > my knowledge. > > Darren > > 2010/12/9 Dan > >> I don't think that's true. Sexual preferences have often been used to >> blackmail people -- and, in terms of security, has often been seen as a >> liability because someone might be blackmailed. In other words, if you were >> gay and in the closet, this might be seen as a way that foreign agents might >> manipulate you -- even if you were not, say, on their side ideologically, in >> their pay, or perhaps had a desire to change history. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> >> *From:* Darren Greer >> *To:* ExI chat list >> *Sent:* Thu, December 9, 2010 12:36:32 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Wikileaks. >> >> Anders wrote: >> >> >No, nutters are common. It is just that most of they do not matter. (proud >> recipient of two crazy missives today)< >> >> Since 2001 it's been very difficult to determine who may be nutters and who >> may not. Someone mentioned the likelihood of people on this group being on >> enemy lists (can't find the post now but I know I read it.) I can say from >> experience it doesn't take much to make them. After the U.S. invaded Iraq I >> began writing some unflattering essays on U.S. foreign and domestic security >> policy and published some of them in a book of essays released in 2005 in >> Canada. It was then that I began to notice some unusual traffic on my .ca >> website -- U.S. government agencies, including the FBI, were regularly >> crawling it. Hardly anyone read or bought that book, but someone apparently >> noticed it. I took the site down eventually. >> >> A few years later when living in California I became friends with an >> infamous gay pornographer who had been called by a Tuft's University >> professor in a lecture on 21st century morality "the embodiment of the >> post-human." Because of this friendship, I again went on the U.S. >> intelligence radar. I am now the proud owner of an FBI file. I would not >> even have known this much if I hadn't been introduced in San Francisco to an >> ex-FBI agent who was a friend of a friend. I really don't understand the >> world of intelligence and enemy lists and national security anyway. The >> lines between what is considered subversive activity, and even thinking, and >> what is civically acceptable are so blurred that the whole thing has become >> one big, sinister mess. >> >> It was easier in the old days, when you could be black-listed for carrying >> a copy of Das Capital across the border but the kind of sex you preferred >> would only affect your chances for getting elected to public office. >> >> >> Darren >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > > > -- > "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses > stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - > Remembrance of the Daleks > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:06:06 -0800 > From: Adrian Tymes > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] SpaceX launch > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:03 PM, spike wrote: >> You could theoretically make plasma with a self contained chemical reaction >> if you superheat the reactants before you combine them, but I don't think >> that is what you meant. ?That would wreck the nozzle in any case. > > If one can superheat the fuel anyway, one might as well simply superheat it > directly to plasma and don't bother reacting it. ?Unless one includes a > short-lived fusion reactor as part of the engine, of course. > > Then again, that's "short-lived" as in "approximately 10 minutes", whereas with > modern experimental fusion reactors, 10 seconds is considered a very long > reaction. ?(Which makes me wonder how they think they'll get it to commercial > practicality, which requires sustained power output for hours at least. ?I also > can't help but wonder if engineering for extremely short reactions is part of > the reason why big fusion reactors have not produced progress > commensurate with their expense.) > > Might anyone know of experiments in long duration plasma containment? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:58:35 -0600 > From: Damien Broderick > To: "'ExI chat list'" > Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! > Message-ID: <4D017B3B.3090200 at satx.rr.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 15 > Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 21:12:09 -0400 > From: Darren Greer > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Thanks for posting Damien. Big Johnathon Coulton fan here. ?My favourite is > The Mandelbrot Set song, with the video made by some Cornell students. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES-yKOYaXq0 > > Darren > > 2010/12/9 Damien Broderick > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > > -- > "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses > stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - > Remembrance of the Daleks > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 16 > Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:27:38 -0600 > From: Damien Broderick > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! > Message-ID: <4D01820A.7020506 at satx.rr.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > I suppose that should have been a "Soylent Night" Xmas... > > Damien Broderick > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 17 > Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:43:52 -0600 > From: Bryan Bishop > To: diybio , wta-talk at transhumanism.org, > ? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org, Bryan Bishop > Subject: [ExI] Halcyon Molecular interview > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Halycon Molecular interview > http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/interview-of-gene-sequencing-expert.html > > """ > Here is the William Andregg interview by Sander Olson. Mr. Andregg is the > CEO and founder of Halcyon Molecular . > Along with his brother, Michael, William invented the core polymer placement > technology which allows rapid and inexpensive sequencing of DNA. Mr. Andregg > is confident that by 2015 complete human genomes will be sequenced for only > $1,000. He believes that DNA sequencing will eventually become sufficiently > sophisticated, automated, and inexpensive that scientists will be able to > sequence every tree in a forest, and may lead to advanced nanotechnology. > > In a recent episode of TechCrunch TV?s ?Speaking Of..?, Halcyon Molecular > CEO William Andregg spoke about his dream to extend human lifespans long > enough to travel to other star systems. William explains how his early focus > on astronomy and physics eventually gave way to intense study of biology for > that reason. In the video, he says how he is fascinated by long-living > creatures like the Gal?pagos tortoise and bowhead whale, and expresses > optimism about how advanced biotechnology could determine their > longevity-relevant molecular differences and use that knowledge to develop > life-extension therapies for humans. > > *Question*: How much does it currently cost to sequence ones genome? > > *Answer*: Depends on what you mean by ?sequence ones genome?. If you want a > truly complete sequence, you can?t get that now. You could spend millions of > dollars and you still wouldn?t have even a single truly complete human > genome. There are much cheaper options to get something far less accurate > and useful- getting down to about $10,000 currently. But we?re hoping that > in five years when people talk about ?sequencing ones genome?, they really > mean it- really sequencing the whole thing, not just seeing part of it. > > *Question*: How much of the entire human genome have we currently sequenced? > > *Answer*: The most comprehensive reference assembly for the human genome > still contains hundreds of gaps as of 2010, with millions and millions of > missing bases. > > *Question*: Current gene sequencing techniques employ short reads. What is > the limitation with this approach? > > *Answer*: Think of jigsaw puzzles. If a jigsaw puzzle has just a few big > pieces like the ones they make for three year olds, it?s trivial to solve. > But if it has tens of thousands of pieces like some expert-level jigsaw > puzzles do, then it?s going to be a huge pain. That?s current sequencing > technology. Short reads are the tiny jigsaw puzzle pieces. We want to solve > the puzzle of the genome using the biggest pieces possible. > > *Question*: So does that also help make the sequencing faster as well? > > *Answer*: Yes, it makes putting the whole genome together less > computationally intensive and thereby faster. It also improves the overall > accuracy because with longer reads you can be more confident in the ordering > of repetitive regions. > > *Question*: You claim that DNA sequencing has the potential to "turn > medicine into an information science". What exactly do you mean by that? > > *Answer*: Taking the guesswork out of it, making it a precise, predictive > science and less an art. In ten years you?ll have orders of magnitude more > information about your own body and biology, and the sequencing revolution > will be a big part of that. Biomedical researchers will also have orders of > magnitude more information in general about how life works, and how health > turns to illness. > > > *Question*: How do your views on longevity and life extension compare with > those of Aubrey de Grey and Ray Kurzweil? > > *Answer*: Parts of SENS urgently should be funded and tested. That being > said, I work on sequencing and not on SENS, because our approach to curing > aging is first to turn biology into an information science- actually getting > to untangling the morass of metabolism that SENS does an end run around. I > believe we can get to a complete mechanistic understanding of human biology > in only a few decades, which is a timeline more like Kurzweil?s. On the > other hand, if SENS were being vigorously pursued today, it might save > millions of lives before the total understanding approach avails us. It is > good to have multiple bets. > > As for Kurzweil, maybe this isn?t fair, and I?d like to hear his thoughts on > it, but I?m afraid his books demotivate people who would otherwise > contribute to the cause, maybe by giving the impression to some that the > Singularity is not only coming, but actually inevitable. Eat right, > exercise, take these pills, and don?t worry- those smart hardworking > scientists over there will solve everything for you. In contrast, a great > thing about Aubrey as a leader is that he harangues people to actually get > off their asses and make a contribution. > > We might not survive the next twenty years. We may never cure aging. There > is nothing inevitable about our success. Everyone who is talented enough to > make a contribution should be trying to help, on all fronts, by any ethical > means, like it?s life and death- because it is. > > And the very most talented ones should send their resumes immediately to > Halcyon. > > *Question*: How will high-throughput DNA sequencing directly benefit > longevity research? > > *Answer*: We?ll sequence the genomes of every centenarian and every > supercentenarian, and find out which genes directly relate to longevity and > to early morbidity and mortality. We?ll sequence long-lived organisms, like > the Galapagos tortoise, the bowhead whale, the bristlecone pine. We?ll > sequence all species of Rockfish, a whole genus where there?s almost an > order of magnitude difference in maximum lifespans between evolutionary > close cousins. And all of that just scrapes the iceberg- that?s not even the > imaginative or ambitious answer. > > The grand design is to read, write, program DNA. The better and faster and > cheaper you do that, the sooner we?ll hack biology and be free from disease. > Billions of individual human genomes, and billions of genomes of > domesticated animals, is only the beginning. The amount of genomic > information on this planet that might help us hack biology is orders of > magnitude vaster than that. You have quadrillions of unique genomes in your > body, counting the metagenome of all your individual genomically different > cells and the metagenome of all the stuff living in and on you. Someone will > probably want to sequence every tree in a forest, or every leaf on a tree, > or every bacterium in a speck of seawater. Someone will definitely sequence > every ear of corn in a cornfield. We?ll probably sequence all the > charismatic megafauna we can find on the planet, and all the trillions of > less glamorous animals as well. But even that is only the beginning. People > will do forward genetics studies where they sequence trillions of individual > cells or model organisms. And there may be just as much or more sequencing > of artificial genomes or genetic constructs in the course of solving > synthetic biology- the writing and programming part of the grand design. > Tangentially, synthetic biology might be the least insanely difficult way to > robust nanotechnology, making anything you want from spoons to space > elevators, just like your cells build things with atomic precision all the > time, using a billion year old programming language that we aim to > completely understand. And so sequencing might turn out to be upstream of a > lot more than merely freeing humanity from all disease. > > *Question*: Is Halcyon Molecular expanding? Are there any plans for an IPO? > > *Answer*: Expanding carefully, with an extremely high bar. We only want the > best of the best, of the best of the best of the best- iterating that to > somewhere way above the 99th percentile. And the team we?ve built so far is > like that, just unbelievably good. I think the level of talent in the > Halcyon project might be every bit as elite as it was in the teams that > worked on the Manhattan or Apollo projects. And given what we?re trying to > do, that?s exactly how it should be. > As for the IPO question, if doing an IPO is consistent with the mission, > we?ll do it. Halcyon is a mission with a company, not the other way around. > Right now only people who care first and foremost about the mission have > significant stock in the company. We?d have to think long and hard about > letting that change. > > *Question*: Who is funding Halcyon? > > *Answer*: Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Founders Fund, and several angels. We?ve > also won about three million dollars in grants from NIH and other government > agencies. > > *Question*: How long will it take before sequencing the human genome falls > to $1,000? > > *Answer*: Well, right now it has infinity to fall from, because you can?t > buy a complete human genome yet at any price. But as soon as that?s > available- I think 2012 is a good guess- then we?ll see a thousand dollar > complete genome in 2013. > > *Question*: How much progress in this field can be expected by 2020? > > *Answer*: Probably depends on how many of your most brilliant readers send > me their CV?s today. Individual choices are what really matter to the arc of > history. > """ > > - Bryan > http://heybryan.org/ > 1 512 203 0507 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 87, Issue 15 > ******************************************** > From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 10 03:52:55 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 19:52:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> On 12/9/10, Damien Broderick wrote: > I suppose that should have been a "Soylent Night" Xmas... > > Damien Broderick Soylent Night, waaaaahahahahahahhaaaaaaa! {8^D There is a bit of context that is missing for many of you, who were not regularly going to movies in 1973 and who missed the original Soylent Green. I was in late elementary school then, it was rated R, but the ticket takers were not police, so I was allowed in, while I was supposed to be viewing Disney's latest vapid fare. It is amazing to realize that was 38 years ago. The notion of global warming had been introduced, as had the competing theory of global cooling, and both theories had approximately equal standing right then, with the cooling scenario being far scarier if true. Right around that time, food companies were experimenting with soybean meat substitutes. The early ones tasted terrible. But at least they were expensive and unhealthy. In any case, in the 1973 Soylent Green movie, they made global warming and Malthusian population explosions terrifying by depicting soy meat substitutes as the only food available to the proletariat, other than the proletariat of course, which was the main ingredient in... Well, rent the movie. It's probably one of the best from that era. Anyone else here see that back in the day? spike From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 04:14:22 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 21:14:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> Message-ID: I saw Soylent Green years later on television. The film is regularly spoken of in the media, and so I think any lover of science fiction cinema (even if only in their twenties) would know of it. I miss the smart kind of science fiction films they made back in the seventies. I recently saw the Robert Altman film "Quintet," but that was not near the caliber of Soylent Green. I would not be surprised of both films are eventually remade by Hollywood. *SPOILER!!!* I remember when Charleton Heston was hosting Saturday Night-Live, and he did a comedy skit where he keeps on running down the street saying things like "computer paper, it's made from people..., people!!!" And it ends with his co-workers shrugging their shoulders at his "revelation," which to them is old old news... John ; ) On 12/9/10, spike wrote: > > On 12/9/10, Damien Broderick wrote: >> I suppose that should have been a "Soylent Night" Xmas... >> >> Damien Broderick > > > Soylent Night, waaaaahahahahahahhaaaaaaa! {8^D > > There is a bit of context that is missing for many of you, who were not > regularly going to movies in 1973 and who missed the original Soylent Green. > I was in late elementary school then, it was rated R, but the ticket takers > were not police, so I was allowed in, while I was supposed to be viewing > Disney's latest vapid fare. > > It is amazing to realize that was 38 years ago. The notion of global > warming had been introduced, as had the competing theory of global cooling, > and both theories had approximately equal standing right then, with the > cooling scenario being far scarier if true. Right around that time, food > companies were experimenting with soybean meat substitutes. The early ones > tasted terrible. But at least they were expensive and unhealthy. > > In any case, in the 1973 Soylent Green movie, they made global warming and > Malthusian population explosions terrifying by depicting soy meat > substitutes as the only food available to the proletariat, other than the > proletariat of course, which was the main ingredient in... Well, rent the > movie. It's probably one of the best from that era. > > Anyone else here see that back in the day? > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 04:44:51 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 20:44:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] rocke fuel was Re: SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > Spike is correct here. ?The best you can do with hydrogen and oxygen > is about 4.5 km/sec exhaust velocity. ?You need about twice that to > get a mass ratio 3 rocket into LEO. > > Heating hydrogen to 3000 deg K will get you 9.8 km/sec exhaust > velocity. ?It's entirely possible to do this with a big laser beam, > several GW, for a reasonable sized vehicle. ?3000 deg K is 600 deg > under the melting point of tungsten. Could you use tungsten as a heat exchanger? Have an onboard energy source, optimized for heat generation instead of thrust. (Maybe even fission/radioactives, so long as they don't get into the exhaust.) Use tungsten to transfer the heat into hydrogen, which is gently forced past. The heat greatly increases how fast it goes when it leaves. From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 10 05:12:16 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 23:12:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] rocke fuel was Re: SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D01B6B0.10803@satx.rr.com> On 12/9/2010 10:44 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Could you use tungsten as a heat exchanger? Damn. I was hoping you could use rocke, we're got too much of it cluttering up our back yard. From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 10 05:13:06 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 21:13:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <004e01cb9828$edb6e010$c924a030$@att.net> John Grigg wrote: >> On Behalf Of spike ... >>There is a bit of context that is missing for many of you, who were not regularly going to movies in 1973 and who missed the original Soylent Green... >I saw Soylent Green years later on television. The film is regularly spoken of in the media... I miss the smart kind of science fiction films they made back in the seventies. There was another notable one right about that same time, West World. In retrospect, I realize that one had emergent AI, with apparent outloading. The robots become self-aware and attack. >... Right around that time, food companies were experimenting with soybean meat substitutes. The early ones tasted terrible. But at least they were expensive and unhealthy...spike Funny story that has nothing to do with anything, but I still laugh when I think about it. A long time ago, I was camping with my wife's family at Mount Rainier. My then 19 yr old brother-in-law and I went hiking all over the place, and we came back to camp crazy hungry. We had soy veggie-dogs, since he is a strict vegetarian. Even tho I was half starved, I only ate two; I detest the wretched things. But he devoured eight of them, scarfed them like a pack of rabid wolves. About three hours later, we were sitting around the camp fire on a beautiful sparkly cold evening, as I waxed on about how good it all was. Then I noticed he was hunched over, not moving at all, saying nothing. It was hard to tell by the flickering campfire, but he just didn't look at all good. I said, Hey pal, are you OK? No. Full stop. I said, Well, um what is wrong? He said, Those veggie dogs. They are all still sitting down there. My stomach might stamp them "Return to Sender" any min.. buuuurrrrrLAAAAAAHHHHH... Right into the campfire. We scattered like scared roaches trying to avoid the big column of barf steam. He felt better almost immediately, but that one massive barf pretty much doused the fire, so that was the end of our starlight reverie that night. {8^D If you have ever eaten soy-based meat substitutes, you will understand why the notion of living on that stuff is so scary. {8-] spike From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 07:46:42 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:46:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: <004e01cb9828$edb6e010$c924a030$@att.net> References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> <004e01cb9828$edb6e010$c924a030$@att.net> Message-ID: I never ate soy substitute food products during their earlier days. But over the past ten years I've eaten some that I thought were very good, and they did not in the least bit make me nauseous. Oh, what became of the study that said eating lots of soy over the years would lead to brain damage? John On 12/9/10, spike wrote: > John Grigg wrote: > >>> On Behalf Of spike > ... > >>>There is a bit of context that is missing for many of you, who were not > regularly going to movies in 1973 and who missed the original Soylent > Green... > >>I saw Soylent Green years later on television. The film is regularly > spoken of in the media... I miss the smart kind of science fiction films > they made back in the seventies. > > There was another notable one right about that same time, West World. In > retrospect, I realize that one had emergent AI, with apparent outloading. > The robots become self-aware and attack. > >>... Right around that time, food companies were experimenting with soybean > meat substitutes. The early ones tasted terrible. But at least they were > expensive and unhealthy...spike > > Funny story that has nothing to do with anything, but I still laugh when I > think about it. A long time ago, I was camping with my wife's family at > Mount Rainier. My then 19 yr old brother-in-law and I went hiking all over > the place, and we came back to camp crazy hungry. We had soy veggie-dogs, > since he is a strict vegetarian. Even tho I was half starved, I only ate > two; I detest the wretched things. But he devoured eight of them, scarfed > them like a pack of rabid wolves. About three hours later, we were sitting > around the camp fire on a beautiful sparkly cold evening, as I waxed on > about how good it all was. Then I noticed he was hunched over, not moving > at all, saying nothing. It was hard to tell by the flickering campfire, but > he just didn't look at all good. I said, Hey pal, are you OK? > > No. > > Full stop. I said, Well, um what is wrong? > > He said, Those veggie dogs. They are all still sitting down there. My > stomach might stamp them "Return to Sender" any min.. > buuuurrrrrLAAAAAAHHHHH... > > Right into the campfire. We scattered like scared roaches trying to avoid > the big column of barf steam. > > He felt better almost immediately, but that one massive barf pretty much > doused the fire, so that was the end of our starlight reverie that night. > {8^D > > If you have ever eaten soy-based meat substitutes, you will understand why > the notion of living on that stuff is so scary. {8-] > > spike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 08:27:45 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:27:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A free science fiction roleplaying game Message-ID: This is a free pen and paper science fiction roleplaying game... Taken from the promo: The year is 3200 and mankind's empire lies in ashes. The Jump Gates fell six hundred years ago, severing the links between the myriad worlds of the human diaspora. Now, the long isolation of the Silence falls away as men and women return to the skies above their scattered worlds. Will you be among them? Stars Without Number is a retro-inspired science fiction role playing game influenced by the Old School Renaissance. The contents are compatible with most old school clones and are designed to be easily imported to your own favorite gaming system. In addition to a complete pre-made stellar sector, Stars Without Number offers GMs and players the tools to create their own sandbox-style adventures in the far future. Classic mechanics adapted for science-fiction adventure in the far future Extensive GM support for building adventure-crammed sandbox settings more quickly and easily World building resources for creating system-neutral planets and star sectors 100 adventure seeds and guidelines for integrating them with the worlds you've made Old-school compatible rules for guns, cyberware, starships, and psionics Domain rules for experienced characters who want to set up their own colony, psychic academy, mercenary band, or other institution >>> http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=86467&it=1&SRC=Newsletter John : ) From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 08:52:35 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:52:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Halycon Molecular Interview regarding Kurzweil and de Grey Message-ID: Taken from the interview: *Question*: How do your views on longevity and life extension compare with those of Aubrey de Grey and Ray Kurzweil? *Answer*: Parts of SENS urgently should be funded and tested. That being said, I work on sequencing and not on SENS, because our approach to curing aging is first to turn biology into an information science- actually getting to untangling the morass of metabolism that SENS does an end run around. I believe we can get to a complete mechanistic understanding of human biology in only a few decades, which is a timeline more like Kurzweil?s. On the other hand, if SENS were being vigorously pursued today, it might save millions of lives before the total understanding approach avails us. It is good to have multiple bets. As for Kurzweil, maybe this isn?t fair, and I?d like to hear his thoughts on it, but I?m afraid his books demotivate people who would otherwise contribute to the cause, maybe by giving the impression to some that the Singularity is not only coming, but actually inevitable. Eat right, exercise, take these pills, and don?t worry- those smart hardworking scientists over there will solve everything for you. In contrast, a great thing about Aubrey as a leader is that he harangues people to actually get off their asses and make a contribution. We might not survive the next twenty years. We may never cure aging. There is nothing inevitable about our success. Everyone who is talented enough to make a contribution should be trying to help, on all fronts, by any ethical means, like it?s life and death- because it is. And the very most talented ones should send their resumes immediately to Halcyon. >>> Halycon Molecular interview http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/interview-of-gene-sequencing-expert.html John From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 10 10:05:57 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:05:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <982457.58240.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20101209213640.GC9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101210100557.GN9434@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 02:28:45PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Indeed. I would very much like to see viable plasma thrusters that can > generate 1G+ of thrust. The trick seems to be either generating or storing Electrip propulsion is low-thrust high-Isp (current VASIMR does 4 N, 6000 s specific impulse). The advantage of LEO-LLO plasma-driven transfers is not time (currently ~6 months) but low propellant usage, making maximal use of each kg to LEO. Unmanned payloads can also tolerate much higher deccelerations on landing. Specific advantage of VASIMR is that you don't need do do efficient but long-duration Hohmann transfers but go directly high energy transfer orbit which is mostly relevant for manned missions. > that much plasma, without ruining the thrust to weight ratio (when including > the plasma generating/storing equipment, including any power supplies > that need to be carried by the rocket). > > I wonder if there's a chemical reaction that can take its reactants up to > plasma phase, without need of external input? No, chemical bond energies are orders of magnitude below that required. You'd do much better using nuclear sources, like solar photovoltaics (with the added advantage that you're not carrying the power source) and nuclear reactors driving the electric propulsion unit. > >> Until then, launching to what space station there is will have to suffice, > >> so far as the launcher end of things is concerned. > > > > Please do not top-post and please trime your mail. > > Please typo-check and please don't quote entire emails without adding > anything but a period and your signature (as your email immediately > following this one did). Several, in fact. I'm glad you noticed. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Dec 10 11:15:41 2010 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 06:15:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <3a3e5f84b4e1b2db4a0e574d2a9c9dc8.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > > Anyone else here see that back in the day? > > spike > Yes, spike, I saw it. And thought about it. And sometimes still think about it. ;) Regards, MB From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 11:23:51 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 04:23:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Immortality Institute is planning to change their name to "Longecity" Message-ID: The Immortality Institute board of directors have proposed changing the name of the organization to "Longecity." This is a merging of longevity with city. I realize having the word "immortality" in their current title is a bad idea in terms of social acceptance, but I think they have chosen the wrong name as a replacement. I have suggested they change it to the short and simple "Longevity." The World Transhumanist Association now calls itself H+, the Immortality Institute will be getting a new name, and so I suppose if the Extropy Institute is reinstituted they will call themselves X'ers! ; ) http://www.imminst.org/forum/topic/45485-articlelongecity/ John From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 10 11:27:08 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:27:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <982457.58240.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20101209213640.GC9434@leitl.org> <000601cb97f5$52dbcf70$f8936e50$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101210112708.GQ9434@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 04:06:06PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > If one can superheat the fuel anyway, one might as well simply superheat it > directly to plasma and don't bother reacting it. Unless one includes a > short-lived fusion reactor as part of the engine, of course. Your problem is mass. E.g. fusion-enhanced VASIMR would have to to produce enough additionals thrust to overcome the added mass. I personally think that tracked beam propulsion (in the weaker form, via e.g. a rectenna array feeding a VASIMR unit) will win by virtue of leaving (most of) the drive at home. > Then again, that's "short-lived" as in "approximately 10 minutes", whereas with > modern experimental fusion reactors, 10 seconds is considered a very long > reaction. (Which makes me wonder how they think they'll get it to commercial > practicality, which requires sustained power output for hours at least. I also > can't help but wonder if engineering for extremely short reactions is part of > the reason why big fusion reactors have not produced progress > commensurate with their expense.) Speculation without knowledge is rarely useful. > Might anyone know of experiments in long duration plasma containment? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Dec 10 12:41:32 2010 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:41:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Halcyon Molecular interview In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <882166b99d4535237489d8ebd5e2b247.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Is anyone besides me (and Harvey, IIRC) reading "freefall" comic at http://freefall.purrsia.com/ I'm enjoying the discussion a lot! Makes me laugh too. Regards, MB From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 12:55:23 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:55:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> <004e01cb9828$edb6e010$c924a030$@att.net> Message-ID: *Make Room, Make Room* was the first science fiction novel I read. I was in elementary school, and prior to that I only read Jack London novels. I remember the cover perfectly thirty five years later: a man standing in the middle of a crowd in downtown New York with a look of sheer claustrophobic panic on his face. Re-reading it years later I was surprised to discover that the Soylent Green as humans aspect doesn't appear in the novel and only in the movie, and I had somehow conflated the two. We used to make jokes in college about a cafeteria pasta-cheese-crouton dish billed as "bubbly-bake" that no-one could readily identify. We called it Soylent Green. The line staff got used to it. They knew what we meant when he asked for it, though I'm not sure they grasped the specific allusion. Darren On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:46 AM, John Grigg wrote: > I never ate soy substitute food products during their earlier days. > But over the past ten years I've eaten some that I thought were very > good, and they did not in the least bit make me nauseous. > > Oh, what became of the study that said eating lots of soy over the > years would lead to brain damage? > > John > > On 12/9/10, spike wrote: > > John Grigg wrote: > > > >>> On Behalf Of spike > > ... > > > >>>There is a bit of context that is missing for many of you, who were not > > regularly going to movies in 1973 and who missed the original Soylent > > Green... > > > >>I saw Soylent Green years later on television. The film is regularly > > spoken of in the media... I miss the smart kind of science fiction films > > they made back in the seventies. > > > > There was another notable one right about that same time, West World. In > > retrospect, I realize that one had emergent AI, with apparent outloading. > > The robots become self-aware and attack. > > > >>... Right around that time, food companies were experimenting with > soybean > > meat substitutes. The early ones tasted terrible. But at least they > were > > expensive and unhealthy...spike > > > > Funny story that has nothing to do with anything, but I still laugh when > I > > think about it. A long time ago, I was camping with my wife's family at > > Mount Rainier. My then 19 yr old brother-in-law and I went hiking all > over > > the place, and we came back to camp crazy hungry. We had soy > veggie-dogs, > > since he is a strict vegetarian. Even tho I was half starved, I only ate > > two; I detest the wretched things. But he devoured eight of them, > scarfed > > them like a pack of rabid wolves. About three hours later, we were > sitting > > around the camp fire on a beautiful sparkly cold evening, as I waxed on > > about how good it all was. Then I noticed he was hunched over, not > moving > > at all, saying nothing. It was hard to tell by the flickering campfire, > but > > he just didn't look at all good. I said, Hey pal, are you OK? > > > > No. > > > > Full stop. I said, Well, um what is wrong? > > > > He said, Those veggie dogs. They are all still sitting down there. My > > stomach might stamp them "Return to Sender" any min.. > > buuuurrrrrLAAAAAAHHHHH... > > > > Right into the campfire. We scattered like scared roaches trying to > avoid > > the big column of barf steam. > > > > He felt better almost immediately, but that one massive barf pretty much > > doused the fire, so that was the end of our starlight reverie that night. > > {8^D > > > > If you have ever eaten soy-based meat substitutes, you will understand > why > > the notion of living on that stuff is so scary. {8-] > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Fri Dec 10 13:38:33 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:38:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Immortality Institute is planning to change their name to "Longecity" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201012101337.oBADbW4w000856@andromeda.ziaspace.com> John Grigg wrote: >I realize having the word "immortality" in their current title is a >bad idea in terms of social acceptance, but I think they have chosen >the wrong name as a replacement. I have suggested they change it to >the short and simple "Longevity." Longecity is guaranteed to be misspelled and mispronounced. If they can't use Longevity, they should keep looking. Is the Howard Foundation taken...? >if the Extropy Institute is reinstituted they will call themselves X'ers! Surely X-Men... Of course that would make Max Dr. Xavier, which he might not appreciate. -- David. From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 13:50:31 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:50:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Immortality Institute is planning to change their name to "Longecity" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >the Extropy Institute is reinstituted they will call themselves X'ers!< You wanna dramatically increase membership, go with Sextropy. The message might get watered down a bit though. On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:23 AM, John Grigg wrote: > The Immortality Institute board of directors have proposed changing > the name of the organization to "Longecity." This is a merging of > longevity with city. > > I realize having the word "immortality" in their current title is a > bad idea in terms of social acceptance, but I think they have chosen > the wrong name as a replacement. I have suggested they change it to > the short and simple "Longevity." > > The World Transhumanist Association now calls itself H+, the > Immortality Institute will be getting a new name, and so I suppose if > the Extropy Institute is reinstituted they will call themselves X'ers! > ; ) > > http://www.imminst.org/forum/topic/45485-articlelongecity/ > > John > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks< -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 14:54:44 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:54:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Immortality Institute is planning to change their name to "Longecity" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If they think having the word "immortality" in their current title is a bad idea in terms of social acceptance, I suggest "Get Sick and Die Soon" as a new name. On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:23 PM, John Grigg wrote: > The Immortality Institute board of directors have proposed changing > the name of the organization to "Longecity." ?This is a merging of > longevity with city. > > I realize having the word "immortality" in their current title is a > bad idea in terms of social acceptance, but I think they have chosen > the wrong name as a replacement. ?I have suggested they change it to > the short and simple "Longevity." > > The World Transhumanist Association now calls itself H+, the > Immortality Institute will be getting a new name, and so I suppose if > the Extropy Institute is reinstituted they will call themselves X'ers! > ?; ) > > http://www.imminst.org/forum/topic/45485-articlelongecity/ > > John > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 10 15:50:04 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:50:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] rocke fuel was Re: SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20101210155004.GZ9434@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:44:51PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Could you use tungsten as a heat exchanger? > > Have an onboard energy source, optimized for heat generation instead > of thrust. (Maybe even fission/radioactives, so long as they don't get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket see "Risks". They're not that good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse > into the exhaust.) Use tungsten to transfer the heat into hydrogen, > which is gently forced past. The heat greatly increases how fast it > goes when it leaves. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Dec 10 15:36:10 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:36:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <982457.58240.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <169969.1441.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <739125.12466.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> My comment which kicked this off was: "What I'm really waiting to see is private launcher to a private space station -- not a private launcher that's merely another government contractor." I'm not understanding what seems to me to be a rather sarcastic response. Yes, I know there are no private space stations for a SpaceX manned rocket to go to at this time. I was expressing my desire to see these. Regards, Dan From: Adrian Tymes To: ExI chat list Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 5:30:26 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] SpaceX launch 2010/12/9 Dan : > I believe it's already being worked on by Bigelow, no? "Being worked on" is not the same as actually having a private space station in orbit.? Until that happens, no private launcher can actually launch to it - so they have to settle for launching to the ISS. _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Dec 10 16:09:56 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:09:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Immortality Institute is planning to change their name to "Longecity" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I wrote: >if the Extropy Institute is reinstituted they will call themselves X'ers! David Lubkin replied: Surely X-Men... Of course that would make Max Dr. Xavier, which he might not appreciate. >>> David, you must not know Max all that well, because he is a huge comic book fan, and so I bet he would love to be Professor Xavier! ; ) Well, he might actually prefer being Magneto... Darren Greer wrote: You wanna dramatically increase membership, go with Sextropy. The message might get watered down a bit though. >>> If I had the website design skills, I would do a parody porn (at a PG-13 level) site called Sextropians.com! It would have a "Ask Anders" column where our favorite Swedish academic would answer people's difficult sex questions. ; ) And it would also have playful spoofs of 70's porn starring our Spike as a studly motorcycle outlaw who sports a big mustache as he romances swimsuit models, flight attendants, waitresses, librarians, astronauts, entomologists (specializing in bees), and motorcycle engineers! Giulio wrote: If they think having the word "immortality" in their current title is a bad idea in terms of social acceptance, I suggest "Get Sick and Die Soon" as a new name. >>> What about "Get Enhanced and Live Much Longer" as the new name? Or they might even go with the "Elixir of Life Institute!" lol John : ) On 12/10/10, Giulio Prisco wrote: > If they think having the word "immortality" in their current title is > a bad idea in terms of social acceptance, I suggest "Get Sick and Die > Soon" as a new name. > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:23 PM, John Grigg > wrote: >> The Immortality Institute board of directors have proposed changing >> the name of the organization to "Longecity." ?This is a merging of >> longevity with city. >> >> I realize having the word "immortality" in their current title is a >> bad idea in terms of social acceptance, but I think they have chosen >> the wrong name as a replacement. ?I have suggested they change it to >> the short and simple "Longevity." >> >> The World Transhumanist Association now calls itself H+, the >> Immortality Institute will be getting a new name, and so I suppose if >> the Extropy Institute is reinstituted they will call themselves X'ers! >> ?; ) >> >> http://www.imminst.org/forum/topic/45485-articlelongecity/ >> >> 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 possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 16:19:04 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:19:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The year in review, stylishly done in under 3 minutes Message-ID: I was impressed by their webby artistry... http://www.kurzweilai.net/zeitgeist-2010-year-in-review?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0c686aa2e3-UA-946742-1&utm_ John From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 10 16:20:47 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:20:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> <004e01cb9828$edb6e010$c924a030$@att.net> Message-ID: <003901cb9886$349a7b10$9dcf7130$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of John Grigg ... Oh, what became of the study that said eating lots of soy over the years would lead to brain damage? John Oh, that, well anyone could see that was the beef industry fighting back with dirty tactics, the same way the sugar industry starts rumors that any artificial sweetener causes cancer. I ate soy for years, no drain brammage at all. The snarny scorfs mordle my sneef um what were we talking about? smike From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 10 16:32:02 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:32:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: <3a3e5f84b4e1b2db4a0e574d2a9c9dc8.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> <3a3e5f84b4e1b2db4a0e574d2a9c9dc8.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <003a01cb9887$c692d6b0$53b88410$@att.net> ... Subject: Re: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! > >> Anyone else here see that back in the day? > > spike > >Yes, spike, I saw it. And thought about it. And sometimes still think about it. ;) Regards, MB Could that movie have influenced an entire generation's attitude towards reproduction? At my 30th reunion, I noticed my high school class didn't breed enough to replace ourselves. The total number of offspring in that class was about 70%-ish the size of the class itself. spike From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 16:56:18 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:56:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: <003901cb9886$349a7b10$9dcf7130$@att.net> References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> <004e01cb9828$edb6e010$c924a030$@att.net> <003901cb9886$349a7b10$9dcf7130$@att.net> Message-ID: Smike wrote: > Oh, that, well anyone could see that was the beef industry fighting back > with dirty tactics, the same way the sugar industry starts rumors that any > artificial sweetener causes cancer. I ate soy for years, no drain brammage > at all. The snarny scorfs mordle my sneef um what were we talking about? Yeah, I can see it never injured you in the least... ; ) I remember a Hawaiian university report stating that eating a regular diet of soy products over the years could actually cause brain damage, and it created quite a stir in the national media.... Those damn "good ole boy" Hawaiians must have conspired with the "good ole boy" Texans! lol John From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 10 16:44:40 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:44:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: <20101210112708.GQ9434@leitl.org> References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <982457.58240.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20101209213640.GC9434@leitl.org> <000601cb97f5$52dbcf70$f8936e50$@att.net> <20101210112708.GQ9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <003b01cb9889$89fd4710$9df7d530$@att.net> ...On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl Subject: Re: [ExI] SpaceX launch On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 04:06:06PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > If one can superheat the fuel anyway, one might as well simply > superheat it directly to plasma and don't bother reacting it. Unless > one includes a short-lived fusion reactor as part of the engine, of course. Adrian Of course if it is heated to plasma it wouldn't react anyway in the chemical sense. I wrote it in a confusing way. I shoulda said, react the chemicals to get them hot, then superheat the exhaust to plasma. >Eugen: Your problem is mass. E.g. fusion-enhanced VASIMR would have to to produce enough additionals thrust to overcome the added mass... The solar powered ion drives look promising to me. >I personally think that tracked beam propulsion (in the weaker form, via e.g. a rectenna array feeding a VASIMR unit) will win by virtue of leaving (most of) the drive at home... Eugen Ja, we have the tracking technology now. We could have two reflector sats which receive and transmit energy from the ground, one at a low MEO and one at GEO. The payload carrying satellite could be carried to LEO by traditional means, lower than the MEO. Then as it passes, the MEO reflector sat would beam energy to the payload sat to boost the apogee on each pass, until the apogee is out to LEO. Then the LEO reflector sat boosts perigee on each pass until the perigee is passes LEO. That scheme takes a long time, but the actually energy to boost the payload from LEO to GEO comes from the ground. spike From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 17:54:58 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:54:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: <003b01cb9889$89fd4710$9df7d530$@att.net> References: <4CFFB9F9.4090505@satx.rr.com> <201012081852.oB8IqAUY009000@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <409697.19381.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012082153.oB8LrHGe026355@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <982457.58240.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20101209213640.GC9434@leitl.org> <000601cb97f5$52dbcf70$f8936e50$@att.net> <20101210112708.GQ9434@leitl.org> <003b01cb9889$89fd4710$9df7d530$@att.net> Message-ID: Combining four emails... On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 02:28:45PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> Indeed. I would very much like to see viable plasma thrusters that can >> generate 1G+ of thrust. The trick seems to be either generating or storing > > Electrip propulsion is low-thrust high-Isp (current VASIMR does > 4 N, 6000 s specific impulse). The advantage of LEO-LLO plasma-driven > transfers is not time (currently ~6 months) but low propellant usage, > making maximal use of each kg to LEO. Unmanned payloads can also tolerate > much higher deccelerations on landing. Yeah, but the main problem right now is the high cost per kg to LEO. There's only so much optimization you can do. Further, it sets a high minimum cost, which discourages experimentation: at launch costs of $1000/kg (which is on the cheap side of today's capabilities), even if you had a 100 g toy satellite, you couldn't launch it for $100 without a lot of coordination with other people (which drives the true cost way above $100). Launch to LEO requires much higher thrust than current electric propulsion systems. >> I wonder if there's a chemical reaction that can take its reactants up to >> plasma phase, without need of external input? > > No, chemical bond energies are orders of magnitude below that > required. You'd do much better using nuclear sources, like > solar photovoltaics (with the added advantage that you're > not carrying the power source) and nuclear reactors driving > the electric propulsion unit. So I have learned. On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 04:06:06PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> If one can superheat the fuel anyway, one might as well simply superheat it >> directly to plasma and don't bother reacting it. Unless one includes a >> short-lived fusion reactor as part of the engine, of course. > > Your problem is mass. E.g. fusion-enhanced VASIMR would have to > to produce enough additionals thrust to overcome the added > mass. This is indeed the main problem of high thrust electric engines: scaling up the thrust without, well, massively scaling up the mass. > I personally think that tracked beam propulsion (in the weaker > form, via e.g. a rectenna array feeding a VASIMR unit) will win > by virtue of leaving (most of) the drive at home. It's got possibilities, but: 1) Large (and expensive) ground installation needed 2) How does it provide thrust on the far side of the planet, in order to stabilize the orbit? Or is it deflected to provide a horizontal, or even downward, thrust to shift from launch to orbit trajectory once the proper altitude is reached? >> Then again, that's "short-lived" as in "approximately 10 minutes", whereas with >> modern experimental fusion reactors, 10 seconds is considered a very long >> reaction. (Which makes me wonder how they think they'll get it to commercial >> practicality, which requires sustained power output for hours at least. I also >> can't help but wonder if engineering for extremely short reactions is part of >> the reason why big fusion reactors have not produced progress >> commensurate with their expense.) > > Speculation without knowledge is rarely useful. Given the members of this list, it's possible that someone has the knowledge to answer that. ;) 2010/12/10 Dan : > My comment which kicked this off was: "What I'm really waiting to see is > private launcher to a private space station -- not a private launcher that's > merely another government contractor." I'm not understanding what seems to > me to be a rather sarcastic response. Yes, I know there are no private space > stations for a SpaceX manned rocket to go to at this time. I was expressing > my desire to see these. Ah, I meant no offense. Rather, I was saying that the private launchers go for what milestones and triumphs they can get. Don't forget to celebrate today's progress, if it is progress, just because there are yet further objectives as yet unreached. On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:44 AM, spike wrote: > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 04:06:06PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> If one can superheat the fuel anyway, one might as well simply >> superheat it directly to plasma and don't bother reacting it. ?Unless >> one includes a short-lived fusion reactor as part of the engine, of > course. Adrian > > Of course if it is heated to plasma it wouldn't react anyway in the chemical > sense. ?I wrote it in a confusing way. ?I shoulda said, react the chemicals > to get them hot, then superheat the exhaust to plasma. That makes sense. Although, I still wonder if it might be more mass efficient to completely separate the exhaust material from that which generates the heat. From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 18:07:17 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:07:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] rocke fuel was Re: SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: <20101210155004.GZ9434@leitl.org> References: <20101210155004.GZ9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:44:51PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> Could you use tungsten as a heat exchanger? >> >> Have an onboard energy source, optimized for heat generation instead >> of thrust. ?(Maybe even fission/radioactives, so long as they don't get > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket > > see "Risks". > > They're not that good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse The first article gives a specific impulse of 850 seconds for a simple solid-core design. The latter gives specific impulses of 250-450 for modern chemical (solid or liquid fuel) rockets. Yes, there are better examples listed, but none that give 1G+ thrust. (Fuel efficiency is very desirable, but high thrust is required, for launching. So we can ignore any engines that do not give 1G+ thrust for that purpose, no matter their other benefits, even though they may be superior after orbit is achieved.) From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 18:44:05 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:44:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Halcyon Molecular interview In-Reply-To: <882166b99d4535237489d8ebd5e2b247.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <882166b99d4535237489d8ebd5e2b247.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: > Taken from the interview: > And the very most talented ones should send their resumes immediately to > Halcyon. *sends resume* Worst they can do is say no. Anyone else on this list going to apply too? On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:41 AM, MB wrote: > Is anyone besides me (and Harvey, IIRC) reading "freefall" comic at > http://freefall.purrsia.com/ > > I'm enjoying the discussion a lot! ?Makes me laugh too. Indeed. It is well written science fiction, defying the "just for kids/low brow" stereotype of most comic strips. From lubkin at unreasonable.com Fri Dec 10 18:53:27 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:53:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Immortality Institute is planning to change their name to "Longecity" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201012101852.oBAIqIPL019450@andromeda.ziaspace.com> John Grigg replied: >David, you must not know Max all that well, because he is a huge comic >book fan, and so I bet he would love to be Professor Xavier! ; ) >Well, he might actually prefer being Magneto... I was thinking of Xavier's aspects of (though brilliant) being old, bald, crippled, and pompous. Magneto has some of those qualities, but he's got a balancing pizzazz. -- David. From anders at aleph.se Fri Dec 10 18:52:24 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:52:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks. In-Reply-To: <612553.76224.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <505177.99431.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <279265.83714.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <201012091330.oB9DU46j029693@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20101209135605.GP9434@leitl.org> <4D00EC7D.9080303@aleph.se> <612553.76224.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D0276E8.40204@aleph.se> On 09/12/2010 20:46, Dan wrote: > I don't think that's true. Sexual preferences have often been used to > blackmail people -- and, in terms of security, has often been seen as > a liability because someone might be blackmailed. In other words, if > you were gay and in the closet, this might be seen as a way that > foreign agents might manipulate you -- even if you were not, say, on > their side ideologically, in their pay, or perhaps had a desire to > change history. > There is a fun passage in Charles Stross' "The Atrocity Archives" mentioning that one of the gay housemates of the protagonist is forced to participate in the pride parade in order to keep his security clearance - if he is in the closet he is blackmailable, so he must be as out of the closet as possible. As for having a FBI file or something similar, my opinion is that *not* having one is a sign of being either suspicious or unimportant. What matters is whether the information will be problematic to you or not. This is of course where the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is proven wrong, since even entirely inoccuous and truthful information can be misinterpreted out of context in bad ways. -- Dr Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From js_exi at gnolls.org Fri Dec 10 19:19:41 2010 From: js_exi at gnolls.org (J. Stanton) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:19:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] More about transrealism (was Re: J. Stanton) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D027D4D.30606@gnolls.org> On 11/23/10 4:00 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Alice Sheldon drew upon her very exotic and unusual experiences in her > fiction, so I guess that makes her work notionally transrealist--but > somehow it doesn't have the gnarly Phil Dick/Rudy Rucker zing I > associate with transrealism (although obviously it did have other virtues). That's the core of why I'm doubtful that 'The Gnoll Credo' belongs in the transrealist camp (though I love PKD, J. G. Ballard, and to a lesser extent, Rucker). Let me explain by giving a few examples: PKD was all about blurring the "normal" division between subjective experience and objective reality. VALIS did it through mystical experience, A Scanner Darkly did it through drugs, and his short stories used all manner of SF tropes. J. G. Ballard was very much about creating set pieces in which the world becomes, in some way, a projection or reflection of a character's subjective reality. Traditional characterization in his case was nearly absent, which means that he doesn't fit the traditional definition of a transrealist -- but his stories are certainly transreal. Based on the definitions you've given, Lucius Shepard would most definitely be classified as transrealist, because his stories, almost without exception, follow a pattern of a dissolute protagonist (often modeled on his own experiences as a moderately dissolute expatriate) slowly discovering the strange (and often mystical) agencies that are creating his situation and his reality. The problem here is that no one classifies Shepard as a transrealist because, while he fits the definition, he doesn't have the *style*. At all. His style is lyrical and very literary, not at all the slam-bang psychedelic pyrotechnics of Rucker, nor the flatly stated insanity of PKD or Ballard. In Shepard's worlds, the backstage machinery is slowly revealed under poor lighting, and only comes into focus at the very end...whereas PKD just leaves it lying around, and Rucker gleefully wads it up and throws it at you. So, at least *to me*, transrealism feels as much like a style as a set of writing techniques. This may not be intentional or intended, but given the authors presented as transrealist (or not), it's the impression I get. Getting back to my original point: this is the core of why I'm hesitant to sell "The Gnoll Credo" as transrealist, because it doesn't feel anything like PKD or Rucker. Frankly, if I had to provide references within the SF field, it would be some combination of James Tiptree Jr. and Octavia Butler, with perhaps a touch of Orson Scott Card. But I don't want to push that comparison too far, either, because not only is it not SF, it's not really 'like' anything else. (It's a fictional ethnobiography.) > place than you think" (a valid approach, with great impact when done > well), I go the opposite direction: "a world you originally understood > to be fantastic is much more real than you think."> > > My understanding of the term is fairly even-handed: > > words, images and ideas transrealism, although I extend his original > coinage. Not only is transrealism writing about immediate reality?or > your idiosyncratic perceptions of it?in a fantastic way, it is also a > way of writing the fantastic from the standpoint of your richly > personalized reality... quite a few writers in and out of science > fiction have been eddying in the slipstream of science toward a gnarly > attractor in narrative space (as a physicist might put it), a way of > combining wild ideas, subversion and criticism of the supposedly > inviolate Real, together with realistic thickening of the supposedly > airy fantastic, all bound together in a passionate, noncompliant act of > self-examination.> As you wrote the book, you have the advantage of me here :) I wish it weren't $100+...I'd love to read it. JS http://www.gnolls.org From js_exi at gnolls.org Fri Dec 10 19:01:29 2010 From: js_exi at gnolls.org (J. Stanton) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:01:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Soy, brain aging, and false advertising (Re: Have a Soylent Green Xmas!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D027909.1090109@gnolls.org> > From: John Grigg > > Oh, what became of the study that said eating lots of soy over the > years would lead to brain damage? Right here: "Brain Aging and Midlife Tofu Consumption" http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/2/242 "Conclusions: In this population, higher midlife tofu consumption was independently associated with indicators of cognitive impairment and brain atrophy in late life." Here's a long article collecting many of the ill effects of soy. Yes, mercola.com can be foofy at times, but this article is a good aggregation of the issues: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/09/17/soy-brain.aspx Note the effects of huge doses of phytoestrogens on infants...on which we are doing a worldwide uncontrolled study. (Yes, you'll find several references in the AJCN which claim there is no problem and soy is unequivocally good -- but you'll also find disclaimers like these at the end of such references: "M. Messina regularly consults for companies that manufacture and/or sell soyfoods and/or isoflavone supplements and is the Executive Director of the Soy Nutrition Institute, an organization funded by the soy industry and the United Soybean Board.") > If you have ever eaten soy-based meat substitutes, you will > understand why the notion of living on that stuff is so scary. {8-] > > spike Soybeans aren't food for anything but birds and rodents. Neither are soy products. Note that cattle can't digest soy or corn properly either (they're ruminants -- grass-eaters), which is why they need to be pumped full of antibiotics (a primary cause of the worldwide antibiotic resistance problem -- far more antibiotics are fed to cattle than to humans) in order to stay alive in feedlots. In fact, the entire term "vegetable oil" is false advertising, because it's not made from vegetables at all: it's an industrial product, extracted from seeds using industrial solvents (hexane). http://www.gnolls.org/812/the-term-vegetable-oil-is-false-advertising/ From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 20:12:54 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:12:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Jason Hope pledges $500k to SENS Foundation Message-ID: Jason Hope pledges $500k to SENS Foundation http://sens.org/node/1861 """ Hope's Donation Will Support SENS Foundation's Research Of Rejuvenation Biotechnologies And Its Mission To Fight Age-Related Disease MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Dec. 9, 2010 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ The global scientific community is increasingly recognizing the role of rejuvenation biotechnologies in addressing age-related disease. This week, Arizona-based businessman Jason Hope announced a $500,000 donation to SENS Foundation, a California-based non-profit organization that works to develop, promote and ensure widespread access to rejuvenation biotechnologies which comprehensively address age-related disease. ?I have had great interest in the SENS Foundation and Dr. Aubrey de Grey's work for some time now. I believe their work is essential to the advancement of human medicine and their approach to the overall problem of human aging and its associated diseases (Alzheimer's, Atherosclerosis, Diabetes, etc.) is the only way to go. Their work and the work of others that they support will drive the complete redefinition and reshaping of the healthcare, pharmaceutical, and biotech industries as we know them today. The advancement of rejuvenation biotechnologies is not only extremely important, but it is the future. I am honored to support the SENS Foundation in its efforts, and hope my support helps drive faster results for all of humanity,? said Jason Hope. The donation was announced by SENS Foundation CEO, Mike Kope, at Tuesday's 'Breakthrough Philanthropy' event hosted by the Thiel Foundation, in the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco. ?We need to create an entirely new biotech industry. That's why we created SENS Foundation: to be a credible catalyst for change; to be a public research and outreach organization devoted to the creation of a new field- rejuvenation biotechnology. To that end, we are proud that our projects are capturing the imaginations of top tier collaborators in biotech and regenerative medicine. Jason Hope's donation is a major contribution, enabling us to build on our existing collaborations in 2011, and accelerating our progress in the fight against age-related disease,? said Mike Kope. ?I enjoyed hearing a lot of great presentations at the Breakthrough Philanthropy event,? said Thiel Foundation chairman Peter Thiel. ?But for me, the highlight of the whole evening was hearing about Jason's bold commitment to defeating aging.? SENS Foundation CSO, Aubrey de Grey, described the use to which Hope's donation will be put: ?Arteriosclerosis - hardening of the arteries - is the main cause of increased blood pressure (hypertension) in the elderly, which in turn exacerbates major aspects of aging such as diabetes. It is caused largely by the unwanted accumulation of molecular bonds between the proteins that hold the cells of the artery in place - the extracellular matrix. The same process causes long-sightedness (presbyopia) and contributes to skin aging. I am delighted that Jason's donation will fund our work on the pharmacological breaking of these unwanted molecular bonds, and the restoration of elasticity to the body's extracellular matrix.? To view Mike Kope's announcement of Jason Hope's donation at Tuesday's 'Breakthrough Philanthropy' event and to learn more about SENS Foundation visit: http://sens.org/node/1858 About Jason Hope Jason Hope is an entrepreneur, based in Scottsdale, AZ, with a passion for philanthropy focusing on education, disease cure, scientific research and biotechnology. An Arizona native, Hope is a strong supporter of local educational programs that encourage learning inside and out of the classroom as well as those organizations that have a significant impact on disease prevention, control and cures. Hope has worked with the Boys & Girls Club of Metropolitan Phoenix, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's Desert Mountain States Chapter, The Tony Hawk Foundation, The Andre Agassi Foundation, True Colors Fund, The Mark Wahlberg Youth Foundation, Family Health International, Worldwide Orphans Foundation, T Gen Foundation, Teach for America Phoenix, International Foundation for Education and Self Help and the Arizona Science Center, where he is a member of the Director's Circle. About SENS Foundation : www.sens.org SENS Foundation is a non-profit organization founded in 2009 to develop, promote and ensure widespread access to rejuvenation biotechnologies which comprehensively address age-related disease. Our focus is SENS, a framework for repairing the damage which builds up in the body as a result of normal metabolism, before that damage leads to the development of deadly pathologies. SOURCE SENS Foundation www.prnewswire.com Copyright (C) 2010 PR Newswire. All rights reserved -0- KEYWORD: California INDUSTRY KEYWORD: HEA BIO SUBJECT CODE: NPT """ - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 10 21:47:42 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:47:42 +0100 Subject: [ExI] rocke fuel was Re: SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: References: <20101210155004.GZ9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101210214742.GC9434@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:07:17AM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > The first article gives a specific impulse of 850 seconds for a simple > solid-core design. The latter gives specific impulses of 250-450 for > modern chemical (solid or liquid fuel) rockets. Yes, there are better > examples listed, but none that give 1G+ thrust. (Fuel efficiency is In terms of economy you're likely to employ a hybrid design. A maglev launch stage (e.g. up Mount Chimborazo) instead of a first chemical stage, second stage air-breathing scramjet/rocket hybrid or simple chemical rocket, or laser driven ablation (not sure this will ever work, though current prototypes are sure nifty). Also, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with chemical rockets, as long as your transport rate is limited, e.g. for a lunar bootstrap using in-situ resources. Suited monkeys are quite pointless, so you'll proceed to teleoperated robots shortly, and whether you teleoperate them from a pressurized can nearby or from rotating ground centers (with the advantage of 24/7 operation) only adds about 2 seconds of latency. Which is an nuisance, but adaptable to in principle, and asks for local reflex augmentation, and is a precursor for fully autonomous designs where relativistic latency makes motoric loop coordination prohibitive. > very desirable, but high thrust is required, for launching. So we can > ignore any engines that do not give 1G+ thrust for that purpose, no > matter their other benefits, even though they may be superior after > orbit is achieved.) You will not get NERVA-type rockets approved, nevermind something as dirty as an Orion. That's not a handicap, that's a feature. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From max at maxmore.com Fri Dec 10 22:10:31 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:10:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Immortality Institute is planning to change their name to "Longecity" Message-ID: <201012102210.oBAMAiNC014135@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I'll stick with "Professor Max". Close enough. BTW, have all those of you interested in comics and especially the X-Men read my chapter, "From X to Ex: How the Marvel Myth Parallels the Real Posthuman Future" in The Unauthorized X-Men: SF and Comic Writers on Mutants, Prejudice and Adamantium, edited by Len Wein? http://www.amazon.com/Unauthorized-X-Men-Writers-Prejudice-Adamantium/dp/1932100741/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292018983&sr=1-1 Being asked to write that is what got me back into comics after more than 20 years away. Max >John Grigg replied: > > >David, you must not know Max all that well, because he is a huge comic > >book fan, and so I bet he would love to be Professor Xavier! ; ) Well, > >he might actually prefer being Magneto... > >I was thinking of Xavier's aspects of (though brilliant) being old, >bald, crippled, and pompous. > >Magneto has some of those qualities, but he's got a balancing pizzazz. > > >-- David. > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 22:46:20 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:46:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 87, Issue 17 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:44:51PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: >>> Could you use tungsten as a heat exchanger? >>> >>> Have an onboard energy source, optimized for heat generation instead >>> of thrust. ?(Maybe even fission/radioactives, so long as they don't get >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket >> >> see "Risks". >> >> They're not that good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse > > The first article gives a specific impulse of 850 seconds for a simple > solid-core design. ?The latter gives specific impulses of 250-450 for > modern chemical (solid or liquid fuel) rockets. ?Yes, there are better > examples listed, but none that give 1G+ thrust. ?(Fuel efficiency is > very desirable, but high thrust is required, for launching. ?So we can > ignore any engines that do not give 1G+ thrust for that purpose, no > matter their other benefits, even though they may be superior after > orbit is achieved.) If anyone really wants to understand what goes on with rocket design, it can be done with a spread sheet and graphing software. The key concepts are mission velocity and rocket exhaust velocity. To get into LEO takes around 9km/sec delta V. Orbital is only 8 km/sec but you burn somewhat more because of the time gravity is accelerating you downwards and from air drag. In simple terms, going to twice the exhaust velocity (which is what you have to do with LH2/LOX), the mass of the fuel has to be about 85% of the takeoff mass. A reusable rocket is about 15% structure, which leaves no payload using LH2/LOX. Laser heated hydrogen at 3000 deg K has an exhaust velocity of 9.8 km/sec. That means the structure plus payload can be 1/3rd of the takeoff mass. I.e., a 300 ton vehicle could reach orbit with 50 tons of structure and 50 tons of payload. To get in excess of one g takes around 6 GW. The only way this makes economic sense is if the lasers are run 90% of the time. Keith From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 10 23:19:07 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:19:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 87, Issue 17 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > The key concepts are mission velocity and rocket exhaust velocity. ?To > get into LEO takes around 9km/sec delta V. ?Orbital is only 8 km/sec > but you burn somewhat more because of the time gravity is accelerating > you downwards and from air drag. > > In simple terms, going to twice the exhaust velocity (which is what > you have to do with LH2/LOX), the mass of the fuel has to be about 85% > of the takeoff mass. ?A reusable rocket is about 15% structure, which > leaves no payload using LH2/LOX. > > Laser heated hydrogen at 3000 deg K has an exhaust velocity of 9.8 > km/sec. ?That means the structure plus payload can be 1/3rd of the > takeoff mass. ?I.e., a 300 ton vehicle could reach orbit with 50 tons > of structure and 50 tons of payload. > > To get in excess of one g takes around 6 GW. ?The only way this makes > economic sense is if the lasers are run 90% of the time. If it's just a matter of exhaust velocity, what about ejecting stuff at 100+ km/s? You'd need to make sure it wasn't impacting anything, but that can be done by accelerating straight up, then once high enough, shutting the engine down briefly, pointing the rear along a path confirmed to be clear of anything, and restarting the engine. (Yes, mid-air engine restart is tricky, but far from impossible, especially if you're ejecting discrete chunks - which, at that exhaust velocity, you might be - instead of doing a constant burn.) From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 11 00:22:55 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:22:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] PSI, PSI*, and Psi Message-ID: <958396.51628.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Damien Broderick > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 10:27:35 AM > Subject: Re: [ExI] PSI, PSI*, and Psi > It sounds as if the TI is new to you, Stuart. It seems to me that some TI >version is the only way to make sense of the empirical world as I understand it >(including presentiment, etc). But Cramer's approach has been critiqued in, >e.g., Michael Price's Many World's FAQ: TI is new to me, I ran across a reference to it while I was googling on retrocasuality.?? ? > < 5) Transactional model [C]. Explicitly non-local. An imaginative theory, >based on the Feynman-Wheeler absorber-emitter model of EM, in which advanced and > >retarded probability amplitudes combine into an atemporal "transaction" to form >the Born probability density. It requires that the input and output states, as >defined by an observer, act as emitters and absorbers respectively, but not any >internal states (inside the "black box"), and, consequently, suffers from the >familiar measurement problem of the Copenhagen interpretation. Huh? They are called internal states precisely because they can't be observed or measured. This is a problem (or a feature) of the math of QM?and not of this particular interpretation. Furthermore, as far as?I understand Cramer's explanation, any quantum?energy transfer?has both?an emitter and an absorber, regardless of whether there is an observer to define their I/O states or not. Therefore, the wavefunction does collapse but does so independently of an observer and without the necessity of invoking decoherence. Photons of light?exist independently of?eyes because if light didn't exist first, then eyes would never have evolved to see it. ? > If the internal states did act as emitters/absorbers then the wavefunction >would collapse, for example, around one of the double slits (an internal state) >in the double slit experiment, destroying the observed interference fringes. In >transaction terminology a transaction would form between the first single slit >and one of the double slits and another transaction would form between the same >double slit and the point on the screen where the photon lands. This never >observed.> Why would the slits be part of the transaction? The light source is the emitter and the screen is the absorber. If you replace the screen with a which-way detector, then that becomes the absorber. Since whatever you place after the slits sends a signal backwards in time to the emitter, the photon knows, before it ever starts it's journey, whether it is supposed to go through one slit or both. You can't fool light. ? Another really cool?feature about TI that Cramer *doesn't* mention and maybe hasn't noticed, is that it directly predicts the vacuum energy of QFT. According to QFT,?every point of empty space is vibrating at?every?possible frequency. The energy of this vibration is that of the ground state quantum harmonic oscillator and is given by the formula:?energy = (1/2)?*?hbar?* omega. ? Since hbar is the reduced plancks constant which is planck's constant divided by 2*pi, and omega is the angular frequency which is the Hertz frequency multiplied by 2*pi, you can simply cancel out the 2*pi and you get (1/2) * plancks constant * frequency. This means that every point in space is vibrating with exactly one half the energy of photons of every possible frequency. And this is precisely what you would expect if space was filled with?unconfirmed offer waves. Stuart LaForge "There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 11 00:24:37 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:24:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] R: PSI, PSI*, and Psi In-Reply-To: <23634886.250491291934951769.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <23634886.250491291934951769.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <868578.11742.qm@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> > >From: "scerir at alice.it" >To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 2:49:11 PM >Subject: [ExI] R: PSI, PSI*, and Psi > >Stuart, you are right, even more than in TI, the idea of two times is developed >in > >the two-state time-symmetric quantum mechanics?where the kets |>?and the bras ><|? >have .... opposite 'times'.?But the original idea is written already?in one of >the fundamental > >papers by Schroedinger (circa 1926-1927) >http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507269? >http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1347 >http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0606208 >http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105101 Thanks for the links, Serafino. ?Stuart LaForge "There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 11 02:28:08 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:28:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 87, Issue 17 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005001cb98db$0d206e00$27614a00$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes ... >If it's just a matter of exhaust velocity, what about ejecting stuff at 100+ km/s? Sure, but where do you get all the energy? spike From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Dec 11 02:47:19 2010 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:47:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: <003a01cb9887$c692d6b0$53b88410$@att.net> References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> <3a3e5f84b4e1b2db4a0e574d2a9c9dc8.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <003a01cb9887$c692d6b0$53b88410$@att.net> Message-ID: <8dccbb56d7440adcf86c860da4aeecb3.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > > Could that movie have influenced an entire generation's attitude towards > reproduction? At my 30th reunion, I noticed my high school class didn't > breed enough to replace ourselves. The total number of offspring in that > class was about 70%-ish the size of the class itself. > Interesting thought. IIUC I am older than you (by a decade or so) and what influenced my group was ZPG. I have many friends who had no children at all. We had 2. Only a few old-time friends had 3. My brothers (14 and 17 years older than I am) each had larger families. ZPG didn't have any effect on them at all. What stopped us (in particular) was finances. Regards, MB From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 11 03:18:43 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:18:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: <8dccbb56d7440adcf86c860da4aeecb3.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> <3a3e5f84b4e1b2db4a0e574d2a9c9dc8.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <003a01cb9887$c692d6b0$53b88410$@att.net> <8dccbb56d7440adcf86c860da4aeecb3.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <4D02ED93.9020704@satx.rr.com> On 12/10/2010 8:47 PM, MB wrote: > What stopped us (in particular) was finances. What stopped me was eugenics. :) Damien Broderick From atymes at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 03:38:30 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:38:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 87, Issue 17 In-Reply-To: <005001cb98db$0d206e00$27614a00$@att.net> References: <005001cb98db$0d206e00$27614a00$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:28 PM, spike wrote: > ... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes >>If it's just a matter of exhaust velocity, what about ejecting stuff at > 100+ km/s? > > Sure, but where do you get all the energy? Bring a lightweight nuclear power plant? (Shielded from the exhaust, again.) From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 11 04:06:36 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:06:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] specific thrust Message-ID: <000b01cb98e8$ce64d3a0$6b2e7ae0$@att.net> > ... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes >>If it's just a matter of exhaust velocity, what about ejecting stuff at 100+ km/s? > >> Sure, but where do you get all the energy? >Bring a lightweight nuclear power plant? (Shielded from the exhaust, again.) Feynman suggested the concept in 1941. NASA has managed to get drives that could be hauled into orbit that are capable of sending an ion stream all in the same direction with a velocity at around 30 km/sec. This would provide enormous *specific* thrust, but the total thrust is in the milli-newton range. So you could eventually use something like that to navigate in space, but it requires patience. It could be scaled up, but everything scales together. So haul this up to LEO, then use the ion drive to accelerate to escape velocity, which might take a couple years, then off you go. We have orbited experimental ion drives. They work as advertised, but as I vaguely recall the solar cycle of 1990 peaked a little higher than expected, which expanded the upper atmosphere, causing a bit more drag on the satellite than anticipated, so it ended up re-entering with ion drives screaming full throttle continuously for several months before the fiery end. That ion drive was an experimental tag along on another satellite as I recall, don't have a reference. spike From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 04:56:28 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:56:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: <4D02ED93.9020704@satx.rr.com> References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> <3a3e5f84b4e1b2db4a0e574d2a9c9dc8.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <003a01cb9887$c692d6b0$53b88410$@att.net> <8dccbb56d7440adcf86c860da4aeecb3.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <4D02ED93.9020704@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: >What stopped me was eugenics. >Damien Broderick What?!! Damien, you are a very intelligent fellow, and that genetic trait is at the top of the list for good qualities to pass on to the next generation! I hope you at least donated to a sperm bank... John : ) On 12/10/10, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 12/10/2010 8:47 PM, MB wrote: > >> What stopped us (in particular) was finances. > > What stopped me was eugenics. :) > > Damien Broderick > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 11 05:17:13 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 23:17:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Have a Soylent Green Xmas! In-Reply-To: References: <4D017B3B.3090200@satx.rr.com> <4D01820A.7020506@satx.rr.com> <004701cb981d$ba670ba0$2f3522e0$@att.net> <3a3e5f84b4e1b2db4a0e574d2a9c9dc8.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <003a01cb9887$c692d6b0$53b88410$@att.net> <8dccbb56d7440adcf86c860da4aeecb3.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <4D02ED93.9020704@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4D030959.6010405@satx.rr.com> On 12/10/2010 10:56 PM, John Grigg wrote: > I hope you at least donated to a sperm bank... I gave at the office. From atymes at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 06:57:35 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:57:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] specific thrust In-Reply-To: <000b01cb98e8$ce64d3a0$6b2e7ae0$@att.net> References: <000b01cb98e8$ce64d3a0$6b2e7ae0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:06 PM, spike wrote: > Feynman suggested the concept in 1941. ?NASA has managed to get drives that > could be hauled into orbit that are capable of sending an ion stream all in > the same direction with a velocity at around 30 km/sec. ?This would provide > enormous *specific* thrust, but the total thrust is in the milli-newton > range. I think I recall reading about that. This was why I was specifying that the thrust-to-weight of the engine needed to include the power source, so you can't get away with claiming "enormous" thrust without including everything that would need to scale up in order to scale the engine up. >?So you could eventually use something like that to navigate in > space, but it requires patience. ?It could be scaled up, but everything > scales together. IIRC, the main problem was a heavy power source - and there's been much research since then into lighter weight power sources. So I wonder if it would be possible, using today's technology, to build an ion engine that could deliver 1G+ of thrust - again, including something to power said ion engine for about 10 minutes. From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 11 07:10:13 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 23:10:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] specific thrust In-Reply-To: References: <000b01cb98e8$ce64d3a0$6b2e7ae0$@att.net> Message-ID: <002201cb9902$751cd800$5f568800$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] specific thrust On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:06 PM, spike wrote: >> ... This would provide enormous *specific* thrust, but the total thrust is >> in the milli-newton range. >...I think I recall reading about that. This was why I was specifying that the thrust-to-weight of the engine needed to include the power source, so you can't get away with claiming "enormous" thrust without including everything that would need to scale up in order to scale the engine up... Ja, ion engines are only good for enormous specific thrust. >>?So you could eventually use something like that to navigate in space, >>but it requires patience. ?It could be scaled up, but everything >>scales together. >... So I wonder if it would be possible, using today's technology, to build an ion engine that could deliver 1G+ of thrust - again, including something to power said ion engine for about 10 minutes. Adrian I'm having a hard time imagining it. State of the art for ion drives would be in the microG range, if you optimize everything. It's easier to imagine a solar powered ion drive, or perhaps a standard solar powered hot xenon drive, but both will still be down in microG territory. We have those already too, but they do take a long time to make anything happen. Once you take the cost of money into account, most of the time they go ahead and choose old fashioned chemical propulsion, accepting low specific thrust in exchange for high maximum thrust. spike From atymes at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 07:39:19 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 23:39:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] specific thrust In-Reply-To: <002201cb9902$751cd800$5f568800$@att.net> References: <000b01cb98e8$ce64d3a0$6b2e7ae0$@att.net> <002201cb9902$751cd800$5f568800$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:10 PM, spike wrote: > Ja, ion engines are only good for enormous specific thrust. Why is this? From deimtee at optusnet.com.au Sat Dec 11 08:15:56 2010 From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (David) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:15:56 +1100 Subject: [ExI] specific thrust In-Reply-To: References: <000b01cb98e8$ce64d3a0$6b2e7ae0$@att.net> <002201cb9902$751cd800$5f568800$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101211191556.038e1fdb@optusnet.com.au> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 23:39:19 -0800 Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:10 PM, spike wrote: > > Ja, ion engines are only good for enormous specific thrust. > > Why is this? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat E = 0.5* M * V * V Enormous specific thrust means very high exhaust velocity. That means large amounts of energy per unit mass of exhaust. To go from an exhaust velocity of 3km/s (good chemical rocket) to 30km/s (low end ion engine) increases your energy requirements by a factor of 100, while only increasing your thrust by a factor of 10. You can't do it with chemical based power. The energy simply isn't there. You need either nuclear, solar, or ground-based beamed power. To get above 1G on an ion rocket would require a staggering amount of power. BOEC : Assume: 100 ton liftoff mass 2G acceleration 30 km/s exhaust Leads to: 65 kg/s exhaust mass 300 Gigawatts energy requirement It gets worse as your ion drive gets better. -David. From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Dec 11 08:38:27 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 03:38:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Specific Impulse In-Reply-To: <005001cb98db$0d206e00$27614a00$@att.net> References: <005001cb98db$0d206e00$27614a00$@att.net> Message-ID: On Dec 10, 2010, at 9:28 PM, spike wrote: >> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes >> If it's just a matter of exhaust velocity, what about ejecting stuff at 100+ km/s? > > Sure, but where do you get all the energy? From americium. And 100 km's is bush league, an americium rocket could give you 200,000 km/s. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 11 09:10:15 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:10:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] specific thrust In-Reply-To: References: <000b01cb98e8$ce64d3a0$6b2e7ae0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101211091015.GQ9434@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:57:35PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > IIRC, the main problem was a heavy power source - and there's been much > research since then into lighter weight power sources. So I wonder if it would About the lightest power source is an almost unshielded reactor running at close to self-destruction temperature. That is a nasty, nasty thing. > be possible, using today's technology, to build an ion engine that could > deliver 1G+ of thrust - again, including something to power said ion engine for > about 10 minutes. You realize that ion engines don't work much below 100 km? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 11 09:19:57 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 01:19:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] specific thrust In-Reply-To: References: <000b01cb98e8$ce64d3a0$6b2e7ae0$@att.net> <002201cb9902$751cd800$5f568800$@att.net> Message-ID: <000301cb9914$94774070$bd65c150$@att.net> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] specific thrust On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:10 PM, spike wrote: >> Ja, ion engines are only good for enormous specific thrust. >Why is this? There is a lot of energy thru-put there, so the stuff to handle it is inherently heavy. Think of a particle accelerator like SLAC up the street here at Stanford. That is an ion engine in a way: it accelerates mass to enormous velocities. If that whole rig were up in space, it could be used to create a small thrust while using verrry little mass, so its specific thrust would be off the charts. If we had that up there and arbitrarily much energy to accelerate a tiny amount of matter, then the momentum still needs to be conserved, to the entire SLAC would be gently pushed the other way, so then we could go all over the place out there using so very little propellant. So if you want to think of it as an engine, SLAC might hold the record for the highest specific thrust anywhere. Chemical propellant carries all its energy in the propellant itself, but uses a hell of lot of it to go anywhere. The equipment needed to do it is very small, light and simple: a tank, a pressurization mechanism such as a turbine, a combustion chamber, a nozzle and off ya go. Solid propellant is even simpler still: just a pressure vessel and a nozzle. But those have even lower specific thrust. High peak thrust. The highest peak thrust ever I think is with solids, but I would need to look that upwards. Are the space shuttle solids higher peak thrust than a Saturn V first stage main engine? Back to particle accelerators, it might be interesting to try to estimate the specific thrust to figure out how fast SLAC or CERN could accelerate if you did have that device out in space. A centimeter per square week? Imagine we created an MBrain which wanted to haul its star elsewhere. This is an exercise we did here about a decade ago, when Robert Bradbury's imaginative writings kept us calculating into the night. I vaguely recall calculating it, and it came out on the order of a few meters per square century or something like that, so that one could navigate to the escape velocity of the Milky Way galaxy in about a couple billion years, as I recall, or make it to the nearest star in 10 million or so. In that case, the sun with its MBrain would have a very high specific thrust, and even its total thrust is high by the numbers we are accustomed to using, but it has a lot of mass to get moving. I might have that written in my green notebooks somewhere, or if I get in the mood tomorrow I may repeat those calcs. spike From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 11 09:53:39 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:53:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] specific thrust In-Reply-To: <000301cb9914$94774070$bd65c150$@att.net> References: <000b01cb98e8$ce64d3a0$6b2e7ae0$@att.net> <002201cb9902$751cd800$5f568800$@att.net> <000301cb9914$94774070$bd65c150$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101211095339.GR9434@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 01:19:57AM -0800, spike wrote: > Chemical propellant carries all its energy in the propellant itself, but > uses a hell of lot of it to go anywhere. The equipment needed to do it is > very small, light and simple: a tank, a pressurization mechanism such as a > turbine, a combustion chamber, a nozzle and off ya go. Solid propellant is > even simpler still: just a pressure vessel and a nozzle. But those have > even lower specific thrust. High peak thrust. The highest peak thrust ever > I think is with solids, but I would need to look that upwards. Are the > space shuttle solids higher peak thrust than a Saturn V first stage main > engine? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile ... Nike X was a US system of two missiles, radars and their associated control systems. The original Nike Zeus (later called Spartan) was upgraded for longer range and a much larger 5 megatonne warhead intended to destroy warheads with a burst of x-rays outside the atmosphere. A second shorter-range missile called Sprint with very high acceleration was added to handle warheads that evaded longer-ranged Spartan. Sprint was a very fast missile (some sources claimed it accelerated to 8,000 mph (13 000 km/h) within 4 seconds of flight?an average acceleration of 100 g) and had a smaller W66 enhanced radiation warhead in the 1-3 kiloton range for in-atmosphere interceptions. ... -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 10:07:25 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:07:25 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <20101209152145.GX9434@leitl.org> References: <001d01cb94ad$891fb240$9b5f16c0$@att.net> <201012091342.oB9DgQA0015968@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20101209152145.GX9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 12/9/10, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 02:44:40PM +0000, BillK wrote: > >> The problem is that in the internet age security is actually a very >> hard problem. > > The Internet has nothing to do with it. > You would need a very big briefcase to get hundreds of thousands of documents into before networked computers, CDs and thumb drives appeared. > >> >> Quote: >> A 1993 GAO report estimated more than 3 million US military and >> civilian personnel had clearance, and access is also available to a >> "...small pool of trusted allies, including Australia, Canada, the >> United Kingdom and New Zealand...". >> ------- >> >> So, try and secure that! Not only US computers, but allies computers as >> well. > > Typically you compartmentalize by need to know basis. You can use > smart tokes for authentication and serve information keyed to said > token, and use secure terminals in secure location. It is also > easy to log access, lock out on recognized access patterns, introduce > watermarks to each analyst account. Just because it has not been > done in this case it doesn't mean it can't be done. That's fine for small, tightly controlled networks. We're talking about millions of computers under the control of thousands of different organisations. > >> The big problem with role-based security is that staff roles change >> all the time. And it is difficult to decide what level the 'need to > > If you don't revoke access when the role changed than you know what > you're doing wrong (or right) already. > Nowadays most people don't have one strict role. They do work for several bosses and departments. Security admin gets to be a real pain sometimes. >> know' stops at. So most organisations give people more clearance than >> they need, 'just in case'. > > Spooks are not most organisations. > Spooks are a small part of the US government networks. And even they are complaining about (or just ignoring) the latest controls (see below). >> Staff regard security as an obstacle to doing their job and quickly >> find ways to bypass security measures that get in their way. > > You know what do with such staff. > Yea, I'd love to be a ruthless dictator as well. Quote: Maj. Gen. Richard Webber, commander of Air Force Network Operations, issued the Dec. 3 ?Cyber Control Order? ? obtained by Danger Room ? which directs airmen to ?immediately cease use of removable media on all systems, servers, and stand alone machines residing on SIPRNET,? the Defense Department?s secret network. Similar directives have gone out to the military?s other branches. An August internal review suggested that the Pentagon disable all classified computers? ability to write to removable media. About 60 percent of military machines are now connected to a Host Based Security System, which looks for anomalous behavior. And now there?s this disk-banning order. The order acknowledges that the ban will make life trickier for some troops. ?Users will experience difficulty with transferring data for operational needs which could impede timeliness on mission execution,? the document admits. ----------- It could get tricky if these security measures cause mission execution problems. People could be dying while the data is kept secure. Security is always a trade-off. And, of course, in the end the US military can only secure its own computers, which is only part of SIPRNet. BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 13:32:52 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 14:32:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? was Re: Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9 December 2010 22:36, Keith Henson wrote: > On the other hand, perhaps the guy is still a patriot who just thinks > what he found was so off the rails that it needed to be corrected and > this was the only way he figured it could be done. It's a problem you > get from people running up against real life when they have been > taught American idealism in school. > Patriot for what? The Australian Empire to rule the world in a distant future? What an Iraqi or a North Korean or even a Chinese patriot should do if he could put his hands on US confidential or embarassing information? A libertarian? An old-style anarchist? Should an Australian citizen feel by definition in any especial way about it? -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 13:19:52 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 14:19:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer. In-Reply-To: <526510F4-5333-43ED-A12E-115DB6255C0E@bellsouth.net> References: <4CF9D7DF.4060900@satx.rr.com> <88EDFFDD-51AE-4EB0-A53B-8737394876B7@bellsouth.net> <4CFD86BB.1070400@satx.rr.com> <51D151A5-8F24-45E6-92CF-96D03E750F96@bellsouth.net> <4CFE77C7.7090609@satx.rr.com> <53B9FFB3-317F-4FE9-8BC2-F9FD8F3C73AA@bellsouth.net> <4CFE8DAD.6000302@satx.rr.com> <1866C35E-7486-42A0-A8EE-BD3A76075B49@bellsouth.net> <4CFFDB48.1030203@satx.rr.com> <526510F4-5333-43ED-A12E-115DB6255C0E@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/12/9 John Clark > Given our idiotic legal system you could be right. James (The Amazing) > Randi has been sued by Uri Geller many times for pointing out the obvious > fact that the man was a fraud, and one time he even won; a court in Japan > found Randi guilty not of libel but of "insult", in Japan it can be illegal > to say something bad about someone even if its true. > In Italy it is definitely illegal to say something bad about someone even if it is true (you cannot call "whore" a whore, e.g., for the purpose of insulting her), unless the plaintiff in the libel action expressly grants his opponent the broadening of the scope to the case to the merits of the accusation (which is normally done, since failure to do so is usually considered as a public admission by the plaintiff of the truth of what he is blamed of). As far as I can tell, the US system is somewhat practically more inclined to favour freedom of speech than the continental or the English system, but the principles per se are not so different (see http://www.spawn.org/marketing/slander.htm), since the "truth" is very far from being a blanket defence a libel action even there. What makes the difference in most circumstances, however, is that you may well factually hallenge the truth of a claim or the competence of the claimant without calling him a "liar" or an "idiot". -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 15:03:01 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:03:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Soy, brain aging, and false advertising (Re: Have a Soylent Green Xmas!) In-Reply-To: <4D027909.1090109@gnolls.org> References: <4D027909.1090109@gnolls.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:01 PM, J. Stanton wrote: > Note that cattle can't digest soy or corn properly either (they're ruminants > -- grass-eaters), which is why they need to be pumped full of antibiotics (a > primary cause of the worldwide antibiotic resistance problem -- far more > antibiotics are fed to cattle than to humans) in order to stay alive in > feedlots. How many cattle have you raised, J.? I've raised a dozen or so, so far, and none of them had any trouble digesting feed with corn and other grains without *any* antibiotics. I don't doubt that there's antibiotic use and abuse at some large feedlots, but a lot of cattle are produced by smaller operations that don't engage in the alleged abuses and excesses of the larger, corporate operations. > In fact, the entire term "vegetable oil" is false advertising, because it's > not made from vegetables at all: it's an industrial product, extracted from > seeds using industrial solvents (hexane). J., you've got good arguments against vegetable oils, but claiming that calling them that is false advertising isn't one of them. One of the accepted definitions of "vegetable" as an adjective is "derived from plants", and that's how it's used in "vegetable oil"--to distinguish it from oils of animal or mineral origin. -Dave From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 15:56:31 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 16:56:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Halcyon Molecular interview In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9 December 2010 23:43, Bryan Bishop wrote: > Halycon Molecular interview > http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/interview-of-gene-sequencing-expert.html > > As for Kurzweil, maybe this isn?t fair, and I?d like to hear his thoughts > on > it, but I?m afraid his books demotivate people who would otherwise > contribute to the cause, maybe by giving the impression to some that the > Singularity is not only coming, but actually inevitable. Eat right, > exercise, take these pills, and don?t worry- those smart hardworking > scientists over there will solve everything for you. > Why; this is by no means an attitude limited to Kurzweil, and it is my main critique to some brands of Singularitarianism (including those who add "as long as you steer them and keep them under control" to the last line, which is even worse after a fashion implying not just passivity but actual mistrust with regard to an assumedly automagic "runaway progress")... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 17:24:25 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 09:24:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Specific Impulse In-Reply-To: References: <005001cb98db$0d206e00$27614a00$@att.net> Message-ID: 2010/12/11 John Clark : > From americium. ?And 100 km's is bush league ...pun intended? ;) From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 17:31:21 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:31:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Re :rocket fuel was Re: SpaceX launch Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: " > In terms of economy you're likely to employ a hybrid design. > A maglev launch stage (e.g. up Mount Chimborazo) instead of a first > chemical stage, second stage air-breathing scramjet/rocket hybrid > or simple chemical rocket, or laser driven ablation (not sure this > will ever work, though current prototypes are sure nifty). If you have never looked at the power requirement for maglev, you should. > Also, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with chemical rockets, > as long as your transport rate is limited, e.g. for a lunar bootstrap > using in-situ resources. Suited monkeys are quite pointless, so you'll > proceed to teleoperated robots shortly, and whether you teleoperate > them from a pressurized can nearby or from rotating ground centers (with > the advantage of 24/7 operation) only adds about 2 seconds of latency. Dr. Peter Schubert is the only one I know of who tried to put numbers on a lunar bootstrap. He got $2 T and 20 years. Adrian Tymes wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> The key concepts are mission velocity and rocket exhaust velocity. ?To >> get into LEO takes around 9km/sec delta V. ?Orbital is only 8 km/sec >> but you burn somewhat more because of the time gravity is accelerating >> you downwards and from air drag. >> >> In simple terms, going to twice the exhaust velocity (which is what >> you have to do with LH2/LOX), the mass of the fuel has to be about 85% >> of the takeoff mass. ?A reusable rocket is about 15% structure, which >> leaves no payload using LH2/LOX. >> >> Laser heated hydrogen at 3000 deg K has an exhaust velocity of 9.8 >> km/sec. ?That means the structure plus payload can be 1/3rd of the >> takeoff mass. ?I.e., a 300 ton vehicle could reach orbit with 50 tons >> of structure and 50 tons of payload. >> >> To get in excess of one g takes around 6 GW. ?The only way this makes >> economic sense is if the lasers are run 90% of the time. > > If it's just a matter of exhaust velocity, what about ejecting stuff > at 100+ km/s? As other people mentioned later, energy. mv =MV, but Ke = 1/2mv^2 Ten times the exhaust velocity takes 100 times as much energy. We are already at $60 B for the lasers, 100 times as much is $6 T. It would take 1.2 TW to power the lasers. That's more than the installed electric power for the US. Keith PS. It would, however, make a hell of a weapon. 6GW is 1.5 tons of TNT per second. 600 GW would be 150 tons of TNT per second, less than two hours for a megaton. From atymes at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 17:50:37 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 09:50:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] specific thrust In-Reply-To: <20101211091015.GQ9434@leitl.org> References: <000b01cb98e8$ce64d3a0$6b2e7ae0$@att.net> <20101211091015.GQ9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:57:35PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> IIRC, the main problem was a heavy power source - and there's been much >> research since then into lighter weight power sources. ?So I wonder if it would > > About the lightest power source is an almost unshielded reactor > running at close to self-destruction temperature. That is a nasty, > nasty thing. Well yeah. But that aside, there are lighter safe power sources available today. Also, the arguments about needing a lot of power for an ion engine skip the fact that, today, we can get systems of (ion engine + power source) that deliver positive thrust. So why not just strap a bunch of those together? That the rocket might be 90+% engine is not all that different from today - and some of that would likely be reusable as the structure of a reusable rocket. >> be possible, using today's technology, to build an ion engine that could >> deliver 1G+ of thrust - again, including something to power said ion engine for >> about 10 minutes. > > You realize that ion engines don't work much below 100 km? Ah, now that I did not know. Is it not possible to evacuate the engine long enough to gain that much altitude? (Though, one could use balloons to gain mere altitude and launch from there, using ion engines to get up to orbital speed.) From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 21:44:24 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 22:44:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Project Orion , was rocket fuel Message-ID: On 10 December 2010 22:47, Eugen Leitl wrote: > You will not get NERVA-type rockets approved, nevermind something > as dirty as an Orion. That's not a handicap, that's a feature. > I do not expect, nor would actually wish, Orion Project vehicles routinely utilised to bring things our of the earth's gravitational well (I do not cherish the prospective of getting a cancer myself...), but certainly would aesthetically love to see them used at least a few times, ideally for "bootstrapping" purposes. Think for instance of space-based solar power, or space-elevator lunar Helium-3 mining, or whatever. I suspect that once one has obtained a sufficient quantity of cheap energy at ground level in the first place, it would be easy enough to revert to lower-efficiency, but more environmentally friendly, technologies. And I also suspect that while adverse consequences of Project Orion propulsion cannot be entirely avoided, much could be done in comparison with the 60s tech originally considered... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 21:47:39 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 22:47:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] specific thrust In-Reply-To: <20101211091015.GQ9434@leitl.org> References: <000b01cb98e8$ce64d3a0$6b2e7ae0$@att.net> <20101211091015.GQ9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 11 December 2010 10:10, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > About the lightest power source is an almost unshielded reactor > running at close to self-destruction temperature. That is a nasty, > nasty thing. > It depends on whether you have actually to sit on it. If it is used in an orbit around Mars, I think we can live with it... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 23:54:05 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:54:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Immortality Institute is planning to change their name to "Longecity" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10 December 2010 15:54, Giulio Prisco wrote: > If they think having the word "immortality" in their current title is > a bad idea in terms of social acceptance, I suggest "Get Sick and Die > Soon" as a new name. > :-D "Social acceptance" is of course a very dubious concern if one considers his primary task to be exactly that of changing what is "socially acceptable". But I never liked much the term of "immortality", which suggests a) an inability to die, b) a somewhat metaphysically-tainted concept of infinity. On the other hand, "Indefinite Lifespan Institute" may not sound so well in English... :-/ -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Sun Dec 12 01:26:14 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:26:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Immortality Institute is planning to change their name to "Longecity" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201012120126.oBC1QLYn009940@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Stefano wrote: >But I never liked much the term of "immortality", which suggests >a) an inability to die, >b) a somewhat metaphysically-tainted concept of infinity. When I talk to others, I don't say I want to be immortal. I think it makes one sound like a nut and/or a Highlander fan boy. I want to live until I don't want to live any more. I want to finish off my to-do list. Going, doing, and learning everything I want will take about 3,000 years, and I expect I'll add to the list as more things become possible. -- David. From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Dec 12 01:15:01 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:15:01 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? was Re: Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/12/12 Stefano Vaj : > On 9 December 2010 22:36, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> On the other hand, perhaps the guy is still a patriot who just thinks >> what he found was so off the rails that it needed to be corrected and >> this was the only way he figured it could be done. ?It's a problem you >> get from people running up against real life when they have been >> taught American idealism in school. > > Patriot for what? The Australian Empire to rule the world in a distant > future? > > What an Iraqi or a North Korean or even a Chinese patriot should do if he > could put his hands on US confidential or embarassing information? A > libertarian? An old-style anarchist? > > Should an Australian citizen feel by definition in any especial way about > it? I think Keith was talking about the original leaker, a US soldier, not Assange. But in any case, Australia has been so consistently close to the US in foreign policy for so long that Australians may as well feel the same responsibility as US citizens. One of the WikiLeaks documents shows a major figure in the current Australian federal government effectively spying on his own party for the Americans, and my impression of the reaction is that this isn't even seen as particularly surprising or concerning here. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/yank-in-the-ranks-20101208-18pwi.html -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 12 11:52:33 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:52:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? was Re: Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12 December 2010 02:15, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > I think Keith was talking about the original leaker, a US soldier, not > Assange. But in any case, Australia has been so consistently close to > the US in foreign policy for so long that Australians may as well feel > the same responsibility as US citizens. > ... or perhaps feel that time has come for an Australian Independence War.. :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Sun Dec 12 13:44:15 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:44:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? was Re: Wikileaks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201012121344.oBCDiQgY005155@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Stathis wrote: >I think Keith was talking about the original leaker, a US soldier, >not Assange. But in any case, Australia has been so consistently >close to the US in foreign policy for so long that Australians may >as well feel the same responsibility as US citizens. One of the >WikiLeaks documents shows a major figure in the current Australian >federal government effectively spying on his own party for the >Americans, and my impression of the reaction is that this isn't even >seen as particularly surprising or concerning here. Since Australia has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Australians could probably charge Assange with treason. The public discussion here in the US has focused on our Constitution and legal principles. But Assange has angered the Powers That Be of assorted governments, with differing legal standards, punctiliousness, and comfort with extra-judicial violent solutions. And some of them have long memories. I suspect he will be at risk for the rest of his life. But he did make it to an SNL skit last night, played by Bill Hader. -- David. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 12 14:03:27 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:03:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Immortality Institute is planning to change their name to "Longecity" In-Reply-To: <201012120126.oBC1QLYn009940@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201012120126.oBC1QLYn009940@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 12 December 2010 02:26, David Lubkin wrote: > I want to live until I don't want to live any more. > Exactly my point. In fact, I can even live with the idea that some unexpected accident may terminate my life at any point in time (and I am not so fond of contemporary obsession for safety). What I personally hate is the acceptance of a more or less fixed time limit, in the fashion that supermarket products expire no matter how well you conserve them. I want to finish off my to-do list. Going, doing, and learning everything > I want will take about 3,000 years, and I expect I'll add to the list as > more things become possible. > In principle, my immediate target would be even less ambitious, probably on the scale of 800-1000 years. After that, I may well find new interests, or genetically-programmed survival instincts may simply kick in, or not, but whatever it may be it is not such a present concern for me. For the time being, what I find of primary interest is the progressive extension of potential lifespan (and/or the emulation of my identity on other biological or non-biological substrates). -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 12 14:09:55 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:09:55 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? was Re: Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <201012121344.oBCDiQgY005155@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201012121344.oBCDiQgY005155@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 12 December 2010 14:44, David Lubkin wrote: > The public discussion here in the US has focused on our Constitution and > legal principles. But Assange has angered the Powers That Be of assorted > governments, with differing legal standards, punctiliousness, and comfort > with extra-judicial violent solutions. > > And some of them have long memories. I suspect he will be at risk for the > rest of his life. > Unless conspiracy nuts, who are typically angered by seeing a few of their theories confirmed and therefore banalised, are right when they maintain that Assance is in truth a CIA or Mossad operative who has leaked unimportant information in order to distract people from "true" secrets and/or to obfuscate them... :-D -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Sun Dec 12 16:45:08 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:45:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? was Re: Wikileaks In-Reply-To: <201012121344.oBCDiQgY005155@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201012121344.oBCDiQgY005155@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: >Since Australia has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Australians could probably charge Assange with treason.< I wonder why none of those claiming "Assange must die" or something like bother to mention the fact that if Wikileaks is through some legal or national security bullshit slight-of-hand held criminally, civically or even morally responsible for leaking the documents, then the New York Times, The London Guardian and host of other newspapers should be as well. It was a joint effort: the mainstream press worked with Wikileaks in going through the documents to decide which should be leaked, and which should be held back due to security concerns. I imagine editorial board meetings at the Times are interesting these days. Those guys are smart enough to know the score, and politically savvy enough to know what they can print and what they can't. Wikileaks takes the fall, and yet they were interested enough to see what would happen to stir the pot. You can't trust the news, because in this case, the news is the news. I don't recall anyone trying to shut down the Washington Post because they leaked Watergate. Perhaps Nixon and Kissinger should have taken just that tack: savage the fifth estate and ignore the content of the revelations as "harmful." And like most major scandals, nothing in the end will get resolved in the mind of the public because people will just get "sick" of the story and wish it would go away. Meantime governments will try and pass some draconian international law that will protect their operational freedoms by limiting those of their citizens. I'm not sick of hearing about it. I'm fairly sick of hearing ordinary people repeat the evening news party line that Wikileaks is responsible because they " put us all at risk." I keep thinking of that prescient quip by Benjamin Franklin that states: "Any nation that sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither, and will lose both." Darren On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:44 AM, David Lubkin wrote: > Stathis wrote: > > I think Keith was talking about the original leaker, a US soldier, not >> Assange. But in any case, Australia has been so consistently close to the US >> in foreign policy for so long that Australians may as well feel the same >> responsibility as US citizens. One of the WikiLeaks documents shows a major >> figure in the current Australian federal government effectively spying on >> his own party for the Americans, and my impression of the reaction is that >> this isn't even seen as particularly surprising or concerning here. >> > > Since Australia has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Australians could > probably charge Assange with treason. > > The public discussion here in the US has focused on our Constitution and > legal principles. But Assange has angered the Powers That Be of assorted > governments, with differing legal standards, punctiliousness, and comfort > with extra-judicial violent solutions. > > And some of them have long memories. I suspect he will be at risk for the > rest of his life. > > But he did make it to an SNL skit last night, played by Bill Hader. > > > -- David. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 12 17:14:50 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:14:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] inserting backdated posts, was RE: Who is safe? Message-ID: <002101cb9a20$15ba4130$412ec390$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Darren Greer Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 8:45 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Who is safe? was Re: Wikileaks >Since Australia has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Australians could probably charge Assange with treason.< I wonder why none of those claiming "Assange must die" or something like bother to mention the fact that if Wikileaks is through some legal or national security bullshit slight-of-hand held criminally, civically or even morally responsible for leaking the documents. I agree. The story itself contains contradictions. We hear of classified information that was taken from an unsecured link, but nothing of the leakers, those who put the info on an unsecured medium, which really is illegal. I don't mean PFC Manning, but rather the apparent authors. Neither do I hear the obvious: if classified info was copied, how can it be verified that it was genuine? I suspect it was counterfeit, or was liberally mixed with intentionally counterfeit posts. In this spirit I now ask: can you think of any advantages or disadvantages of generating back dated counterfeit ExI posts and placing them in the archives? If we could create an index of the inserted posts, which could later be used to demonstrate *any* opinion we needed, anything from being pro-singularity, anti-singularity, any position we wanted regarding global warming etc. Of course if we do that, we give away the actual crystal clear foresight which was occasionally demonstrated on this list, specifically with regards to the future of war. Some of those posts from over a decade ago were spot on with what history is revealing today. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From js_exi at gnolls.org Sun Dec 12 19:46:05 2010 From: js_exi at gnolls.org (J. Stanton) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:46:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Corn, soy, and cattle (was Soy, brain aging, and false advertising) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D05267D.5060502@gnolls.org> From: Dave Sill > 2:01 PM, J. Stanton wrote: >> > Note that cattle can't digest soy or corn properly either (they're ruminants >> > -- grass-eaters), which is why they need to be pumped full of antibiotics (a >> > primary cause of the worldwide antibiotic resistance problem -- far more >> > antibiotics are fed to cattle than to humans) in order to stay alive in >> > feedlots. > How many cattle have you raised, J.? I've raised a dozen or so, so > far, and none of them had any trouble digesting feed with corn and > other grains without*any* antibiotics. I don't doubt that there's > antibiotic use and abuse at some large feedlots, but a lot of cattle > are produced by smaller operations that don't engage in the alleged > abuses and excesses of the larger, corporate operations. I certainly won't tell you how to raise cattle :) but I'm going off sources like this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010511074623.htm Referring to this paper (caution: paywall) http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5519/1119.short "Domestic ruminants in developed countries are often fed an abundance of grain and little fiber. When ruminants are fed fiber-deficient rations, physiological mechanisms of homeostasis are disrupted, ruminal pH declines, microbial ecology is altered, and the animal becomes more susceptible to metabolic disorders and, in some cases, infectious disease. Some disorders can be counteracted by feed additives (for example, antibiotics and buffers), but these additives can alter the composition of the ruminal ecosystem even further." That being said, I'm sure the positive health impact of NOT raising cattle in feces up to their ankles is substantial (skip to about 5:30): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69gT9LBCMxg So part of the effect of grain-based diets on cattle is direct (digestive problems) and part of the effect is indirect (concentration of animals into feedlots, which is only made possible by a grain-based diet). Then there is the problem that grain-based diets for cattle create and spread acid-resistant E.coli (the strains that cause actual sickness and death in humans because they can survive the digestive tract). It's clear that if you want to make cows as fat as possible as quickly as possible without regard to their health, you should feed them lots of grain and grain products. I think there is a lesson here for humans. That being said, I don't blame anyone for feeding grain to their cattle...when we subsidize it so heavily to make it so cheap, it's the obvious thing to do. And sustainable grazing is actually a lot of work, because you're moving the cattle around daily with small electric fences in order to mimic the movement patterns of native grazers (like buffalo), which move around continually and let the grass regenerate instead of eating it down to the ground where they are before moving on. >> > In fact, the entire term "vegetable oil" is false advertising, because it's >> > not made from vegetables at all: it's an industrial product, extracted from >> > seeds using industrial solvents (hexane). > J., you've got good arguments against vegetable oils, but claiming > that calling them that is false advertising isn't one of them. One of > the accepted definitions of "vegetable" as an adjective is "derived > from plants", and that's how it's used in "vegetable oil"--to > distinguish it from oils of animal or mineral origin. By that standard, fruits and nuts are really just vegetables because they're derived from plants. That may be technically true, as "vegetable" is not a precisely defined term -- but commonly understood usage, including the "food pyramid", defines "vegetables" as separate entities from other plant products such as fruits, nuts, grains, and starches. Wikipedia gets it about right: "The noun vegetable usually means an edible plant or part of a plant *other than a sweet fruit or seed.* [emphasis mine] This usually means the leaf, stem, or root of a plant. However, the word is not scientific, and its meaning is largely based on culinary and cultural tradition." JS http://www.gnolls.org From js_exi at gnolls.org Sun Dec 12 19:46:57 2010 From: js_exi at gnolls.org (J. Stanton) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:46:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] More information on EOD fasting for the CR/life extension crowd Message-ID: <4D0526B1.2000500@gnolls.org> I'm seeing more and more evidence that EOD (every other day) fasting gains us most of the same benefits as full-time calorie restriction. There are many intriguing specifics in this paper, which I'll leave those interested to read, but I will quote the summary: "Muscle Physiology Changes Induced by Every Other Day Feeding and Endurance Exercise in Mice: Effects on Physical Performance" http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013900 "In summary, our work indicate that a nutritional stress induced by the EOD model of CR together with a moderate increase of energy expenditure through physical exercise produces metabolic changes that increase the efficiency of mitochondrial activity in muscle, reduces oxidative damage and improves physical performance. Subtle modifications at the cellular and biochemical levels in response to dietary stress seem to be the basis for a higher mitochondrial efficiency. Taking into consideration that the decline in physical activity during age is a common factor in many species, the results shown here suggest that the combination of the reduction of calorie intake and the practice of aerobic exercise would also increase physical performance in humans and then, improve their quality of life." JS http://www.gnolls.org From js_exi at gnolls.org Sun Dec 12 19:47:59 2010 From: js_exi at gnolls.org (J. Stanton) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:47:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Biological immortality and the paleo diet Message-ID: <4D0526EF.6040504@gnolls.org> For those who didn't see Michael Rose's talk at Humanity+ at Caltech: "How to achieve ?biological immortality? naturally" http://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-achieve-biological-immortality-naturally This appears to support the theory advanced in this paper, which I posted previously: "Glucose Hysteresis as a Mechanism in Dietary Restriction, Aging and Disease" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755292/ In other words, not only is a 'paleo' diet (which includes periodic fasting, as per my previous message, as well as a meat/vegetable/some tuber/occasional fruit and nut diet) better for your short-term health, mood, and energy level: it may actually extend your life. Of course, this is all still in the 'theory' stage. But since the 'theory' that low fat intake and a diet high in processed grains is good for your health has been immediately followed by skyrocketing rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, I'm comfortable working on the assumption that a diet (and physical activity) informed by evolutionary biology is healthy. JS http://www.gnolls.org From lubkin at unreasonable.com Sun Dec 12 19:54:34 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:54:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] inserting backdated posts, was RE: Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <002101cb9a20$15ba4130$412ec390$@att.net> References: <002101cb9a20$15ba4130$412ec390$@att.net> Message-ID: <201012121954.oBCJsX60021092@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Spike wrote: >I agree. The story itself contains contradictions. We hear of >classified information that was taken from an unsecured link, but >nothing of the leakers, those who put the info on an unsecured >medium, which really is illegal. I don't mean PFC Manning, but >rather the apparent authors. Neither do I hear the obvious: if >classified info was copied, how can it be verified that it was >genuine? I suspect it was counterfeit, or was liberally mixed with >intentionally counterfeit posts. A tweet led me to a URL with an odd "document", allegedly from the State Department leaks: . Was this an actual DoS document that some clown classified? Or is it a hoax page? It occurs to me that, if I were in US intelligence, I'd either reduce the reliability of a document that asserted that X1 did Y1 with a flood of docs that asserted X1 did not do Y1, X2 did Y1, X1 did Y2, etc., or use WikiLeaks to spread disinformation. An example of the latter: a document that asserts that Z is a US intel asset when he is actually an adversary may succeed in undercutting Z's position among his enemy pals. -- David. From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Dec 12 20:05:56 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:05:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > On 9 December 2010 22:36, Keith Henson wrote: > >> On the other hand, perhaps the guy is still a patriot who just thinks >> what he found was so off the rails that it needed to be corrected and >> this was the only way he figured it could be done. ?It's a problem you >> get from people running up against real life when they have been >> taught American idealism in school. >> > Patriot for what? The Australian Empire to rule the world in a distant > future? As others pointed out, you lost the context. I was discussing PFC Manning not Assange. I don't have a security clearance, never have had one. I do know a number of people who have security clearances, including some who are currently under orders not to access Wikileaks. Was talking to such a person not long ago and mentioned how silly such orders seemed to me. The orders have backed off to let people in the government read the NYT Wikileaks based stories. However, as this person pointed out, the order not to read Wikileaks materials is rational. We have the example of PFC Manning who read them and was turned against the US by what he read in those cables, not to mention the gunship video. Keith From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 12 20:28:17 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:28:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Biological immortality and the paleo diet In-Reply-To: <4D0526EF.6040504@gnolls.org> References: <4D0526EF.6040504@gnolls.org> Message-ID: <002c01cb9a3b$1ccee460$566cad20$@att.net> ...On Behalf Of J. Stanton Subject: [ExI] Biological immortality and the paleo diet ... >"How to achieve 'biological immortality' naturally" http://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-achieve-biological-immortality-naturally >This appears to support the theory advanced in this paper, which I posted previously: >"Glucose Hysteresis as a Mechanism in Dietary Restriction, Aging and Disease" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755292/ >In other words, not only is a 'paleo' diet (which includes periodic fasting, as per my previous message, as well as a meat/vegetable/some tuber/occasional fruit and nut diet) better for your short-term health, mood, and energy level: it may actually extend your life...Of course, this is all still in the 'theory' stage...JS I never thought of it as a life extension technique, but for at least the past 35 yrs, I have had an intuition that occasional fasting is good for the health. The old timers suggested it too. I mean once or twice a year going an entire day with no food, only water. And go light rations once in a while, such as a couple days with about half the normal fare once a month or so, just for the perspective it offers. Or going a couple days with only leafy stuff with no dressing for instance. This practice causes one to enjoy normal meals more, knowing the alternative. I suggest nothing too painful, just something that adjusts one's attitude a bit. In our normal modern life, every meal is a bountiful feast, a rich festive banquet. Ponder that early and often. spike From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 12 21:21:47 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:21:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] inserting backdated posts, was RE: Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <201012121954.oBCJsX60021092@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <002101cb9a20$15ba4130$412ec390$@att.net> <201012121954.oBCJsX60021092@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000301cb9a42$9614dda0$c23e98e0$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of David Lubkin Subject: Re: [ExI] inserting backdated posts, was RE: Who is safe? Spike wrote: >>I agree. The story itself contains contradictions. We hear of >>classified information that was taken from an unsecured link, but ...I suspect it >>was counterfeit, or was liberally mixed with intentionally counterfeit posts. >A tweet led me to a URL with an odd "document", allegedly from the State Department leaks: . >Was this an actual DoS document that some clown classified? Or is it a hoax page? -- David. David we've been Rick rolled. {8^D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling It did give me an idea. Wikileaks wants information to be free. Very well, we shall consider everything on wikileaks free. For some of you coderdemalions it will be child's play to code the following: download the entire contents of wikileaks, copy all, paste to a separate file, randomly change the post date, append to the original file, sort by date. Now we have twice as much information as wikileaks, and we are just getting warmed up. Take the resulting file, copy all, paste to a separate file, the code takes paragraphs or sentences and randomly changes their order within the post, and randomizes the date. Append to original file, sort by date. Now we are four times the size of wikileaks. Now copy all, paste to a separate file, randomly mix paragraphs from randomly chosen posts, change date, sort. Append to original file, to make 8 times the paltry gigabyte in wikileaks. Randomly insert a few Rick Astley videos, so that now one can legitimately claim to have *over* 8 times more "information" than wikileaks. Depending of course on how one defines the term "information." Is corrupted information information? Sell advertisement space on the site to make actual money off of all that free information. Everyone wins. spike From sparge at gmail.com Sun Dec 12 23:03:26 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:03:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Corn, soy, and cattle (was Soy, brain aging, and false advertising) In-Reply-To: <4D05267D.5060502@gnolls.org> References: <4D05267D.5060502@gnolls.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 2:46 PM, J. Stanton wrote: > "Domestic ruminants in developed countries are often fed an abundance of > grain and little fiber. When ruminants are fed fiber-deficient rations, > physiological mechanisms of homeostasis are disrupted, ruminal pH declines, > microbial ecology is altered, and the animal becomes more susceptible to > metabolic disorders and, in some cases, infectious disease. Some disorders > can be counteracted by feed additives (for example, antibiotics and > buffers), but these additives can alter the composition of the ruminal > ecosystem even further." Like I said, I don't doubt that antibiotics are necessary and used on the major industrial feedlots. I'm just saying that in my experience, which I think is typical for smaller producers throughout the southeast US (and probably elsewhere), grain finishing doesn't automatically mean antibiotics are required. My neighbor raises a couple dozen head/year. He buys calves at auction, raises them on pasture, finishes them on grain feed a month or so, then sells them at auction. From there they go right to slaughter. They're already finished, so feedlotting them wouldn't make sense economically. He may be able to buy grain below cost due to subsidies, but believe me, the margins in farming are sufficiently tight that they get no more grain than he thinks is necessary to properly finish them. > That being said, I'm sure the positive health impact of NOT raising cattle > in feces up to their ankles is substantial (skip to about 5:30): > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69gT9LBCMxg Extreme overcrowding like that is never healthy. > So part of the effect of grain-based diets on cattle is direct (digestive > problems) and part of the effect is indirect (concentration of animals into > feedlots, which is only made possible by a grain-based diet). It's the caloric density of grains, which allows cattle to be fattened rapidly, and the customer's preference for grain-finished beef that makes feedlotting economical. But feedlots could be feeding hay or silage if grain weren't an option. >?Then there is > the problem that grain-based diets for cattle create and spread > acid-resistant E.coli (the strains that cause actual sickness and death in > humans because they can survive the digestive tract). Yeah, that's an overcrowding problem. > It's clear that if you want to make cows as fat as possible as quickly as > possible without regard to their health, you should feed them lots of grain > and grain products. ?I think there is a lesson here for humans. I agree. I just happen to think that moderate amounts of grain products are perfectly OK for most people. > That being said, I don't blame anyone for feeding grain to their > cattle...when we subsidize it so heavily to make it so cheap, it's the > obvious thing to do. No, that's not true. I already explained, back in the paleo/primal thread, that subsidies don't make grains cheap. They make them cheaper, but they're already cheap. Furthermore, cattle aren't fed grain routinely while they're being raised. It's too expensive and pasture/hay are cheaper and readily available. Cattle are finished on grain because Americans like a nice, marbled steak, and you can't do that with grass. >?And sustainable grazing is actually a lot of work, > because you're moving the cattle around daily with small electric fences in > order to mimic the movement patterns of native grazers (like buffalo), which > move around continually and let the grass regenerate instead of eating it > down to the ground where they are before moving on. It's not that hard. The easiest way is to keep the number of livestock low enough that they'll do that on their own. If you want to push it, a little cross fencing and more active pasture maintenance is all it takes. >> J., you've got good arguments against vegetable oils, but claiming >> that calling them that is false advertising isn't one of them. One of >> the accepted definitions of "vegetable" as an adjective is "derived >> from plants", and that's how it's used in "vegetable oil"--to >> distinguish it from oils of animal or mineral origin. > > By that standard, fruits and nuts are really just vegetables because they're > derived from plants. ?That may be technically true, as "vegetable" is not a > precisely defined term -- but commonly understood usage, including the "food > pyramid", defines "vegetables" as separate entities from other plant > products such as fruits, nuts, grains, and starches. First, you're confusing "vegetable", the noun, with the adjective. Fruits and nuts aren't vegetables, but they are vegetable--they come from organisms in the vegetable kingdom, AKA "plants". > Wikipedia gets it about right: "The noun vegetable usually means an edible > plant or part of a plant *other than a sweet fruit or seed.* [emphasis mine] > This usually means the leaf, stem, or root of a plant. Yes, Wikipedia does get it about right. But you stopped reading too soon: "As an adjective, the word vegetable is used in scientific and technical contexts with a different and much broader meaning, namely of "related to plants" in general, edible or not ? as in vegetable matter, vegetable kingdom, vegetable origin, etc." Seriously, nobody thinks vegetable oil comes from carrots and cucumbers. Corn oil is in the gray area because most people consider corn a vegetable, but peanut oil, soybean oil, olive oil...everyone knows where they originate. Probably 95% of the population has no idea what a "canola" is, but you can't blame the rapeseed industry for using a different name. -Dave From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Sun Dec 12 23:05:51 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 19:05:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] inserting backdated posts, was RE: Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <000301cb9a42$9614dda0$c23e98e0$@att.net> References: <002101cb9a20$15ba4130$412ec390$@att.net> <201012121954.oBCJsX60021092@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <000301cb9a42$9614dda0$c23e98e0$@att.net> Message-ID: >Randomly insert a few Rick Astley videos< I know you didn't mean it this way, but cultural coding is the way to go, if you really want to keep something secret. Forget Navaho and game theory and enigma and secure networks. If I wanted to communicate something to someone, and it was important that no-one but myself and the person I'm communicating to understands, I first teach them a new language by sending them images and symbols on unsecured networks with heavy social traffic based on shared experience that I know they will eventually decode but no-one else simply looking in can or would want to. An exercise in semiotics. If you were dealing with a scientifically-minded person, you might start by sending them a .gif of Sagan's pioneer plaque, and keep resending it, until they got the idea that you were trying to communicate with them in a completely new way. Once they got the message, perhaps by sending you a photo of Jack Derrida or an mp3 of a goldeberg variation back, you are in business. If they don't get it, forget 'em. They're not your man. If they do, you've established the beginning of secure network because it's safely fire-walled behind someone's subjective experience and perception. It's clumsy, slow and needs time to be developed, but it could work, if you were committed enough. All the junk on the 'net becomes your language, and the key to decoding it is locked inside your recipient's head in the form of their own experience, which you can begin to manipulate once you've established a secure connection. I've been working on such a language concept for a new book, and have been having fun with it. I expect if we had telepathic abilities we'd communicate more in this way than through cursive symbols anyway. And it has occurred to me that this speed of light internet communication is a species of technologically-assisted telepathy. It will become more so when we can relocate these clumsy pieces of hardware into our evolutionary software. Or vice-versa. Everyone in a while I imagine that what we are witnessing with the 'net is not just an explosion of information technology, but rather the decline of cursive symbolism as the dominant mode of recorded communication for mankind. Just every once in a while. Darren On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:21 PM, spike wrote: > ... On Behalf Of David Lubkin > Subject: Re: [ExI] inserting backdated posts, was RE: Who is safe? > > Spike wrote: > > >>I agree. The story itself contains contradictions. We hear of > >>classified information that was taken from an unsecured link, but ...I > suspect it > >>was counterfeit, or was liberally mixed with intentionally counterfeit > posts. > > >A tweet led me to a URL with an odd "document", allegedly from the State > Department leaks: . > >Was this an actual DoS document that some clown classified? Or is it a > hoax > page? -- David. > > David we've been Rick rolled. {8^D > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling > > It did give me an idea. Wikileaks wants information to be free. Very > well, > we shall consider everything on wikileaks free. For some of you > coderdemalions it will be child's play to code the following: download the > entire contents of wikileaks, copy all, paste to a separate file, randomly > change the post date, append to the original file, sort by date. Now we > have twice as much information as wikileaks, and we are just getting warmed > up. Take the resulting file, copy all, paste to a separate file, the code > takes paragraphs or sentences and randomly changes their order within the > post, and randomizes the date. Append to original file, sort by date. Now > we are four times the size of wikileaks. Now copy all, paste to a separate > file, randomly mix paragraphs from randomly chosen posts, change date, > sort. > Append to original file, to make 8 times the paltry gigabyte in wikileaks. > > Randomly insert a few Rick Astley videos, so that now one can legitimately > claim to have *over* 8 times more "information" than wikileaks. Depending > of course on how one defines the term "information." Is corrupted > information information? > > Sell advertisement space on the site to make actual money off of all that > free information. Everyone wins. > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Sun Dec 12 23:17:17 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:17:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > > I don't have a security clearance, never have had one. ?I do know a > number of people who have security clearances, including some who are > currently under orders not to access Wikileaks. ?Was talking to such a > person not long ago and mentioned how silly such orders seemed to me. > The orders have backed off to let people in the government read the > NYT Wikileaks based stories. Some of the wikileaks documents are (supposedly) classified. Public disclosure of a classified document doesn't automatically make it unclassified. We were warned against accessing wikileaks from work computers because it could potentially result in classified documents on a system not cleared for them, which, if you've ever worked in environments that process classified information, you know is a Big Deal, requiring a careful and expensive clean-up. Furthermore, everyone with a clearance knows that being cleared at the appropriate level is necessary for access for classified information, but it's not sufficient. You may be cleared for access to Secret documents, but if your job doesn't require accessing diplomatic cables, you have no business reading them, and could certainly lose your clearance for doing so. Not to mention that if you need access to diplomatic cables, you need to do it through approved channels on equipment approved to handle classified information--none of which involves wikileaks. -Dave From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 13 12:29:07 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:29:07 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Re :rocket fuel was Re: SpaceX launch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20101213122907.GZ9434@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:31:21AM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: > > In terms of economy you're likely to employ a hybrid design. > > A maglev launch stage (e.g. up Mount Chimborazo) instead of a first > > chemical stage, second stage air-breathing scramjet/rocket hybrid > > or simple chemical rocket, or laser driven ablation (not sure this > > will ever work, though current prototypes are sure nifty). > > If you have never looked at the power requirement for maglev, you should. Most plans assume a ~100 t vehicle, release slightly below Mach 1 at about 6 km, so it would be around 3 MWh, or 10 GJ. This is equal to about a ton of diesel, or about a couple of kilotons worth of charged modern supercaps, which can be easily charged from thin-film PV panels adjacent to the track. > > Also, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with chemical rockets, > > as long as your transport rate is limited, e.g. for a lunar bootstrap > > using in-situ resources. Suited monkeys are quite pointless, so you'll > > proceed to teleoperated robots shortly, and whether you teleoperate > > them from a pressurized can nearby or from rotating ground centers (with > > the advantage of 24/7 operation) only adds about 2 seconds of latency. > > Dr. Peter Schubert is the only one I know of who tried to put numbers > on a lunar bootstrap. He got $2 T and 20 years. The bootstrap costs are a factor of technology, particularly telecommunication, teleoperation, automation, and miniaturization. It would be difficult to put an exact cost, particularly as there will be improvisation and new technologies developed over the duration. > Ten times the exhaust velocity takes 100 times as much energy. We are > already at $60 B for the lasers, 100 times as much is $6 T. It would > take 1.2 TW to power the lasers. That's more than the installed > electric power for the US. The first stage of a Saturn V was average 190 GW, I presume the requirements for a 100 ton craft are an order of magnitude lower. Current solid state lasers achieve 100 kW output, at about 20% efficiency, but a 1 MW laser is being assembled for 2013. Assuming you're leaving maglev at about Mach 1 laser boosting might help you to get to scramjet ignition speed, so you can go to high elevations and high Mach numbers at least partly air-breathing (liquid hydrogen or liquid methane), switching to LOX as oxidizer when going to LEO. But you could just launch a conventional rocket stage from maglev. Especially, if you can go up to Mach 2-3 with maglev alone -- that might become a bit difficult, though. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From bbenzai at yahoo.com Mon Dec 13 15:55:29 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 07:55:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <957074.83263.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Keith Henson wrote: >However, as this person pointed out, the order not to read Wikileaks >materials is rational. We have the example of PFC Manning who read >them and was turned against the US by what he read in those cables, >not to mention the gunship video. > What? You're saying that it makes sense for someone who has a certain loyalty to some organisation to refrain from reading certain material, because it contains evidence that might destroy or at least strain, that loyalty? I don't call that 'rational' at all! It's more like being told to bury your head in the sand, and asking "how high?" (my hobby: mixing metaphors to breaking point). If nothing else, it's a bloody good reason to read the stuff! OK, maybe making the order is rational. Marginally. Obeying it is not, though, and neither is expecting anyone to obey it. To acquiesce is pretty much admitting that you don't care if you support a corrupt system, and don't even want to know. It's not rational, and imo, it's immoral. This seems to have a pretty close parallel with mediaeval parishioners being kept from reading the bible, by priests who realise how much it will 'test their faith'. Ben Zaiboc From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Dec 13 16:22:19 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:22:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Dave Sill wrote: My point was that *reading* the Wikileaks documents may (for some people) badly damage their faith in the goodness of the current US government. Openness and transparency are not a good idea when you are trying to look good and are not. Keith > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> I don't have a security clearance, never have had one. ?I do know a >> number of people who have security clearances, including some who are >> currently under orders not to access Wikileaks. ?Was talking to such a >> person not long ago and mentioned how silly such orders seemed to me. >> The orders have backed off to let people in the government read the >> NYT Wikileaks based stories. > > Some of the wikileaks documents are (supposedly) classified. Public > disclosure of a classified document doesn't automatically make it > unclassified. We were warned against accessing wikileaks from work > computers because it could potentially result in classified documents > on a system not cleared for them, which, if you've ever worked in > environments that process classified information, you know is a Big > Deal, requiring a careful and expensive clean-up. > > Furthermore, everyone with a clearance knows that being cleared at the > appropriate level is necessary for access for classified information, > but it's not sufficient. You may be cleared for access to Secret > documents, but if your job doesn't require accessing diplomatic > cables, you have no business reading them, and could certainly lose > your clearance for doing so. Not to mention that if you need access to > diplomatic cables, you need to do it through approved channels on > equipment approved to handle classified information--none of which > involves wikileaks. > > -Dave From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 13 17:43:10 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:43:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <957074.83263.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <957074.83263.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001d01cb9aed$361a21c0$a24e6540$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc Subject: Re: [ExI] Who is safe? Keith Henson wrote: >...We have the example of PFC Manning who read >them and was turned against the US by what he read in those cables, not >to mention the gunship video... Hmmm, that is one way to interpret it, but I would assume the PFC was against the US before he read the cables. With respect to the sheer volume of the text, I can easily imagine that Private Manning actually read little or none of it. Even then, it is difficult to see how reading a few cables would turn anyone's attitude. From what I have seen, there is nothing particularly scandalous in there. I still haven't seen the claim that the leaked file was counterfeit, or that it contains counterfeit documents, intentionally placed. It would be easy to do and an obvious security measure. They could generate an enormous phony classified archive, that would be accessed automatically by anyone with a low level clearance. A private would have only a low level clearance. They could have trackers in that document to work back and figure out who leaked. Doing that would also be a great way for the security folks to sting Wikileaks: intentionally let out a phony document file, let them take the bait, then set the hook. Or another way is to let out a counterfeit archive and never confess. Allow the news people hash over the stuff for years, and puzzle over why nothing in there seems to be verifiable. spike From lubkin at unreasonable.com Mon Dec 13 19:14:09 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:14:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <001d01cb9aed$361a21c0$a24e6540$@att.net> References: <957074.83263.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001d01cb9aed$361a21c0$a24e6540$@att.net> Message-ID: <201012131914.oBDJE6Jc015182@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Spike wrote: >Hmmm, that is one way to interpret it, but I would assume the PFC was >against the US before he read the cables. With respect to the sheer volume >of the text, I can easily imagine that Private Manning actually read little >or none of it. Judging from his picture, he doesn't look like he *can* read anything beyond Archie Comics. There's something about his expression that suggests you could play racquetball inside his skull. Seriously. When he gets to trial, I wouldn't be surprised if the defense argued diminished capacity. -- David. From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 13 20:31:19 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:31:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <201012131914.oBDJE6Jc015182@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <957074.83263.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001d01cb9aed$361a21c0$a24e6540$@att.net> <201012131914.oBDJE6Jc015182@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <001101cb9b04$b2d885a0$188990e0$@att.net> > On Behalf Of David Lubkin Subject: Re: [ExI] Who is safe? Spike wrote: >>Hmmm, ...With respect to the sheer >>volume of the text, I can easily imagine that Private Manning actually >>read little or none of it. >Judging from his picture, he doesn't look like he *can* read anything beyond Archie Comics. There's something about his expression that suggests you could play racquetball inside his skull...Seriously. When he gets to trial, I wouldn't be surprised if the defense argued diminished capacity...-- David. Ja, and this is one of the apparent contradictions I see in the story. They don't give clearances to PFCs, or rather not much clearance. They go on and on about classified info, but then imply it was on an open channel. That is a contradiction in itself. I think the news agencies are wary as all get out. They really aren't saying much. They watched what happened to the credibility of CBS in October and November of 2004. Plenty of them suspect the Lucy Ramirez story is actually true, but that Lt Cmdr Bill Burkett knew and was in on it the whole time, and that it was all a setup, a sting aimed at Dan Rather, knowing that he was going to run the Niger-uranium-mine-based-on-counterfeit-documents story. So they arranged for CBS to receive counterfeit documents. Then CBS couldn't run the counterfeit documents story (they never did) since they themselves were fooled by counterfeit documents. I am not one to buy conspiracy theories, but that one is just plausible enough to estimate ~40% chance that it is true, that it was all a setup by Karl Rove or somebody, and it worked better than even he could have imagined: it ruined Dan Rather, caused him to retire in disgrace, and set CBS at the National Enquirer level of credibility. News people aren't stupid. Or I should say, they aren't as stupid as they were in October 2004, Rather. They smell a set-up, and so do I. Notice that Julian Assange never actually claims these leaked documents are all genuine. How would he know? spike From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Dec 13 22:27:50 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:27:50 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <201012131914.oBDJE6Jc015182@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <957074.83263.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001d01cb9aed$361a21c0$a24e6540$@att.net> <201012131914.oBDJE6Jc015182@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:14 AM, David Lubkin wrote: > Spike wrote: > >> Hmmm, that is one way to interpret it, but I would assume the PFC was >> against the US before he read the cables. ?With respect to the sheer >> volume >> of the text, I can easily imagine that Private Manning actually read >> little >> or none of it. > > Judging from his picture, he doesn't look like he *can* read anything > beyond Archie Comics. There's something about his expression > that suggests you could play racquetball inside his skull. > > Seriously. When he gets to trial, I wouldn't be surprised if the defense > argued diminished capacity. He was an "intelligence analyst". What does a PFC who is an intelligence analyst do? -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 13 23:29:32 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:29:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: References: <957074.83263.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001d01cb9aed$361a21c0$a24e6540$@att.net> <201012131914.oBDJE6Jc015182@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <003301cb9b1d$98fdae30$caf90a90$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou Subject: Re: [ExI] Who is safe? On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:14 AM, David Lubkin wrote: ... > >> Seriously. When he gets to trial, I wouldn't be surprised if the >> defense argued diminished capacity. >He was an "intelligence analyst". What does a PFC who is an intelligence analyst do?--Stathis Papaioannou This is misinformation or disinformation. Or perhaps *very* liberal use of the term. Every time I see something like this, the whole thing looks more suspiciously like a setup. On a related note, regarding a previous post of mine referencing Karl Rove, I looked up in his book what he said about Rathergate. I noted something this time that I missed on the first reading: Rove does not explicitly deny that he did it. He set himself up for a later self-congratulatory confession. See what you think. On page 390 of Rove's Courage and Consequence, he was talking about the swiftboaters attack on John Kerry. He says "I had no role in any of it, though the Swifties did a damned good job." OK now, a few paragraphs later, he is talking about the 60 Minutes story. Courage and Consequence, page 392, Rove comments: "...Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist, repeated democratic 'speculation about whether Karl Rove, the master of dirty tricks and surrogate sleaze, could have set up CBS in a diabolical pre-emptive strike to undermine damaging revelations' about Bush's National Guard service. Diabolical indeed. For this scheme to work, it required me to convince a Bush-hating source to provide falsified memos to Dan Rather through his Bush-hating producer, and then get Rather to take the bait and publish the story, despite how obviously fake the memos were. My critics were again investing me with superhuman powers." How do you guys read that? Note that he flatly denied involvement in the swiftboaters, but slyly indeeds this other caper, with an ambiguous "diabolical indeed." Indeeding is not specifically denying. Even if he did it, every word in the quoted paragraph is technically true, and if so, it is something he is proud of, but cannot confess just yet. I want to live long enough to see if he ever does either confess or specifically deny it. spike From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Tue Dec 14 01:23:21 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:23:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <003301cb9b1d$98fdae30$caf90a90$@att.net> References: <957074.83263.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001d01cb9aed$361a21c0$a24e6540$@att.net> <201012131914.oBDJE6Jc015182@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <003301cb9b1d$98fdae30$caf90a90$@att.net> Message-ID: >Even if he did it, every word in the quoted paragraph is technically true, and if so, it is something he is proud of, but cannot confess just yet< That was the least of his achievements. I used to have an obsession with Rove, when he was Bush's Goebbels and I wasted my time more with politics. How could one not, with a man whose entry into politics was as an aide to Nixon's propaganda chief Segretti? Rove's political resume reads like a rap sheet: push voting, identity theft, slander, document falsification, disinformation campaigns. The list is impossibly long. If this guy had been selling something besides republicans, he would have been arrested and charged by the FBI with fraud, insider trading and a dozen other offenses long ago. He's a cynical, careless, ethically-challenged human being (I'm trying to be kind here) but less driven by ideology than say, David Frum, who wrote the 'axis of evil' speech and actually stopped supporting the Canadian New Democratic Party because he read The Gulag Archipelago when he was 22 and somehow decided that Stalin was ideologically representative of all leftists. No sense of history. No sense at all, apparently. North American politics has had many shameful eras. But that has to have been one of the worst. Gore Vidal was so incensed he stopped writing novels and took to churning out political pamphlets on the subject of Rove, Bush and friends for awhile instead. Darren On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 7:29 PM, spike wrote: > ... On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou > Subject: Re: [ExI] Who is safe? > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:14 AM, David Lubkin > wrote: > ... > > > >> Seriously. When he gets to trial, I wouldn't be surprised if the > >> defense argued diminished capacity. > > >He was an "intelligence analyst". What does a PFC who is an intelligence > analyst do?--Stathis Papaioannou > > This is misinformation or disinformation. Or perhaps *very* liberal use of > the term. Every time I see something like this, the whole thing looks more > suspiciously like a setup. > > On a related note, regarding a previous post of mine referencing Karl Rove, > I looked up in his book what he said about Rathergate. I noted something > this time that I missed on the first reading: Rove does not explicitly deny > that he did it. He set himself up for a later self-congratulatory > confession. See what you think. On page 390 of Rove's Courage and > Consequence, he was talking about the swiftboaters attack on John Kerry. He > says "I had no role in any of it, though the Swifties did a damned good > job." > > OK now, a few paragraphs later, he is talking about the 60 Minutes story. > Courage and Consequence, page 392, Rove comments: > > "...Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist, repeated democratic > 'speculation about whether Karl Rove, the master of dirty tricks and > surrogate sleaze, could have set up CBS in a diabolical pre-emptive strike > to undermine damaging revelations' about Bush's National Guard service. > Diabolical indeed. For this scheme to work, it required me to convince a > Bush-hating source to provide falsified memos to Dan Rather through his > Bush-hating producer, and then get Rather to take the bait and publish the > story, despite how obviously fake the memos were. My critics were again > investing me with superhuman powers." > > How do you guys read that? Note that he flatly denied involvement in the > swiftboaters, but slyly indeeds this other caper, with an ambiguous > "diabolical indeed." Indeeding is not specifically denying. Even if he did > it, every word in the quoted paragraph is technically true, and if so, it is > something he is proud of, but cannot confess just yet. I want to live long > enough to see if he ever does either confess or specifically deny it. > > spike > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 14 05:05:45 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:05:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty Message-ID: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Alan Grimes ... -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. Alan, I like your tagline. As Judge Hudson said today, health care reform is a laudable goal, but it must be done legally. The legislative process must operate within constitutional bounds. The Virginia judge issued the opinion today that forcing people to buy insurance is outside of those bounds. Government good intentions are insufficient to offset the absence of enumerated powers. I have nothing against federal government involvement in medical care. But they have not the authority to make us buy in. Check out the excellent essay from the Cato Institute: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/13/shapiro.court.mandate.health/index.htm l?hpt=T2 spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 14 05:36:33 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:36:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Quantum Zeno effect (was: CQT Researcher) In-Reply-To: <4CFA8707.2010608@satx.rr.com> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFA8707.2010608@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <17B472ED-7D17-4C4D-B59B-CA65EDCF14C9@bellsouth.net> On Dec 4, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > I had this halfassed idea the other day: a Deutschean shadow-universes intuition that the Quantum Zeno effect might derive from superposed activities in adjacent, only slightly divergent M-W realities Suppose there were a radioactive atom with a half life of 60 minutes, in Many Worlds one way of looking at it, that's not really correct mathematically but can help getting an intuitive feel of it, is that if you look at it after 60 minutes the universe will have split into 2 with the atom decaying in one and not in the other. If you look after 30 minutes there is a 25% chance it will decay so the universe will have split into 4 with 3 having no decay and one with decay, if you look after another 30 minutes each of those 3 will have split yet again with 3 having no decay and one with decay. If you looked after just a nanosecond one universe will see decay and many billions will not, you can see that the number of Damiens (who splits just like everything else) who see no decay of the atom vastly outnumbers the Damiens that do see decay, and more often you check the larger the outnumbering. There will never be a 0% chance you will see a decay but you can approach it asymptotically if you keep checking on the atom at smaller and smaller time intervals, and this is just what we observe in the Quantum Zeno effect. Possible objection to the above: I thought the crown jewel of Many Worlds was that it got rid of the unique status of the observer, doesn't this bring back the mysterious nature of measurement just like in Copenhagen? Possible retort: It's true that the universe splits, and in one a measurement has been made and in the other it has not, but the split was made because there was a change in the universe and a measurement is no different from any other change, and the observer is no different from anything else except that it just happens to be the assembly of atoms that generated the report we are reading in this thought experiment. Another objection to the above: But what does it even mean to say that the universe splits into 4 where 3 were identical and one that was different, if the 3 were identical wouldn't that just be one universe? And when dealing with non-denumerable infinite sets can you really obtain probabilities from counting? Embarrassing admission: No you can not and Everett specifically warns us from doing so. He formally derived the same results in a way that was mathematically precise (at every branching point the probabilities always added up to exactly 100% just as it should) but was much less intuitive. So what I said is not true, but there still may be an element of truthiness to it. > where intentionally directed activities reinforce or prohibit a certain outcome, unlike ordinary stochastic radioactivity, say, where the "shadow overlaps" in/from nearby worlds are arbitrary. I don't know what you mean by intentionally. Arbitrary or stochastic stuff is just an effect without a cause, and everything including intentionality happens because of cause and effect or it does not; there are simply no other possibilities. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 14 16:16:24 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:16:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] reverse aging In-Reply-To: <440393.59678.qm@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <440393.59678.qm@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D079858.20605@satx.rr.com> On 12/5/2010 10:49 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/WILT.pdf > > My objections to it follow: Aubrey replies: Hello everyone, and my apologies for the slow reply. You're only getting it now because nice KLM have allowed me to recharge my laptop in business class! >> 1. First what he was suggesting was similar to purposefully giving people the equivalent of >> Dyskeratosis Congenita, a genetic birth defect where people are born without normal >> telomerase function. Correct. Actually rather worse than that, because DKC sufferers still have some residual telomere elongation capacity. >> The problem is that these people are actually *more* prone to cancer >> and start getting them around 10 yo. You can find a complete medical description of >> Dyskeratosis here on pubmed for free: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20301779 That's true - but, the point is thay even in DKC sufferers, tumours still maintain their telomeres. Maybe they do it with ALT, maybe by upregulating the residual telomerase - but they still do it. It's no surprise that such people get cancers early, because we know that telomere shortening causes "crisis" and hence high genomic instability. What matters is what happens next: is a telomere elongation mechanism initiated, or do the cells divide into oblivion? With the genes for telomerase and ALT deleted, only the latter could happen. >> 2. The second reason is that once a cell violates its genetic programming and goes cancerous, >> all the rules go out the window. If telomerase is available, it will use it to lengthen its telomeres. >> If telomerase is not available it will start using alternative methods to lengthen its telomeres like >> using the homologous-recombination machinery normally reserved for DNA repair and meiosis >> of germline cells. >> >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892175/ >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649016/?tool=pubmed Correct. >> And if that doesn't work, cancer cells have no qualms against just sticking chromosomes together end >> to end with non-homologous end joining. Cancer cells will duplicate genes or entire chromosomes (polyploidy), >> lose genes or entire chromosomes, and mix bits and pieces of different chromosomes together if need be. >> >> http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v21/n45/pdf/1205566a.pdf Correct too - but once large chunks of the genome are present in zero copies, the cell dies, however creative it is. Sticking chromosomes together is fatal for the cel unless the chromosome is ripped apart again (at a different place), and that's exactly how aneuploidy arises. >> So profound is a cancer cell's ability to mutate at fast speed that it can form structures known as ring chromosomes >> that recapitulate the ancestral bacterium's circular telomere-independent chromosome. >> http://atlasgeneticsoncology.org/Deep/RingChromosID20030.html That's true too, but the only species in which such a thing has been seen as a way to escape telomere shortening is the yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe, which has only three chromosomes. The more chromosomes you have, the more unlikely it is that you will join one end of a chromosome to the other end of the same chromosome rather than to a different chromosome. >> In short, cancer cells have all the tools of evolution at their disposal at speeds normally associated single-celled organisms. Yes again - but that's not fast enough to outrun the divide-to-death problem, unless you have a latent telomerase gene to turn on. >> 3. The next problem is that de Grey's strategy underestimates the importance of the immune system in cancer prevention. >> This process is called immunosurveillance and mice and people with defective immune systems are notoriously prone >> to cancer. The white blood cells that normally protect people from cancer *need* telomerase to function properly >> because the mechanism by which they operate depends on the mass replication of the white blood cell lineages that >> can recognize and kill tumor cells. >> >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1857231/ >> >> Of course this mechanism of amplification of the efficacious clones is used to combat mundane infections as well. >> So not only would telomerase-deficiency make one prone to cancer, it would make one susceptible to death from >> normally benign viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. Again correct (except for the part where you say I underestimate this!). In fact, any cancer that gets big enough to bump up against telomere shortening in the first place has already jumped through loads of hoops in evading the immune system when it was smaller. So yes indeed, telomerase deletion can affect the immune system's ability to knock off nascent cancers, and also regular infections. But... we can deal with that problem in the same way that I've proposed for rapidly-renewing cell types in general. It may turn out to be enough just to reseed the bone marrow with haematopoietic stem cells that initially have nice long telomeres (but no telomerase genes). And if not, we can just do the same trick of extract/lengthen/reintroduce with memory T and B cells themselves: we only need to reach a rather small proportion of such cells in order to get the desired result. >> 4. De Grey's solution to this problem is "reseeding" whereby engineered stem cells are periodically given to people to replace high turnover tissues such as the blood cells, skin, and gut epithelium. This work-around however brings up the next problem: The relationship between cancer and stem cells is poorly understood and these reseeded stem cells could very well *become* cancer. >> >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20688584 >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19684619 Not if they have no telomerase or ALT... >> And if the stem cells are treated to lack telomerase, like the rest of the cells of the body in WILT, they no longer qualify as stem cells since the capacity for self-renewal is one of the defining characteristics for stem cells. So what? That's just a name. >> So these telomerase deficient stem cells would be the medical equivalent of GM food crops that can't make seeds, requiring one to be beholden to whatever biotech company happens to be manufacturing your crippled stem cells for you. Yes, this has been noted. But if the only alternative is death from cancer.... >> If we are talking about immune system stem cells, then catching a simple cold could deplete ones entire reservoir of non-self-renewing hematopietic stem cells. Huh? I know of no evidence that HSCs divide faster when there is an infection to be tackled. In fact, I think the only cells that divide faster are the cognate naive T cells. >> 5. Aside from the theoretical problems with the WILT strategy, the technical challenges would be horrendous. With the current state of the art, gene knockouts are a messy and rather hit or miss affair. They involve trying the targeted gene deletion on a great many embryos, then screening for that one precious embryo or cell line in which it worked. While this is feasible with mice, the bioethicists would have a conniption if you tried that with human embryos. But what use is a gene knockout of an embryo going to be to an already full grown population of possible cancer victims? While gene knockouts are done routinely on human cells in a petri dish, I am not aware of any existing technique that would allow one to delete a gene from all 10^14 [~70 trillion?] cells of an adult human in vivo: This is indeed challenging, and I never conceal that WILT is the hardest part of SENS. However, in the case of the rapidly renewing tissues that are the source of many cancers, the gene targeting can be done ex vivo and appropriate selection applied; we are getting pretty good at amplifying rare stem cells without losing their stemness. The question is: what else is going to really really work against cancer? No one would be happier than me if we could indeed avoid the need for WILT. But I simply claim that it is irresponsible to rely on something easier working. Cheers, Aubrey From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 14 17:41:59 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:41:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] forward from aubrey de grey: reverse aging Message-ID: <003f01cb9bb6$35fd58a0$a1f809e0$@att.net> The ExI-chat server seems to be slow. This was already forwarded by another, but nothing, so as an experiment I am forwarding the same message. s Forward from Aubrey de Grey ============= Subject: Re: [ExI] reverse aging On 12/5/2010 10:49 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/WILT.pdf > > My objections to it follow: Aubrey replies: Hello everyone, and my apologies for the slow reply. You're only getting it now because nice KLM have allowed me to recharge my laptop in business class! >> 1. First what he was suggesting was similar to purposefully giving people the equivalent of >> Dyskeratosis Congenita, a genetic birth defect where people are born without normal >> telomerase function. Correct. Actually rather worse than that, because DKC sufferers still have some residual telomere elongation capacity. >> The problem is that these people are actually *more* prone to cancer >> and start getting them around 10 yo. You can find a complete medical description of >> Dyskeratosis here on pubmed for free: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20301779 That's true - but, the point is thay even in DKC sufferers, tumours still maintain their telomeres. Maybe they do it with ALT, maybe by upregulating the residual telomerase - but they still do it. It's no surprise that such people get cancers early, because we know that telomere shortening causes "crisis" and hence high genomic instability. What matters is what happens next: is a telomere elongation mechanism initiated, or do the cells divide into oblivion? With the genes for telomerase and ALT deleted, only the latter could happen. >> 2. The second reason is that once a cell violates its genetic programming and goes cancerous, >> all the rules go out the window. If telomerase is available, it will use it to lengthen its telomeres. >> If telomerase is not available it will start using alternative methods to lengthen its telomeres like >> using the homologous-recombination machinery normally reserved for DNA repair and meiosis >> of germline cells. >> >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892175/ >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649016/?tool=pubmed Correct. >> And if that doesn't work, cancer cells have no qualms against just sticking chromosomes together end >> to end with non-homologous end joining. Cancer cells will duplicate genes or entire chromosomes (polyploidy), >> lose genes or entire chromosomes, and mix bits and pieces of different chromosomes together if need be. >> >> http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v21/n45/pdf/1205566a.pdf Correct too - but once large chunks of the genome are present in zero copies, the cell dies, however creative it is. Sticking chromosomes together is fatal for the cel unless the chromosome is ripped apart again (at a different place), and that's exactly how aneuploidy arises. >> So profound is a cancer cell's ability to mutate at fast speed that it can form structures known as ring chromosomes >> that recapitulate the ancestral bacterium's circular telomere-independent chromosome. >> http://atlasgeneticsoncology.org/Deep/RingChromosID20030.html That's true too, but the only species in which such a thing has been seen as a way to escape telomere shortening is the yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe, which has only three chromosomes. The more chromosomes you have, the more unlikely it is that you will join one end of a chromosome to the other end of the same chromosome rather than to a different chromosome. >> In short, cancer cells have all the tools of evolution at their disposal at speeds normally associated single-celled organisms. Yes again - but that's not fast enough to outrun the divide-to-death problem, unless you have a latent telomerase gene to turn on. >> 3. The next problem is that de Grey's strategy underestimates the importance of the immune system in cancer prevention. >> This process is called immunosurveillance and mice and people with defective immune systems are notoriously prone >> to cancer. The white blood cells that normally protect people from cancer *need* telomerase to function properly >> because the mechanism by which they operate depends on the mass replication of the white blood cell lineages that >> can recognize and kill tumor cells. >> >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1857231/ >> >> Of course this mechanism of amplification of the efficacious clones is used to combat mundane infections as well. >> So not only would telomerase-deficiency make one prone to cancer, it would make one susceptible to death from >> normally benign viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. Again correct (except for the part where you say I underestimate this!). In fact, any cancer that gets big enough to bump up against telomere shortening in the first place has already jumped through loads of hoops in evading the immune system when it was smaller. So yes indeed, telomerase deletion can affect the immune system's ability to knock off nascent cancers, and also regular infections. But... we can deal with that problem in the same way that I've proposed for rapidly-renewing cell types in general. It may turn out to be enough just to reseed the bone marrow with haematopoietic stem cells that initially have nice long telomeres (but no telomerase genes). And if not, we can just do the same trick of extract/lengthen/reintroduce with memory T and B cells themselves: we only need to reach a rather small proportion of such cells in order to get the desired result. >> 4. De Grey's solution to this problem is "reseeding" whereby engineered stem cells are periodically given to people to replace high turnover tissues such as the blood cells, skin, and gut epithelium. This work-around however brings up the next problem: The relationship between cancer and stem cells is poorly understood and these reseeded stem cells could very well *become* cancer. >> >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20688584 >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19684619 Not if they have no telomerase or ALT... >> And if the stem cells are treated to lack telomerase, like the rest of the cells of the body in WILT, they no longer qualify as stem cells since the capacity for self-renewal is one of the defining characteristics for stem cells. So what? That's just a name. >> So these telomerase deficient stem cells would be the medical equivalent of GM food crops that can't make seeds, requiring one to be beholden to whatever biotech company happens to be manufacturing your crippled stem cells for you. Yes, this has been noted. But if the only alternative is death from cancer.... >> If we are talking about immune system stem cells, then catching a simple cold could deplete ones entire reservoir of non-self-renewing hematopietic stem cells. Huh? I know of no evidence that HSCs divide faster when there is an infection to be tackled. In fact, I think the only cells that divide faster are the cognate naive T cells. >> 5. Aside from the theoretical problems with the WILT strategy, the technical challenges would be horrendous. With the current state of the art, gene knockouts are a messy and rather hit or miss affair. They involve trying the targeted gene deletion on a great many embryos, then screening for that one precious embryo or cell line in which it worked. While this is feasible with mice, the bioethicists would have a conniption if you tried that with human embryos. But what use is a gene knockout of an embryo going to be to an already full grown population of possible cancer victims? While gene knockouts are done routinely on human cells in a petri dish, I am not aware of any existing technique that would allow one to delete a gene from all 10^14 [~70 trillion?] cells of an adult human in vivo: This is indeed challenging, and I never conceal that WILT is the hardest part of SENS. However, in the case of the rapidly renewing tissues that are the source of many cancers, the gene targeting can be done ex vivo and appropriate selection applied; we are getting pretty good at amplifying rare stem cells without losing their stemness. The question is: what else is going to really really work against cancer? No one would be happier than me if we could indeed avoid the need for WILT. But I simply claim that it is irresponsible to rely on something easier working. Cheers, Aubrey From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 14 18:02:11 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:02:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Quantum Zeno effect In-Reply-To: <17B472ED-7D17-4C4D-B59B-CA65EDCF14C9@bellsouth.net> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFA8707.2010608@satx.rr.com> <17B472ED-7D17-4C4D-B59B-CA65EDCF14C9@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4D07B123.1070601@satx.rr.com> On 12/13/2010 11:36 PM, John Clark wrote: > It's true that the universe splits, and in one a measurement has been > made and in the other it has not, but the split was made because there > was a change in the universe and a measurement is no different from any > other change, and the observer is no different from anything else except > that it just happens to be the assembly of atoms that generated the > report we are reading in this thought experiment. Sidebar: I always understood that quantum measurement hangs upon some specific and crucial quantum event; thus, choices made by large ensembles of atoms don't count. That is, if you conducted the S's cat experiment using a macroscopic randomizer like a series of spinning coins, it wouldn't prove a thing. Only if the poison/don't poison branching is occasioned by a radioactive decay does it even make any sense that the cat is both alive and dead inside the sealed box. If this is correct, the M-W universe doesn't split if you walk left instead of right, unless that decision is somehow triggered by an indeterminate or stochastic quantum-scale event in your nervous system (the sort of thing Nobelist Eccles got all excited about, because he thought that might be a place where a non-physical entity or soul might couple to the machinery). Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 14 18:38:16 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:38:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Quantum Zeno effect In-Reply-To: <4D07B123.1070601@satx.rr.com> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFA8707.2010608@satx.rr.com> <17B472ED-7D17-4C4D-B59B-CA65EDCF14C9@bellsouth.net> <4D07B123.1070601@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > if you conducted the S's cat experiment using a macroscopic randomizer like a series of spinning coins, it wouldn't prove a thing. I think that's true provided you make the pretty reasonable assumption that the outcome of a spinning coin is a deterministic event. > If this is correct, the M-W universe doesn't split if you walk left instead of right, unless that decision is somehow triggered by an indeterminate or stochastic quantum-scale event in your nervous system If that human decision is deterministic (and sometimes it probably isn't) then you always walk left and there is no universe where you go right, so obviously there is no split. > the sort of thing Nobelist Eccles got all excited about, because he thought that might be a place where a non-physical entity or soul might couple to the machinery. I suppose so, but I don't understand why he got all excited, randomness is not what people usually mean by the soul; as for free will, people don't mean anything by it, it's just a noise made by the mouth. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 14 20:41:37 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:41:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Quantum Zeno effect In-Reply-To: References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFA8707.2010608@satx.rr.com> <17B472ED-7D17-4C4D-B59B-CA65EDCF14C9@bellsouth.net> <4D07B123.1070601@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4D07D681.6020005@satx.rr.com> On 12/14/2010 12:38 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> the sort of thing Nobelist Eccles got all excited about, because he >> thought that might be a place where a non-physical entity or soul >> might couple to the machinery. > > I suppose so, but I don't understand why he got all excited, randomness > is not what people usually mean by the soul; as for free will, people > don't mean anything by it, it's just a noise made by the mouth. I haven't read Popper&Eccles for a while so I don't recall the exact argument, but I assume he thought that if a metastable state was somehow so delicately poised that it could flip any allowable way, a shove by a magical soul could tip it in the desired deterministic direction. In other words, it would be a hidden variable. Doesn't make any sense to me, either. But maybe Eccles-type souls live in the seventh rolled up dimension and can do shit like that. Damien Broderick From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Dec 14 22:31:27 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:31:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] NYTimes.com: Decoding the Human Brain, With Help From a Fly In-Reply-To: <4d07b9b7.818c2a0a.1289.6b48SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4d07b9b7.818c2a0a.1289.6b48SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Decoding the Human Brain, With Help From a Fly * *Taiwanese researchers have managed to bar code some 16,000 of the 100,000 neurons in a fruit fly?s brain and to reconstruct the brain?s wiring map. In terms similar to those that define computers, the team describes the general architecture of the fly?s brain as composed of 41 local processing units, 58 tracts that link the units to other parts of the brain, and six hubs. Biologists see this atlas of the fly brain as a first step toward understanding the human brain. Six of the chemicals that transmit messages between neurons are the same in both species. And the general structure ? two hemispheres with copious cross-links ? is also similar. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This certainly has implications for doing the same with human brains. Keith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Dec 15 00:46:09 2010 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:46:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <001d01cb9aed$361a21c0$a24e6540$@att.net> References: <957074.83263.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001d01cb9aed$361a21c0$a24e6540$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101215004609.GA16940@ofb.net> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 09:43:10AM -0800, spike wrote: > or none of it. Even then, it is difficult to see how reading a few cables > would turn anyone's attitude. From what I have seen, there is nothing > particularly scandalous in there. http://mindstalk.livejournal.com/264371.html Coverups of mass killings; US contractors supporting pedophilia; complacency to Ugandan war crimes; Hillary illegally ordering our diplomats to spy on allies; our formal policy of not investigating Iraqi human rights abuses; interference in the Spanish judiciary; US/Swedish cooperation kept secret from the Swedish people But hey, nothing scandalous. Just gossip, right? -xx- Damien X-) From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 02:30:08 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:30:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "moral outrage: a canadian speciality" Message-ID: Just delved into some diplomatic cables for a little light evening reading and to enjoy some "paroxysms of moral outrage, a Canadian specialty" as one U.S. diplomat put it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/161421 Very true. We are as a nation exceptionally good at taking umbrage. Though to be fair, because of our geographical location and political alliances, we get lots of practice. :) Darren -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 02:16:07 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:16:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Quantum Zeno effect In-Reply-To: References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFA8707.2010608@satx.rr.com> <17B472ED-7D17-4C4D-B59B-CA65EDCF14C9@bellsouth.net> <4D07B123.1070601@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: 2010/12/14 John Clark : > If that human decision is deterministic (and sometimes it probably isn't) > then you always walk left and there is no universe where you go right, so > obviously there is no split. If there is no universe where you go right, better to keep to the left else you simply won't exist. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 15 02:25:20 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:25:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] The Quantum Zeno effect Message-ID: <197711.55689.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> > >From: John Clark >To: ExI chat list >Sent: Mon, December 13, 2010 9:36:33 PM >Subject: [ExI] The Quantum Zeno effect (was: CQT Researcher) Suppose there were a radioactive atom with a half life of 60 minutes, in Many Worlds one way of looking at it, that's not really correct mathematically but can help getting an intuitive feel of it, is that if you look at it after 60 minutes the universe will have split into 2 with the atom decaying in one and not in the other. If you look after 30 minutes there is a 25% chance it will decay so the universe will have split into 4 with 3 having no decay and one with decay, if you look after another 30 minutes each of those 3 will have split yet again with 3 having no decay and one with decay. If you looked after just a nanosecond one universe will see decay and many billions will not, you can see that the number of Damiens (who splits just like everything else) who see no decay of the atom vastly outnumbers the Damiens that do see decay, and more often you check the larger the outnumbering. There will never be a 0% chance you will see a decay but you can approach it?asymptotically if you keep checking on the atom at smaller and smaller time intervals, and this is just what we observe in the?Quantum Zeno effect. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Quantum Zeno effect has me perplexed. Riddle me this, quantish thinkers: If simply observing unstable particles can keep them from decaying, then?why do Geiger counters work at all? Each time a decay happens the Geiger counter clicks so I suppose it could be thought of as a continuous measurement of radioactive decay. Does a Geiger counter not count as a "quantum measurement" for some reason? Is it because?it is continuous and not discrete? Does the measurement have to be active instead of passive?i.e. do you have to?shoot?photons at the?unstable particle for the Quantum Zeno Effect to?be observed? Is it because the geiger counter doesn't cover a complete 4*pi steradians around the sample and?many decay events go unnoticed? I have Googled on the subject and the actual?experiment that?demonstrated the Quantum Zeno Effect by Itano et al uses energy level transitions of an?electron from a berylium ion?and not radioactive decay of any type. So it really did not shed much light on my questions. Here is a summary of their experiment: http://www.ph.utexas.edu/fogs/symposium/Movies/5-QuantumZeno/3_Itano.pdf ? And if the Quantum Zeno Effect does apply to radioactive decay, then wouldn't the radioactivitity detector that triggers the poison?inside the box with Schrodinger's cat, keep said cat alive by constantly?checking on the decay of the isotope?? ? Stuart LaForge "There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower?? From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 02:17:49 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:17:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NYTimes.com: Decoding the Human Brain, With Help From a Fly In-Reply-To: References: <4d07b9b7.818c2a0a.1289.6b48SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: 2010/12/14 Keith Henson : > Decoding the Human Brain, With Help From a Fly > > Taiwanese researchers have managed to bar code some 16,000 of the 100,000 > neurons in a fruit fly?s brain and to reconstruct the brain?s wiring map. > > In terms similar to those that define computers, the team describes the > general architecture of the fly?s brain as composed of 41 local processing > units, 58 tracts that link the units to other parts of the brain, and six > hubs. > > Biologists see this atlas of the fly brain as a first step toward > understanding the human brain. Six of the chemicals that transmit messages > between neurons are the same in both species. And the general structure ? > two hemispheres with copious cross-links ? is also similar. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > This certainly has implications for doing the same with human brains. Do you think flies have the same shit on their minds too? From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 02:49:07 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:49:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Quantum Zeno effect In-Reply-To: <4D07D681.6020005@satx.rr.com> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFA8707.2010608@satx.rr.com> <17B472ED-7D17-4C4D-B59B-CA65EDCF14C9@bellsouth.net> <4D07B123.1070601@satx.rr.com> <4D07D681.6020005@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: John wrote: >as for free will, people don't mean anything by it, it's just a noise made by the mouth.< I like to think of it as temporarily denying one evolutionary imperative in favour of another. Kind of like what Quentin Crisp said politicians have perfected the art of doing: making the inevitable seem like a matter of wise human choice. Darren On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 12/14/2010 12:38 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> >> the sort of thing Nobelist Eccles got all excited about, because he >>> thought that might be a place where a non-physical entity or soul >>> might couple to the machinery. >>> >> >> I suppose so, but I don't understand why he got all excited, randomness >> is not what people usually mean by the soul; as for free will, people >> don't mean anything by it, it's just a noise made by the mouth. >> > > I haven't read Popper&Eccles for a while so I don't recall the exact > argument, but I assume he thought that if a metastable state was somehow so > delicately poised that it could flip any allowable way, a shove by a magical > soul could tip it in the desired deterministic direction. In other words, it > would be a hidden variable. Doesn't make any sense to me, either. But maybe > Eccles-type souls live in the seventh rolled up dimension and can do shit > like that. > > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 15 03:08:05 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:08:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] NYTimes.com: Decoding the Human Brain, With Help From a Fly In-Reply-To: References: <4d07b9b7.818c2a0a.1289.6b48SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4D083115.40401@satx.rr.com> On 12/14/2010 8:17 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: >> This certainly has implications for doing the same with human brains. > > Do you think flies have the same shit on their minds too? Perhaps I tread on your implied joke, but I have it on good authority that flies have nothing *but* shit on their minds. Damien Broderick From jrd1415 at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 04:02:34 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:02:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A War on Death Message-ID: Just found this, haven't even finished reading it yet. http://www.counterpunch.com/naylor12102010.html The objective of the War on Death would be quite simply to make all Americans immortal. It would incorporate the new field of medicine known as transhumanism, described by Joel Garreau in his book Radical Evolution, in which advances in genetics, robotics, information technology, and nano technology allow us to improve our intelligence, reinvent our bodies, and possibly live forever. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From jrd1415 at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 04:07:21 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:07:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A War on Death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Started out strong, but then something happened... Best, Jeff Davis "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anais Nin On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > Just found this, haven't even finished reading it yet. > > http://www.counterpunch.com/naylor12102010.html > > The objective of the War on Death would be quite simply to make all > Americans immortal. ?It would incorporate the new field of medicine > known as transhumanism, described by Joel Garreau in his book Radical > Evolution, in which advances in genetics, robotics, information > technology, and nano technology allow us to improve our intelligence, > reinvent our bodies, and possibly live forever. > > Best, Jeff Davis > > ? ? ? ? ?"Everything's hard till you know how to do it." > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ray Charles > From scerir at alice.it Wed Dec 15 06:05:10 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:05:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Quantum Zeno effect In-Reply-To: <197711.55689.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <197711.55689.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42C805AF3D0443DCA6F7860A6F360177@PCserafino> The Quantum Zeno effect has me perplexed. Riddle me this, quantish thinkers: If simply observing unstable particles can keep them from decaying, then why do Geiger counters work at all? Stuart ----------- Dunno if Asher Peres explains all that here http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/peres_ajp_48_931_80.pdf or here http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/peres_ajp_48_552_80.pdf Anyway, the observation that a quantum state has not decayed causes the reduction of the wavefunction to the non-decayed state. Thus it is possible to argue that a very frequently (or continuosly) observed state cannot decay. This is difficult to get. The probability that the state decays goes quadratically with time (in the range of short times). In spontaneous decay, the interval during which the probability goes quadratically is very short if compared to the time required to make a measurement. "G.C.Ghirardi, C.Omero, T.Weber, A.Rimini, "Nuovo Cimento", 52A, 421, (1979), have shown, by general arguments based on the time-energy uncertainty relations, that the dependence of the lifetime on the frequency of measurements, although present in principle, would be extremely difficul to observe.". This in usual cases. But there are very specifically designed experiments in which the Zeno effect has been observed. From scerir at alice.it Wed Dec 15 06:12:22 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:12:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Quantum Zeno effect In-Reply-To: References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net><000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net><003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net><005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net><4CFA8707.2010608@satx.rr.com><17B472ED-7D17-4C4D-B59B-CA65EDCF14C9@bellsouth.net><4D07B123.1070601@satx.rr.com><4D07D681.6020005@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7C6DB0F1F6AC4288BE2754D94949AA37@PCserafino> > John wrote: > > as for free will, people don't mean anything by it, it's just a noise made > by the mouth.< > > I like to think of it as temporarily denying one evolutionary imperative in > favour of another. > > Darren is that, or the free-will, compatible with MWI? :-) From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 15 06:57:37 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:57:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <20101215004609.GA16940@ofb.net> References: <957074.83263.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001d01cb9aed$361a21c0$a24e6540$@att.net> <20101215004609.GA16940@ofb.net> Message-ID: <00bd01cb9c25$5c893510$159b9f30$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Damien Sullivan Subject: Re: [ExI] Who is safe? On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 09:43:10AM -0800, spike wrote: >> or none of it. Even then, it is difficult to see how reading a few >> cables would turn anyone's attitude. From what I have seen, there is >> nothing particularly scandalous in there. >http://mindstalk.livejournal.com/264371.html >Coverups of mass killings; US contractors supporting pedophilia; complacency to Ugandan war crimes; Hillary illegally ordering our diplomats to spy on allies; our formal policy of not investigating Iraqi human rights abuses; interference in the Spanish judiciary; US/Swedish cooperation kept secret from the Swedish people >But hey, nothing scandalous. Just gossip, right? >-xx- Damien X-) But how do we know these are true? Any of this could have been written by anyone after the leak, or could be counterfeit, intentionally placed in case of a leak. Do we have any way to confirm any of it? spike From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 15 07:08:25 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 23:08:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Quantum Zeno effect In-Reply-To: <42C805AF3D0443DCA6F7860A6F360177@PCserafino> References: <197711.55689.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <42C805AF3D0443DCA6F7860A6F360177@PCserafino> Message-ID: <00bf01cb9c26$dec083c0$9c418b40$@att.net> Subject: Re: [ExI] The Quantum Zeno effect The Quantum Zeno effect has me perplexed. Riddle me this, quantish thinkers: If simply observing unstable particles can keep them from decaying, then why do Geiger counters work at all? Stuart ----------- It doesn't work! When I was five, I was told a watched pot never boils. Set that thing on the stove, never took my eyes off it, but that sucker eventually boiled. I concluded that grownups were full of shit. spike From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 13:37:15 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:37:15 +1100 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:05 PM, spike wrote: > > ... On Behalf Of Alan Grimes > ... > -- > DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. > DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. > Powers are not rights. > > > Alan, I like your tagline. ?As Judge Hudson said today, health care reform > is a laudable goal, but it must be done legally. ?The legislative process > must operate within constitutional bounds. ?The Virginia judge issued the > opinion today that forcing people to buy insurance is outside of those > bounds. ?Government good intentions are insufficient to offset the absence > of enumerated powers. > > I have nothing against federal government involvement in medical care. ?But > they have not the authority to make us buy in. > > Check out the excellent essay from the Cato Institute: > > http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/13/shapiro.court.mandate.health/index.htm > l?hpt=T2 That link doesn't work. But there are legal opinions contrary to the Federal Court judge's: http://www.theconstitutional.org/2010/12/13/health-care-financing-reform-119-virginia-federal-court-strikes-down-individual-mandate-in-health-care-reform-act/ The Federal Court can be overruled by the Supreme Court, and a Supreme Court judge can interpret the constitution however he pleases. That you might object that the judge has obviously got it wrong won't carry a lot of weight. Judges are appointed by the President and the Senate and can be impeached by Congress and the Senate. They are thus ultimately the creatures of elected officials. -- Stathis Papaioannou From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Dec 15 15:37:53 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:37:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Article: "Epoch of Plasticity: the metaverse as a vehicle for cognitive ..." Vita-More Message-ID: My article has been published. (Fyi, the audience is not as knowledgeable as you all about these things so I had to tone down the content. :-)) article: http://www.atypon-link.com/INT/doi/pdf/10.1386/mvcr.1.1.69_1 book info: http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/journals/view-Issue,id=1887/ Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Dec 15 16:15:34 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:15:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Quantum Zeno effect In-Reply-To: <4D07B123.1070601@satx.rr.com> References: <7B5B104C-43FF-4CF3-9BE0-4515EBBA4CD4@bellsouth.net> <000301cb935c$f746fcd0$e5d4f670$@att.net> <003e01cb93d2$638580e0$2a9082a0$@att.net> <005901cb93dc$f7bcb9e0$e7362da0$@att.net> <4CFA8707.2010608@satx.rr.com> <17B472ED-7D17-4C4D-B59B-CA65EDCF14C9@bellsouth.net> <4D07B123.1070601@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7FDFD2A5-04B7-4108-A358-13A90693F9F6@bellsouth.net> On Dec 14, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: >> I always understood that quantum measurement hangs upon some specific and crucial quantum event; thus, choices made by large ensembles of atoms don't count. That is, if you conducted the S's cat experiment using a macroscopic randomizer like a series of spinning coins, it wouldn't prove a thing. John K Clark wrote: > I think that's true After thinking about that response for a while I've come to the conclusion that John K Clark is full of shit and that a spinning coin would work just fine for the Schrodinger Cat Experiment. There must be a universe that is identical with our own in every way EXCEPT that a puff of wind moving at .025 mph hits the coin at a 172 degree angle rather than a 178 degree angle as it does in our universe; this change is tiny by everyday human standards but is enormously larger, astronomically larger really, than the sort of quantum changes Heisenberg was talking about. So in one universe the coin ends up heads and the cat lives and in another the coin ends up tails and the cat dies. Many Worlds makes no distinction between a quantum event and a non quantum event, if you use a radioactive atom the difference in universes is that in one the atom decays and the cat dies and in the other the atom doesn't decay and the cat lives; if you use a coin the difference in universes is that in one a micro-puff of air moves at a 172 degree angle and the cat dies and in the other universe a micro-puff of air moves at a 178 degree angle and the cat lives. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rahmans at me.com Wed Dec 15 13:46:48 2010 From: rahmans at me.com (Omar Rahman) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:46:48 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 09:43:10AM -0800, spike wrote: > >>> or none of it. Even then, it is difficult to see how reading a few >>> cables would turn anyone's attitude. From what I have seen, there is >>> nothing particularly scandalous in there. > >> http://mindstalk.livejournal.com/264371.html > >> Coverups of mass killings; US contractors supporting pedophilia; > complacency to Ugandan war crimes; Hillary illegally ordering our diplomats > to spy on allies; our formal policy of not investigating Iraqi human rights > abuses; interference in the Spanish judiciary; US/Swedish cooperation kept > secret from the Swedish people > >> But hey, nothing scandalous. Just gossip, right? > >> -xx- Damien X-) > > But how do we know these are true? Any of this could have been written by > anyone after the leak, or could be counterfeit, intentionally placed in case > of a leak. Do we have any way to confirm any of it? > > spike > "Do we have any way to confirm any of it?" Is that a serious question?How about investigative journalism and civil/criminal inquiries? These only seem to be useful for dealing with Julian Assange however. Isn't it interesting that his 'sex crimes' trial is going to boil down to a 'he said/she said' situation completely devoid of objective facts at issue? (Everyone agrees that the sex took place, at issue is the consensuality of it.) Also interesting is the fact that it's going to be two against one, which will lend some sort of greater likelihood to the perception of guilt. Added to that is the fact that Julian Assange has no previous accusers in his thirtysome years of life but he is accused of committing two crimes within the span of a week. The level of self-censorship and cowardice in the media is disgraceful. As disgraceful in fact as the level of complacency and willing blindness among the population. More attention needs to be put into investigating the veracity of the leaked cables and less into the sideshow that is the Assange 'sex crimes' trial. Regards, Omar Rahman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 15 17:06:58 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:06:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005f01cb9c7a$7c22a6e0$7467f4a0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Omar Rahman . But how do we know these are true? . Do we have any way to confirm any of it? spike >"Do we have any way to confirm any of it?" Is that a serious question?How about investigative journalism and civil/criminal inquiries? I notice none of the news majors are reporting. Perhaps they suspect a trap? We have seen it before. Maybe. >These only seem to be useful for dealing with Julian Assange however. Isn't it interesting that his 'sex crimes' trial is going to boil down to a 'he said/she said' situation completely devoid of objective facts at issue?... Sounds to me like the first girl didn't know she had been raped until a couple days later when she learned he was sleeping with her friend. I bet he will walk on both charges. . The level of self-censorship and cowardice in the media is disgraceful. As disgraceful in fact as the level of complacency and willing blindness among the population.Omar Rahman Hmmm, due caution is justifiable while standing next to the smoking crater made by Dan Rather and Gary Webb, both of which may have had some government complicity in their downfall. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 17:48:24 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:48:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:00 AM, "spike" wrote: snip > But how do we know these are true? ?Any of this could have been written by > anyone after the leak, or could be counterfeit, intentionally placed in case > of a leak. ?Do we have any way to confirm any of it? There has been no denying of anything as fake by the US government. That's not exactly conformation, but it sure is a strong indication. Incidentally, the response of the US government has been over the top considering what has come out so far. Of course, the government know what's in those cable since they certainly have copies. That leads to the speculation that there are cables that expose much more damaging matters. Governments come and go, so it is possible to be a patriot to the country and the ideals it was founded on without being a supporter of the current government. My experiences with the US government at levels from county to federal supporting outright criminals has been most instructive in this regard. It is possible that Manning will eventually be classed a patriot and Assange honored as a hero in the US, along the lines of the remarkably similar story of Daniel Ellsberg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg. As Talleyrand said: "Treason is a matter of dates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Maurice_de_Talleyrand-P%C3%A9rigord Keith Henson From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Dec 15 18:01:32 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:01:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A War on Death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15F82F0C-3002-4CD6-9868-2BD615E8DFE2@bellsouth.net> On Dec 14, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > Started out strong, but then something happened... Yes. I have never in my life read a short article that contained 8 rhetorical questions and a exclamation point that I did not think was kinda stupid, nor one that ended with "we might all become the living dead". I conclude that this distinguished professor from Duke University is kinda stupid too. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Wed Dec 15 18:04:53 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:04:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] The tyranny of context free grammars In-Reply-To: <4CFEF80E.50308@speakeasy.net> References: <20101207200142.GP9434@leitl.org> <4CFEF80E.50308@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Dec 2010, Alan Grimes wrote: > Ryan Rawson wrote: > > was merely pointing out the downfall of a context-ful grammar, since > > the original poster makes it seem like "if only we shed the shackles > > of CFGs we'd be better for it". There is a dark side of that though, > > and perl is one of them... I've written a few thousand lines of perl, > > it's great for hacking things out, but trying to re-discover what you > > coded a few weeks/months/years ago can be... difficult. > > Not quite. Let's say there is strong human factor in this - some people so much dislike Perl that they have to relearn it every time they have a caprice to "try it once more" (I seem to fall into this category). > I was pointing out that the paradigm of the chomsky heirarchy is > limiting in that it has failed to provide us with the tools we need to > design software for CAM architectures which would seem to enable, with > today's technology, several orders of magnitude more performance per > transistor than is possible with von-neuman machines because millions of > bits could be computed per clock cycle instead of a few thousand... > > Of course there could be problems with the idea of the cellular automata > as being an optimal computing architecture. In any event, computronium > is not just a fabrication issue, it's also a computer science issue. While von Neumann architecture is not perfect, I think it was the easiest __usable__ thing to be built in the past and it will continue to be such in the quite a long future. Thanks to increasing performance, one can research, emulate, and maybe find, a better computing architecture. After emulation of the concept proves to be good, one can design "transistor-level" implementation (VHDL or whatever is suitable for ASIC synthesis) and submit it to manufacturer specialising in ASIC custom-building. Or one can push this low-level design into FPGA. I'm not sure cellular automata is better alternative for v-N. I guess it is one of the easiest to fabricate, but programming it is, IMHO, tricky in best case. And I don't want to think about debugging it. I may yet learn the opposite after reading Wolfram's "New Kind of Science" but I don't expect this much, even though I expect quite a lot :-). Anyway, I may change my thinking when I see Linux ported to CA-CPU :-). Before this happens, CAs are probably going to be confined to coprocessors and other such helper hardware. And to be frank, I would rather invest my time in something else, even though ATM I am not quite sure what exactly (the subject is broad and needs a lot of exploring). 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 Wed Dec 15 18:51:04 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:51:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000f01cb9c89$069064d0$13b12e70$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Keith Henson Subject: Re: [ExI] Who is safe? On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:00 AM, "spike" wrote: snip >> But how do we know these are true? ?Any of this could have been >> written by anyone after the leak, or could be counterfeit, >> intentionally placed in case of a leak. ?Do we have any way to confirm any of it? >...There has been no denying of anything as fake by the US government... Ja, I wouldn't expect any denials at this point. The target isn't Assange so much as the news majors, who are even still looked upon as arbiters of sufficient evidence. >...That's not exactly conformation, but it sure is a strong indication... It is a strong indication, but it isn't clear to me what it indicates. If the file is salted with juicy gossip, memetic Trojan horses and booby traps, those who placed them there would not say anything. Yet. If Julian or one of his associates wrote them, they wouldn't say anything at all. If the CIA wrote them, they would wait until a political adversary takes the bait. It is possible Julian Assange is being used as a tool or a distraction but he is not a sufficiently valuable target to justify expending the munitions. Watch carefully in the next few weeks. Listen and think of every possibility. There may be more than one bad guy, who may not even be working together, nor all be on the same side. Keith I don't know if you were ever a San Jose Mercury News reader, but if so, you may have followed Gary Webb's career trajectory. He published some incendiary charges against the CIA, which were later disowned by the Merc. This whole Assange adventure feels a little like that episode. In the end, Webb perished of two gunshots to the head, eventually declared self-inflicted. Indeed? Did he have a double barreled shotgun? An automatic machine gun? Two pistols fired simultaneously? Interestingly, several news sources later reported (again with insufficient evidence) that the CIA had confessed to "more than Gary reported" but apparently not the exact charges that Gary reported. In that case his gunshot wounds, if self-inflicted, would be considered justifiable homicide. Otherwise not. His story hit the headlines over 14 years ago, but I remember it like it was yesterday. >Incidentally, the response of the US government has been over the top considering what has come out so far... That's one of the things that makes me suspicious. If they doth protest too much, they bring suspicion upon that which they are too-vigorously denying. That draws the attention of the investigators, who are distracted from the more damaging stuff. After exhaustive investigation, the truth eventually comes out: the government was actually telling the truth on that particular aspect. They were telling it in a misleading way by insisting with excessive enthusiasm, causing the suspicious to doubt. The adversarial news agencies have then invested precious resources and credibility, only to make their own government look like a den of truth-tellers. Hey it has happened spectacularly in the cases of Dan Rather and Gary Webb. Am I cynical or what? {8^D This makes me a double conspiracy theorist The bad guys attack the worse guys by telling the truth in such a way that it sounds like a lie. > Of course, the government know what's in those cable since they certainly have copies... If they are cleared to a sufficient level they are. Those below that do not know which are real and which could be memetic landmines... >It is possible that Manning will eventually be classed a patriot and Assange honored as a hero in the US...Keith Henson Ja, they already are by plenty of Americans. Note that neither Assange nor PFC Manning are making any specific accusations, but rather are both merely messengers. Let us see if any of the news majors will make any specific accusations based on the wikileaks material. Has anyone seen any? spike From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 15 19:40:08 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:40:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <000f01cb9c89$069064d0$13b12e70$@att.net> References: <000f01cb9c89$069064d0$13b12e70$@att.net> Message-ID: <001101cb9c8f$e2781cd0$a7685670$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of spike >...Watch carefully in the next few weeks. Listen and think of every possibility. There may be more than one bad guy, who may not even be working together, nor all be on the same side... Keith I don't know if you were ever a San Jose Mercury News reader, but if so, you may have followed Gary Webb's career trajectory...His story hit the headlines over 14 years ago, but I remember it like it was yesterday... spike Note that when any major news agency takes a head shot, its credibility never recovers. The Merc has been in decline ever since the 1996 debacle. CBS has not ventured very far into political scandal reporting since 2004, for it is too easy for them to imagine any other news agency, such as that fair and balanced outfit, making snarky comments such as "...CBS, the neeews agency of Dan Raaaather, is reporting..." Long timers here may recall discussions on the future of war we used to have here about 10 or 12 years ago. We remarked that future warfare may be unrecognizable as such, for it would be missing many of the universal aspects of warfare that has been with us since the first ape hurled a stone at another ape. Future warfare may have no explosions, no injury or death, no clear chain of command, no uniforms, no fires, no starving refugees. Warfare has already suddenly lost one of the most universal aspects: the terror and confusion of battle. Future wars could start and end quickly, with many of the participants unaware that a war had occurred. The damage may not be apparent for years, if at all. It may be debatable whether the events can even be called warfare. The damage may be ambiguous. We are in such an ambiguous warfare right now. Imagine for instance, somehow all passenger airline travel is choked to death by the necessity of security measures that cause a sufficient number of customers to just say no, and we drop below critical mass to sustain the system. Real or implied threats cause the whole system to just collapse or flame out. But then businesses compensate by figuring out ways to move information instead of meat. It is far cheaper and in many ways more effective to move bits instead of butts. Who won and who lost? Why? How? spike From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 22:23:31 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:23:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Videos, News stories, and more from Breakthrough Philanthropy! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas McCabe Date: Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:20 PM Subject: Fwd: Videos, News stories, and more from Breakthrough Philanthropy! To: Michael Vassar , SIAI House < sihouse at singinst.org>, "Mailing list for the Board, advisors, and staff of Humanity+" ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Breakthrough Philanthropy < BreakthroughPhilanthropy at thielfoundation.org> Date: Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:43 PM Subject: Videos, News stories, and more from Breakthrough Philanthropy! To: "pphysics141 at gmail.com" Thanks so much for coming to last week's Breakthrough Philanthropy event! We've got videos up, so you can be re-inspired by your favorite talks, share them with your friends, or (for those of you who weren't able to make it) see them for the first time. Here's a playlist of the entire evening(some email clients, like gmail, filter embedded video, so if it doesn't appear below, just click here) : We'll be getting photos up as soon as we can - join the event Facebook Group to see when they are posted. Here's some great news coverage of the evening: - Silicon Valley billionaire backs futuristic philanthropy( *San Jose Mercury News*). *"Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel worries that people aren't thinking big enough about the future. So he's convening an unusual philanthropic summit..."* - Breakthrough Philanthropy - Thiel Foundation Event, by Jim Fruchterman, President of Benetech. *"I see the same kind of energy present in these groups that I saw in the early days of the private rocket business in the 1980s (and to be honest, in the social entrepreneurship movement of today!)."* - Behind the scenes of Jason Hope's $500,000 donation announced at Breakthrough Philanthropy. *"It?s around 8.30pm. I?m not sure exactly: I?m not looking at my watch any more. Mike just set out the Foundation?s mission with the greatest clarity I?ve ever heard, and I?m standing in the line for sushi with Jason, talking about the applause that filled the room when we announced his $500,000 donation."* As we announced at the event, *the Thiel Foundation will match the first $1,000 that each attendee gives to each of the organizations by Dec 31st*. Thanks so much to those who have already begun a new philanthropic partnership in the last week! For your convenience, if you'd like to give to multiple organizations at once, you can do this in one transaction through the Thiel Foundation, using the PayPal box below. Just put in the notes field how you'd like your donation to be split. What's the total, tax-deductible amount you'd like to donate to these organizations? *$ * Specify how you would like to distribute your donation. Example: "$1000 to each organization" etc. (Your browser may prompt you about submitting the information to an external page. Just click "Yes" or "Okay.") We've also got a full list of the organizations below, with links to their websites, videos, and donations pages. For those of you who didn't have time to fill out your response cards at the event, click here to choose which causes you'd like to hear more about. Name Mission Video Donate Santa Fe Institute The Santa Fe Institute is a Research and education center for multidisciplinary collaborations in the physical, biological, computational, and social sciences. Chris Wood Talk Video Support Santa Fe Institute Now Singularity University Singularity University assembles, educates and inspires leaders who strive to understand and facilitate the development of exponentially advancing technologies in order to address humanity?s grand challenges. Neil Jacobstein Talk Video Support Singularity University Now Humanity+ Humanity+ is the world's leading nonprofit dedicated to the ethical use of technology to extend human capabilities. Ben Goertzel Talk Video Support Humanity+ Now Singularity Institute The Singularity Institute brings rational analysis and rational strategy to the challenges facing humanity as we develop cognitive technologies that will exceed the current upper bounds on human intelligence. Michael Vassar Talk Video Support Singularity Institute Now Foresight Institute Foresight Institute?s mission is to ensure the beneficial implementation of nanotechnology. Christine Peterson Talk Video Support Foresight Now SENS Foundation SENS Foundation is a non-profit organization* which works to develop, promote and ensure widespread access to rejuvenation biotechnologies which comprehensively address the disabilities and diseases of aging. Mike Kope Talk Video Support SENS Foundation Now Seasteading Institute The Seaseteading Institute's mission is to further the development of permanent, autonomous ocean communities, enabling innovation with new political and social systems. Patri Friedman Talk Video Support Seasteading Now X PRIZE Foundation The mission of the X PRIZE Foundation is to bring about radical breakthroughs for the benefit of humanity by creating and managing prizes that drive innovators to solve some of the greatest challenges facing the world today. Peter Diamandis Talk Video Support X Prize Now *Click here to request more information about any of these organizations. * (You will be taken to an online form which replicates the response cards from the event) We're glad you could join us, and we hope to see you again in the future! - The Thiel Foundation and Breakthrough Philanthropy team Can't see this email? [ Click here] Intelligent email marketing services provided by [ DirectIQ ] -- - Tom McCabe http://www.rationalfuturist.com/ Department of Mathematics, Yale University http://www.math.yale.edu/ Director and Program Coordinator, Humanity+ http://www.humanityplus.org/ -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 15 23:12:34 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:12:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] 4th phase of water? Message-ID: <4D094B62.6070705@satx.rr.com> Remarkable video, Faculty Lecture of water "exclusion zone," U. Washington: From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 15 23:30:04 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:30:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address Message-ID: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> "...WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange tried to hide his bail address from the public in an astonishing move for the man responsible for leaking thousands of diplomatic secrets..." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338832/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-ask ed-judge-bail-address-secret.html Wait a minute, this isn't a good thing. It is only good when the privacy of the bad guy is violated. When the good guy's privacy is subjected to involuntary transparency, then is a bad thing, ja? When the guy who de-closeted the bad guy is himself thrown out of the closet, then we need to determine who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, in order to decide if privacy is a good thing or a bad thing. Who is evil in this case, the British judge or Assange? What if some bastard had leaked Julian's address to Wikileaks, and Julian didn't notice it was in there, mixed with a ream of other text, so he accidentally outed himself against his own will? Then is he good or bad? This determines if he deserves his privacy or needs the disinfectant of sunlight. Of course we don't know if the address is real or a clever diversionary tactic. Oh this is fun. {8^D spike From ryanobjc at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 23:52:44 2010 From: ryanobjc at gmail.com (Ryan Rawson) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:52:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> Message-ID: Kind of different, one is court documents regarding a private individual, the other is bureaucratic documents about government officials. I think it's possible to believe in governmental transparency and privacy rights for individuals without being hypocritical. On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:30 PM, spike wrote: > > "...WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange tried to hide his bail address from the > public in an astonishing move for the man responsible for leaking thousands > of diplomatic secrets..." > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338832/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-ask > ed-judge-bail-address-secret.html > > Wait a minute, this isn't a good thing. ?It is only good when the privacy of > the bad guy is violated. ?When the good guy's privacy is subjected to > involuntary transparency, then is a bad thing, ja? ?When the guy who > de-closeted the bad guy is himself thrown out of the closet, then we need to > determine who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, in order to decide if > privacy is a good thing or a bad thing. > > Who is evil in this case, the British judge or Assange? ?What if some > bastard had leaked Julian's address to Wikileaks, and Julian didn't notice > it was in there, mixed with a ream of other text, so he accidentally outed > himself against his own will? ?Then is he good or bad? ?This determines if > he deserves his privacy or needs the disinfectant of sunlight. > > Of course we don't know if the address is real or a clever diversionary > tactic. > > Oh this is fun. ?{8^D > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 00:24:33 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:24:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> Message-ID: The British press enjoy doing stuff like this. When I lived in London a decade ago, the News Of The World published the names and addresses of British sex offenders from the national registry, which then forced some of them to midnight move without re-registering for fear it would happen again. Brilliant bit. Sold a lot of papers. Maybe some enterprising journalist remembered that, thought about Assange's charges in Sweden, and had an epiphany at breakfast. Darren On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM, spike wrote: > > "...WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange tried to hide his bail address from > the > public in an astonishing move for the man responsible for leaking thousands > of diplomatic secrets..." > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338832/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-ask > ed-judge-bail-address-secret.html > > Wait a minute, this isn't a good thing. It is only good when the privacy > of > the bad guy is violated. When the good guy's privacy is subjected to > involuntary transparency, then is a bad thing, ja? When the guy who > de-closeted the bad guy is himself thrown out of the closet, then we need > to > determine who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, in order to decide if > privacy is a good thing or a bad thing. > > Who is evil in this case, the British judge or Assange? What if some > bastard had leaked Julian's address to Wikileaks, and Julian didn't notice > it was in there, mixed with a ream of other text, so he accidentally outed > himself against his own will? Then is he good or bad? This determines if > he deserves his privacy or needs the disinfectant of sunlight. > > Of course we don't know if the address is real or a clever diversionary > tactic. > > Oh this is fun. {8^D > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From algaenymph at gmail.com Wed Dec 15 23:46:52 2010 From: algaenymph at gmail.com (AlgaeNymph) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:46:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D09536C.1020302@gmail.com> On 12/15/10 3:30 PM, spike wrote: > Wait a minute, this isn't a good thing. It is only good when the privacy of > the bad guy is violated. When the good guy's privacy is subjected to > involuntary transparency, then is a bad thing, ja? Maybe. http://xkcd.com/834/ From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 16 00:57:41 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:57:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Ryan Rawson Subject: Re: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address >...Kind of different, one is court documents regarding a private individual, the other is bureaucratic documents about government officials. I think it's possible to believe in governmental transparency and privacy rights for individuals without being hypocritical... Ja, but of course there is that ambiguous intersection between individual's privacy rights and government transparency, with this being a perfect example. In most cases in the US, criminal court proceedings are considered public domain. But generally no one digs thru court records to find anything specific. On the other hand in this wonderful age of government transparency, anyone could go find anyone else's court records and leak them to Wikileaks. I can see so many ironic results. Suppose Wikileaks wants to out some government scoundrel, so the scoundrel gets a 100 page document that she wrote, changes a few names in order to implicate someone else she doesn't like, then somewhere inserts the sentence "Julian Assange's address is {yakkity yak and bla bla}" then leaks the document anonymously to Wikileaks. The staff at Wikileaks can't read everything, but this looks good, so they post it. A thousand people each read a piece here and a piece there, someone eventually discovers the sentence, and Julian outs himself inadvertently. This is a wildly complicated issue. I have seen oversimplifications to good or bad, seen it everywhere, even on this list. Ignoring the whole rape thing, which sounds bogus to me, Julian is still an ambiguously good guy and a bad guy simultaneously. Perhaps Damien or one of the other SF hipsters can identify a story that I read a looooong time ago, over 30 yrs I think, where Asimov deals with this exact issue. A scientist discovers some wonderful algorithm which allows him to regressively calculate quantum states to figure out exactly what happened at any given place at any time past. He shows it to a colleague who shows it to someone else, but government goons find out and chase and catch one of them, who warns the other two, who flee in terror, and each tell someone else. By the time the chase scene is over, the evil government goons have rounded up about 30 guys and have them all in custody. Last scene, the head evil goon says something like "We have all of you now, but we have plenty of reason to think the secret has not been fully contained. So there is no point in killing you. You are all free to go. From now on, no one has any privacy, present or past. There are no secrets anywhere ever again. Welcome to your new world gentlemen, and may you all rot in hell." Damien, ever heard of it? spike On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:30 PM, spike wrote: > > "...WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange tried to hide his bail address > from the public in an astonishing move for the man responsible for > leaking thousands of diplomatic secrets..." > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338832/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assan > ge-ask > ed-judge-bail-address-secret.html > > Wait a minute, this isn't a good thing. ?It is only good when the > privacy of the bad guy is violated. ?When the good guy's privacy is > subjected to involuntary transparency, then is a bad thing, ja? ?When > the guy who de-closeted the bad guy is himself thrown out of the > closet, then we need to determine who is the good guy and who is the > bad guy, in order to decide if privacy is a good thing or a bad thing. > > Who is evil in this case, the British judge or Assange? ?What if some > bastard had leaked Julian's address to Wikileaks, and Julian didn't > notice it was in there, mixed with a ream of other text, so he > accidentally outed himself against his own will? ?Then is he good or > bad? ?This determines if he deserves his privacy or needs the disinfectant of sunlight. > > Of course we don't know if the address is real or a clever > diversionary tactic. > > Oh this is fun. ?{8^D > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 listsb at infinitefaculty.org Thu Dec 16 01:01:21 2010 From: listsb at infinitefaculty.org (Brian Manning Delaney) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:01:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D0964E1.2060603@infinitefaculty.org> El 2010-12-15 18:30, spike escribi?: [....] > Who is evil in this case, the British judge or Assange? What if some > bastard had leaked Julian's address to Wikileaks, and Julian didn't notice > it was in there, mixed with a ream of other text, so he accidentally outed > himself against his own will? Then is he good or bad? This determines if > he deserves his privacy or needs the disinfectant of sunlight. > > Of course we don't know if the address is real or a clever diversionary > tactic. > > Oh this is fun. {8^D > > spike Hej Spike! Yes, this has been an amazing trip! Such irony, everywhere! I'm back in Colombia now, but I was in Sweden when the diplomatic cables got leaked. Truly astonishing to watch the press reaction in Western Europe. In response to a few other comments here: Uncle Jules is not simply a private individual, he is (or was or whatever the sitch now be) the head of organization making extraordinary claims about the virtues of "RADICAL openness". Pardon laziness, but my (very harsh) views on Assange are best captured by a recent Facebook status update: ------------- "I, Julian () believe in transparency! (Except when it applies to my own organization.)" "I, Julian (), believe in open discussion. That's why we have a wiki; and check out our cool name, "WIKIleaks" -- 'anyone can edit!' (But we had to shut down the wiki because the discussion was too open.)" ?"I, Uncle Jules, am NOT imperious!" screams Julian imperiously, as he imperiously fires several employees/volunteers because they called him imperious and suspects they've Bradley-Manning-ed information about the inner workings of WikiLeaks to The New York Times, which, unlike the Guardian, has tried to report on Julian's imperiousness. Then Julian imperiously decides no longer to share informtion with the NYT (who didn't get the cables in advance from Julian this time, but from a different source). The beautiful revolution. Sung to the tune of "Won't Get Fooled Again". It's disturbing that so many people are taking this egomaniacal, grandstanding, rebarbative little Stalinist puke seriously. ------------- I still have hope for the concept of making it possible for people to leak information about crimes in a safe way, though. Go for it, OpenLeaks! Brian From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 01:43:38 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:43:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> Message-ID: > Ignoring the whole rape thing, which sounds bogus to me, Julian is still an ambiguously good guy and a bad guy simultaneously.< As are most people. I cringe whenever I hear the man referred to as a hero. I cringe, I guess, whenever I hear anyone referred to as one. It's so Song of Roland/Epic of Gilgamesh. Most of the men and women I admire in history have turned out to be unremitting bastards upon close examination of their personal lives. Even Einstein was a infamous womanizer, with a long-suffering wife. That's why I enjoy biographies ever so much. Geniuses and notable persons operating with the same emotional baggage and with the same mix of pure and impure motivation as the rest of us. The only person I admire whose life turned out to be as near flawless as his work was Marcel Duchamp. And of course, most people have either never have heard of him or if they have, assume he was fraudulent cross-dressing trickster who destroyed the world of aesthetic art. Darren On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:57 PM, spike wrote: > > ... On Behalf Of Ryan Rawson > Subject: Re: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian > assange's > address > > >...Kind of different, one is court documents regarding a private > individual, the other is bureaucratic documents about government > officials. I think it's possible to believe in governmental transparency > and privacy rights for individuals without being hypocritical... > > > Ja, but of course there is that ambiguous intersection between individual's > privacy rights and government transparency, with this being a perfect > example. In most cases in the US, criminal court proceedings are > considered > public domain. But generally no one digs thru court records to find > anything specific. On the other hand in this wonderful age of government > transparency, anyone could go find anyone else's court records and leak > them > to Wikileaks. > > I can see so many ironic results. Suppose Wikileaks wants to out some > government scoundrel, so the scoundrel gets a 100 page document that she > wrote, changes a few names in order to implicate someone else she doesn't > like, then somewhere inserts the sentence "Julian Assange's address is > {yakkity yak and bla bla}" then leaks the document anonymously to > Wikileaks. > The staff at Wikileaks can't read everything, but this looks good, so they > post it. A thousand people each read a piece here and a piece there, > someone eventually discovers the sentence, and Julian outs himself > inadvertently. > > This is a wildly complicated issue. I have seen oversimplifications to > good > or bad, seen it everywhere, even on this list. Ignoring the whole rape > thing, which sounds bogus to me, Julian is still an ambiguously good guy > and > a bad guy simultaneously. > > Perhaps Damien or one of the other SF hipsters can identify a story that I > read a looooong time ago, over 30 yrs I think, where Asimov deals with this > exact issue. A scientist discovers some wonderful algorithm which allows > him to regressively calculate quantum states to figure out exactly what > happened at any given place at any time past. He shows it to a colleague > who shows it to someone else, but government goons find out and chase and > catch one of them, who warns the other two, who flee in terror, and each > tell someone else. By the time the chase scene is over, the evil > government > goons have rounded up about 30 guys and have them all in custody. Last > scene, the head evil goon says something like "We have all of you now, but > we have plenty of reason to think the secret has not been fully contained. > So there is no point in killing you. You are all free to go. From now on, > no one has any privacy, present or past. There are no secrets anywhere > ever > again. Welcome to your new world gentlemen, and may you all rot in hell." > > Damien, ever heard of it? > > spike > > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:30 PM, spike wrote: > > > > "...WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange tried to hide his bail address > > from the public in an astonishing move for the man responsible for > > leaking thousands of diplomatic secrets..." > > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338832/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assan > > ge-ask > > ed-judge-bail-address-secret.html > > > > Wait a minute, this isn't a good thing. It is only good when the > > privacy of the bad guy is violated. When the good guy's privacy is > > subjected to involuntary transparency, then is a bad thing, ja? When > > the guy who de-closeted the bad guy is himself thrown out of the > > closet, then we need to determine who is the good guy and who is the > > bad guy, in order to decide if privacy is a good thing or a bad thing. > > > > Who is evil in this case, the British judge or Assange? What if some > > bastard had leaked Julian's address to Wikileaks, and Julian didn't > > notice it was in there, mixed with a ream of other text, so he > > accidentally outed himself against his own will? Then is he good or > > bad? This determines if he deserves his privacy or needs the > disinfectant > of sunlight. > > > > Of course we don't know if the address is real or a clever > > diversionary tactic. > > > > Oh this is fun. {8^D > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 16 02:03:09 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:03:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> On 12/15/2010 6:57 PM, spike wrote: > Perhaps Damien or one of the other SF hipsters can identify a story that I > read a looooong time ago, over 30 yrs I think, where Asimov deals with this > exact issue. A scientist discovers some wonderful algorithm which allows > him to regressively calculate quantum states to figure out exactly what > happened at any given place at any time past. He shows it to a colleague > who shows it to someone else, but government goons find out and chase and > catch one of them, who warns the other two, who flee in terror, and each > tell someone else. By the time the chase scene is over, the evil government > goons have rounded up about 30 guys and have them all in custody. Last > scene, the head evil goon says something like "We have all of you now, but > we have plenty of reason to think the secret has not been fully contained. > So there is no point in killing you. You are all free to go. From now on, > no one has any privacy, present or past. There are no secrets anywhere ever > again. Welcome to your new world gentlemen, and may you all rot in hell." > > Damien, ever heard of it? but cf. also much later From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 02:07:33 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:07:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NYTimes.com: Decoding the Human Brain, With Help From a Fly In-Reply-To: <4D083115.40401@satx.rr.com> References: <4d07b9b7.818c2a0a.1289.6b48SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <4D083115.40401@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 12/14/2010 8:17 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > >>> This certainly has implications for doing the same with human brains. >> >> Do you think flies have the same shit on their minds too? > > Perhaps I tread on your implied joke, but I have it on good authority that > flies have nothing *but* shit on their minds. > I don't know, according to this documentary I think they might worry about spiders too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqYDRxdgnC0 .. make that spiders and large rocks. From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 02:50:41 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:50:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <001101cb9c8f$e2781cd0$a7685670$@att.net> References: <000f01cb9c89$069064d0$13b12e70$@att.net> <001101cb9c8f$e2781cd0$a7685670$@att.net> Message-ID: >Future warfare may have no explosions, no injury or death, no clear chain of command, no uniforms, no fires, no starving refugees. Warfare has already suddenly lost one of the most universal aspects: the terror and confusion of battle. Future wars could start and end quickly, with many of the participants unaware that a war had occurred.< For two hundred years the standard bible for military colleges and officers-in-training around the world was Von Clausewitz's On War. This detailed how to win wars since Napoleonic times: nation fighting nation and making the attack phycological, economic and strategic, effectively strangling the resistance out of large nationalized populations though strategic bombing and localized battles in a "theatre", attrition and laying siege. In the nineties, Martin van Creveld, an Israeli historian, published a book called The Rise and Decline of the State, and since then, spurred on by increasing terrorist and guerilla warfare tactics and internal acknowledgment of the failure in Vietnam, that book and others by van Creveld have been the philosophy-of-war manuals for the Pentagon and many other national military organizations. The American writer Robert Kaplan also explains quite well in The Coming Anarchy how wars are fought have been changing dramatically in the last three decades and will continue to change. Edward Said had quite a bit to say over the changes in*why* they are being fought. Interesting stuff. I'd like to see some of those old posts. Darren P.S. If you haven't already and decide to you want to read Van Creveld, might want to brew lots of coffee. I got through him, but his style is terribly dry. On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:40 PM, spike wrote: > ... On Behalf Of spike > > >...Watch carefully in the next few weeks. Listen and think of every > possibility. There may be more than one bad guy, who may not even be > working together, nor all be on the same side... Keith I don't know if you > were ever a San Jose Mercury News reader, but if so, you may have followed > Gary Webb's career trajectory...His story hit the headlines over 14 years > ago, but I remember it like it was yesterday... spike > > Note that when any major news agency takes a head shot, its credibility > never recovers. The Merc has been in decline ever since the 1996 debacle. > CBS has not ventured very far into political scandal reporting since 2004, > for it is too easy for them to imagine any other news agency, such as that > fair and balanced outfit, making snarky comments such as "...CBS, the > neeews > agency of Dan Raaaather, is reporting..." > > Long timers here may recall discussions on the future of war we used to > have > here about 10 or 12 years ago. We remarked that future warfare may be > unrecognizable as such, for it would be missing many of the universal > aspects of warfare that has been with us since the first ape hurled a stone > at another ape. Future warfare may have no explosions, no injury or death, > no clear chain of command, no uniforms, no fires, no starving refugees. > Warfare has already suddenly lost one of the most universal aspects: the > terror and confusion of battle. Future wars could start and end quickly, > with many of the participants unaware that a war had occurred. The damage > may not be apparent for years, if at all. It may be debatable whether the > events can even be called warfare. The damage may be ambiguous. > > We are in such an ambiguous warfare right now. Imagine for instance, > somehow all passenger airline travel is choked to death by the necessity of > security measures that cause a sufficient number of customers to just say > no, and we drop below critical mass to sustain the system. Real or implied > threats cause the whole system to just collapse or flame out. But then > businesses compensate by figuring out ways to move information instead of > meat. It is far cheaper and in many ways more effective to move bits > instead of butts. > > Who won and who lost? Why? How? > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 16 03:16:50 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:16:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Damien Broderick Subject: Re: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address On 12/15/2010 6:57 PM, spike wrote: > ...the chase scene is over, the evil government goons have rounded > up about 30 guys and have them all in custody. Last scene, the head > evil goon says something like "We have all of you now, but we have plenty of reason to think the secret has not been fully contained. > So there is no point in killing you. You are all free to go. From > now on, no one has any privacy, present or past. There are no secrets > anywhere ever again. Welcome to your new world gentlemen, and may you all rot in hell." > > Damien, ever heard of it? but cf. also much later Thanks Damien! The mark of good science fiction, or any fiction, is that it is memorable. I remember now when I read this. It was in 1973. I received as a gift the newly minted Best of Isaac Asimov, which was published that year, and which I still own. My memory of that particular story, but not the others in that volume, is remarkably clear. For what it's worth, I myself was once a proponent of much greater openness, being as I have had a G-rated life, and few secrets. Now, not so much. I recognize there are *plenty* of perfectly legitimate reasons to maintain privacy rights, and that privacy should extend to *some* government functions but not all. Here's what I want from you guys: think carefully and hard, the way I know you can. Think of all the *unintended consequences* of Julian Assanges work, both good and bad. The notion of good and bad doesn't necessarily collapse down to one number positive or negative; it is too complex for that. So let it be a complex number, with a real good/evil axis and an imaginary good/evil axis if you wish, or multiple categories or circumstances. For instance, Wikileaks can be used to destroy someone even an innocent person, perhaps a rival for a sweetheart. One could create a phony document with the adversary's name on it, in which one insults the radical Mormons. We know that Mormons are peaceful people, but there is a small percentage of radical Mormons who misunderstand their peaceful religion, who can be very dangerous if any careless Episcopalian insults their prophet, with something as simple as a cartoon. One could say something rather innocuous, such as: Joseph Smith was a horny dog, married a nine year old girl, copulated with her when she was eleven, which was egregious behavior even for the very liberal standards of his day. The radical Mormons then issue a Latter Day Complaint against you (you infidel) at which time they collectively implore their god to remove his protective hand from you (you sinner) which could result in your getting a migraine, or your car intentionally scratched, or you and your entire family being brutally murdered in your own home, that sort of thing. The closer you live to Salt Lake City, the greater the risk, and it is rising everywhere in every nation as Mormons outcompete rival religions through sheer high volume breeding and guys going around on bicycles with skinny black ties They don't assimilate well. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 16 03:50:15 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:50:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: References: <000f01cb9c89$069064d0$13b12e70$@att.net> <001101cb9c8f$e2781cd0$a7685670$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D098C77.3040102@satx.rr.com> On 12/15/2010 8:50 PM, Darren Greer wrote: > Edward Said had quite a bit to say over the changes in*why* they are > being fought. Interesting stuff. I'd like to see some of those old posts. I don't think Professor Said was cited here very often. :) Damien Broderick From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 11:47:47 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 07:47:47 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <4D098C77.3040102@satx.rr.com> References: <000f01cb9c89$069064d0$13b12e70$@att.net> <001101cb9c8f$e2781cd0$a7685670$@att.net> <4D098C77.3040102@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Damien wrote: >I don't think Professor Said was cited here very often. :)< Probably not. I managed to do it, my first month here when that mosque in NYC was being hotly debated on this list. Then again, I'll quote anyone, for anything, if I think I can make a point without having to think for myself. I'm still waiting for the opportunity to drop something relevant spoken by Madonna. :) Darren On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 12/15/2010 8:50 PM, Darren Greer wrote: > > Edward Said had quite a bit to say over the changes in*why* they are >> being fought. Interesting stuff. I'd like to see some of those old posts. >> > > I don't think Professor Said was cited here very often. :) > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 11:37:01 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:37:01 +0000 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:16 AM, spike wrote: > Here's what I want from you guys: think carefully and hard, the way I know > you can. ?Think of all the *unintended consequences* of Julian Assanges > work, both good and bad. ?The notion of good and bad doesn't necessarily > collapse down to one number positive or negative; it is too complex for > that. ?So let it be a complex number, with a real good/evil axis and an > imaginary good/evil axis if you wish, or multiple categories or > circumstances. > > As Darren wrote, everything you do has unintended consequences. Fortunately some results are good as well as bad. So sometimes things turn out better than expected, rather than worse than expected. Life's like that. So enjoy the good outcomes, just as you have to suffer the bad outcomes. (Even though being 'unexpected', neither is really down to your decision). :) What is much more subtle is *not* doing something. You anticipate something bad coming, but do nothing to stop or divert it. You can't be publicly blamed, because nobody else saw it coming and nobody knows of your insight. But you know. The Road Not Taken Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth; Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim, Because it was grassy and wanted wear; Though as for that the passing there Had worn them really about the same, And both that morning equally lay In leaves no step had trodden black. Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back. I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I? I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. Robert Frost 1874-1963, written in 1916 From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 16:55:26 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:55:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> Message-ID: *Completely unrelated, Bill, to your post ending with The Road Not Taken. But it reminded me of this one, which was my favorite Frost poem for a few years in high school. It was just bitchy enough for an adolescent malcreant . A Considerable Speck* User Rating: 7.2 /10 (39 votes) - vote - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [image: 0]Print friendly version [image: 0]E-mail this poem to e friend [image: 0]Send this poem as eCard [image: 0]Add this poem to MyPoemList (Microscopic) A speck that would have been beneath my sight On any but a paper sheet so white Set off across what I had written there. And I had idly poised my pen in air To stop it with a period of ink When something strange about it made me think, This was no dust speck by my breathing blown, But unmistakably a living mite With inclinations it could call its own. It paused as with suspicion of my pen, And then came racing wildly on again To where my manuscript was not yet dry; Then paused again and either drank or smelt-- With loathing, for again it turned to fly. Plainly with an intelligence I dealt. It seemed too tiny to have room for feet, Yet must have had a set of them complete To express how much it didn't want to die. It ran with terror and with cunning crept. It faltered: I could see it hesitate; Then in the middle of the open sheet Cower down in desperation to accept Whatever I accorded it of fate. I have none of the tenderer-than-thou Collectivistic regimenting love With which the modern world is being swept. But this poor microscopic item now! Since it was nothing I knew evil of I let it lie there till I hope it slept. I have a mind myself and recognize Mind when I meet with it in any guise No one can know how glad I am to find On any sheet the least display of mind. On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:37 AM, BillK wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:16 AM, spike wrote: > > Here's what I want from you guys: think carefully and hard, the way I > know > > you can. Think of all the *unintended consequences* of Julian Assanges > > work, both good and bad. The notion of good and bad doesn't necessarily > > collapse down to one number positive or negative; it is too complex for > > that. So let it be a complex number, with a real good/evil axis and an > > imaginary good/evil axis if you wish, or multiple categories or > > circumstances. > > > > > > As Darren wrote, everything you do has unintended consequences. > Fortunately some results are good as well as bad. So sometimes things > turn out better than expected, rather than worse than expected. Life's > like that. So enjoy the good outcomes, just as you have to suffer the > bad outcomes. > (Even though being 'unexpected', neither is really down to your decision). > :) > > What is much more subtle is *not* doing something. You anticipate > something bad coming, but do nothing to stop or divert it. You can't > be publicly blamed, because nobody else saw it coming and nobody knows > of your insight. But you know. > > > > The Road Not Taken > > Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, > And sorry I could not travel both > And be one traveler, long I stood > And looked down one as far as I could > To where it bent in the undergrowth; > Then took the other, as just as fair, > And having perhaps the better claim, > Because it was grassy and wanted wear; > Though as for that the passing there > Had worn them really about the same, > And both that morning equally lay > In leaves no step had trodden black. > Oh, I kept the first for another day! > Yet knowing how way leads on to way, > I doubted if I should ever come back. > I shall be telling this with a sigh > Somewhere ages and ages hence: > Two roads diverged in a wood, and I? > I took the one less traveled by, > And that has made all the difference. > > Robert Frost > 1874-1963, written in 1916 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 22:06:54 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:06:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:16 PM, spike wrote: "Here's what I want from you guys: think carefully and hard, the way I know you can. Think of all the *unintended consequences* of Julian Assanges work..." I'm flippin' loving it! David Brin's predictions of ten or so years back are emerging into the mainstream, crackling with electric excitement, even as we speak. Where shall I start? Irony, ya, huge promontories of it, sliding over the old paradigm landscape like a Venezuelan mudslide. The folks who just spent the last ten years reading everyone else's mail, hiring corrupt lawyers to manufacture legality out of whole cloth, wiping their backsides with the Constitution, and saying they would do it no matter what the law says. These same folks are all tweaked and outraged now that we are reading their mail. Sweet, oh so sweet! But here's the thing (or one of a multitude of things): IT"S NOT THEIR MAIL. It's our mail. This is why the protests about govt's need -- or as those who conflate and compare it with and the individual's "right" -- to privacy fail the logic test. The Govt's business is the people's business. The Govt does its thing in the people's name and with the people picking up the fiscal, moral, and geopolitical tab. The state operates (not really, but it's sorta supposed to) with" the consent of the governed", on behalf of the governed. We are (supposed to be) citizens, not subjects. We are (supposed to be) the govt's bosses not the other way round. So, in fact, they not only have insisted on trashing our rights to privacy by reading our private mail, but then they say we can't read our "public mail", the record of what's being done in our name. Not no more. Thank you, Julian. (And thank you Shockley, DARPA, Billy G, et al). In a different vein, consider the entertainment value. We have incredibly excellent heroes, deliciously malign villains, and -- blessed be those monkeys at their typewriters -- hot, endlessly complicated sex. Oh my! I think I need some private time. An excerpt from ""The Hand of God, the Gland of Man: The Trial of Julian Assange", Act 6, scene 23: Attorney for the defense(AFTD) Ingrid Pornquist (played by Merril Streep) continues: So, Miss Arden... Arden (played by Katherine Heigl): That's "Ms" Arden if you please... AFTD: Ms. Arden, on the night in question, following dinner,...How was that by the way? Did he pay, did you pay, was it Dutch? Arden: He paid, with cash, the security thing, you know. I had the scallops...yummy.. he had oyster cakes. He's not a big eater. He would cut the cakes with his fork and lean over and give me a bite...(she leaps to her feet, looks toward JA at the defense table, who smiles and winks his support, and declares) I love you Julian! I never meant it to turn out this way. Please forgive me! (The courtroom, packed with tall Swedish blondes of every gender preference, explodes with shrieks -- "Stay away from him, you slyna, he's mine!" -- and tumult ) Judge BIrgitta Prodsdottir (played by Queen Latifa): Order! (bangs her gavel) Order in the court! (courtroom quiets down) Ms. Arden (in tears): ... just because he paid doesn't mean... AFTD: Yes, yes, we're all feminists here. Look at me. I'm a grown up attorney, and everything. So he paid for dinner, but couldn't expect to get lucky on that account. All the same, you wasted no time in jumping his bones, did you? AFTP Loni Anderthaler(played by Sarah Palin, her hair dyed blonde) : Objection! Badgering the witness, your Honor. I can see Russia from here! (the courtroom is momentarily silent, puzzled. Co-counsel (played by a blonde Tina Fey) leans toward Palin and whispers in her ear.) I can see Finland from here! Judge Prodsdottir(somewhat disoriented): Sustained. Speed it up will you, Ms. Pornquist, and please confine yourself to the juicier,... strike that... to matters of relevance. AFTD Pornquist: Yes, your honor. Of course, your honor. (Turning back to Arden). So, you had a romantic dinner then? Arden: Yes. AFTD Pornquist: And afterwards a movie, yes? "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"? Arden: Yes. AFTD Pornquist: Was it a good movie? Arden: Yes. AFTD Pornquist: A smart movie? Arden: Avery smart movie? AFTD Pornquist: About a sexually abused young woman who teams up with an investigative reporter to track down a serial rapist and murderer of young women. And in the climactic scene, the young woman pursues and burns to death the raping murdering monster, yes? Arden: No, no, that's not right. She doesn't kill him. AFTD Pornquist: Oh, I apologize. My mistake. She merely pursues him on her motorcycle at high speed until he crashes, yes? Then she stands by as he begs for help, severely injured, helpless in the crashed vehicle, drenched in gasoline, until the inevitable happens, fire erupts and he burns to death screaming, yes? Just as a flashback shows she did years earlier when she threw gasoline on the abuser of her youth, and then a match to set him ablaze? Yes? Isn't that the "chick flick" you took Julian Assange to see/ A film about feminist revenge and murder? Arden: Yes, yes, yes. So what? AFTD Pornquist: And during this movie about lethal flaming feminist revenge, you sat in the back of the theater with Julian Assange and had every kind of sex you could have without actually laying down on the butter and cum- soiled floor? (Massive disruption in the courtroom, everyone shouting, screaming, shrieking, ranting, fainting. etc) Judge Prodsdottir (rises, shouting, pounding gavel): Order! Order! Silence! Bailiff! AFTP Anderthaler(simultaneous with commotion, and as it tails off): Objection objection objection, your honor. This poor woman should not be persecuted for her robust sexual expression or her talent for multi-tasking. Judge Prodsdottir: Objection overruled, Ms. Arden answer the question. Arden: Well, not EVERY kind. (Crowd roars again, then fades out in giggles. Judge raises gavel as silence descends.) AFTD Pornquist: But was it good, and I suppose more to the point, was it consensual? Arden: Yes. (A thoughtful pause) It was consensual. AFTD Pornquist: And... Arden: It was consensual. Julian Assange (dryly, with a slight smile): It was good for me. Judge Prodsdottir: You're not helping your case, Mr Assange. Counsel, please keep you client under control. AFTD Pornquist: Yes, your honor. At this time I would like to submit into evidence as exhibits P and Q this pair of culots worn by Ms Arden on the August evening in question, and this forensics report which shows, despite subsequent laundering, substantial traces remaining, on both knees, of buttery-flavored vegetable oil staining. (Momentary disruption of courtroom abruptly silenced by wicked stare from "the bench") Judge Prodsdottir: Counsel... AFTD Pornquist: Your honor,... Now Ms. Arden. After this sexual preamble, which we take it warmed you up, but didn't ring your bell, (suppressed chuckles from courtroom, stern look from bench), you and Mr. Assange proceeded back to your apartment for the condom-equipped main event, isn't that so? Arden: Yes. AFTD Pornquist: Let's skip over the lurid details (brief roar of disapproval from the crowd) and cut to the chase, shall we? Arden: Please. AFTD Pornquist: Who supplied the condom? Arden (hesitates, wary): I er, ...I don't remember. AFTD Pornquist: You don't remember!!! Well, perhaps this video from the security camera at your premises, obtained and provided to us by the whistle-blowing organization Sneakyleaks, will refresh your memory. Or perhaps this plethismo-cam video obtained from disgruntled CIA operatives and transmitted to the defense through the whistle-blowing organization Dickyleaks, will help you to recall. Arden (stunned): Yes, yes, I supplied the condom. So what? He's Australian. They surf; they wrestle crocodiles; they're real men. They don't wear condoms, and they don't carry them around with them, the pigs. I wanted to bag him, so what? That's no crime. He's tall, heroic, over-the-top intelligent; every women on the planet wants him, even the right-wing skanks who won't admit it. They all want him. But I'm the one who got him. Me. He's mine. He loves me. Not that dipstick barbie wannabe Wilen. (Rises, shouting at Assange)I love you, Julian. No one else loves you like I do. If I can't have you no one can. I'm better than them. (Breaks down sobbing. Assange slides down in his chair. The courtroom is hushed. AFTD Pornquist: Magnificent. What a marvelous actress you are, Anna,...if that is your real name. But we both know it's a show don't we? Arden (still sobbing): I don't know what you mean, I love him, (trails off) I love him. AFTD Pornquist: You supplied the condom. And it broke. How sad; how tragic; how inconvenient! Or maybe not. What became of the condom in question, Ms Arden?, if that is your name? Arden (sobbing softly and unconvincingly): Uh, I don't know, uh threw it away, I don't know where it is. No one saves old condoms. It's gone. AFTD Pornquist: Would you care to explain to me then this CIA report -- Your honor, I'd like to submit this into evidence as exhibit R -- provided to us by the whistle-blowing organization Cheekyleaks, documenting the cryogenic storage of a semen sample whose source is listed as one Assange, Julian, with date of acquisition shown as the day following your assignation with Mr. Assange? Arden (confused disoriented): I,...I,... don't understand. AFTD Pornquist: No, Well perhaps you could explain this? (holds up small olive green packet, then as everyone watches tears open the packet to reveal what appears to be...) Looks like a standard Profil condom, Sweden's most popular brand, doesn't it Ms Arden? We found it at your residence, along with the rest of your gear. But this olive green wrapper -- Profils don't usually come wrapped like this -- what's this all about? Perhaps Ms. Arden, you'd like to read for the court what's on the wrapper. (Hands wrapper to Arden.) Arden (sits sullenly) AFTD Pornquist: Okay then, allow me. It says, "Ordnance, Sheath, prophylactic, sexual, self-failing, timed, duration 180 secs post-penetration, Mk 3 mod 1." Code name" Onan's Surprise". Then there are a bunch of numbers, mil-spec identification number, contract number, lot number, and a psy-ops command inventory identifier. Time to give it up, Anna. You're busted. **************************** I could go one damn near forever, but you get the point, and I've "wasted" most of the day working on this. Best, Jeff Davis "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 16 22:59:57 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:59:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D0A99ED.8080605@satx.rr.com> Great stuff, Jeff! The hilarious inside truth. And spot-on casting! Damien Broderick From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 23:20:20 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:20:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> Message-ID: >"Here's what I want from you guys: think carefully and hard, the way I know you can. Think of all the *unintended consequences* of Julian Assanges work..."< The most unintended consequence, if it really was so, is that the leaks will eventually work in the government's favour. Keith compared Assange to Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers and the comparison is valid. With a major exception: people actually cared at that time what was in those those papers. The supreme court eventually ruled in favour of the New York Times by saying they were protected under the first amendment because the American people had been deliberately mislead about the war and the papers proved it. The American people had a right to know. So tied up with the first amendment ruling and the national security discussion was also a discussion about the content of the documents and the duplicity of the Johnston/Kennedy/Truman administrations when they manipulated and tricked a naive public into supporting an unwinnable war. Not the case here. So many documents released. So many revelations. So many objectionable acts and policies and secret dealings and lies. Revelations not about one war but two. State-sanctioned pedophilia. Drug trafficking. Mass killings and torture. Machiavellian tinkering with the democratic processes of other nations. Cover-ups of collateral killings. Spying on the U.N. for pete's sake? Anyone one of these would have been enough to shake the foundations of a government in the past. Yet if you decide to pillory the government on just one of them, you have to admit that they're guilty of all of them. What these papers reveal is that the whole system is so hopelessly corrupt and devoid of ethics that, short of revolution, people are powerless to do anything about it. And so it turns to into a privacy discussion for lack of any else to do or say. If they can divert disaster with this one, governments can operate with near unlimited freedom in future. If I had any doubt about this, it disappeared when I started checking public opinion polls. The majority of people interviewed in a poll in the U.S. over the August Afghanistan leaks think that governments should be allowed to keep secrets and we should do just keep quiet and support them. http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/03/poll-more-americans-view-afghan-war-docs-leak-as-harmful/ In another more recent on-going poll on MSNBC, slightly under 50 percent think Wikileaks should be declared a terrorist organization. http://www.blameitonthevoices.com/2010/11/poll-is-wikileaks-terrorist.html The 'net is full of such polls and freedom of speech and the 1st amendment lose overtime. For a country that has always had libertarian leanings, this seems like a very large concession to the power and scope and influence of big government. And it's not just the U.S. The trend is the same practically everywhere. On top of it. Assange is claiming to be holding something back that would be like a political nuclear bomb should it be dropped. He will do so, he says, in the event of his death or disappearance. If he really wanted to affect a change, he should have just dropped that and held on to the rest. Give people just one representative issue to focus on, rather than just a fruitless debate over process and privacy, which as far as I can see, is what this has become. Sorry if I seem a bit cynical. I'm putting up Christmas decorations and I'm trying to get in the mood. :) Darren On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:16 PM, spike wrote: > > "Here's what I want from you guys: think carefully and hard, the way I > know you can. Think of all the *unintended consequences* of Julian > Assanges work..." > > I'm flippin' loving it! David Brin's predictions of ten or so years > back are emerging into the mainstream, crackling with electric > excitement, even as we speak. Where shall I start? > > Irony, ya, huge promontories of it, sliding over the old paradigm > landscape like a Venezuelan mudslide. The folks who just spent the > last ten years reading everyone else's mail, hiring corrupt lawyers to > manufacture legality out of whole cloth, wiping their backsides with > the Constitution, and saying they would do it no matter what the law > says. These same folks are all tweaked and outraged now that we are > reading their mail. Sweet, oh so sweet! > > But here's the thing (or one of a multitude of things): IT"S NOT THEIR > MAIL. It's our mail. This is why the protests about govt's need -- or > as those who conflate and compare it with and the individual's > "right" -- to privacy fail the logic test. > > The Govt's business is the people's business. The Govt does its thing > in the people's name and with the people picking up the fiscal, moral, > and geopolitical tab. The state operates (not really, but it's sorta > supposed to) with" the consent of the governed", on behalf of the > governed. We are (supposed to be) citizens, not subjects. We are > (supposed to be) the govt's bosses not the other way round. So, in > fact, they not only have insisted on trashing our rights to privacy by > reading our private mail, but then they say we can't read our "public > mail", the record of what's being done in our name. > > Not no more. Thank you, Julian. (And thank you Shockley, DARPA, > Billy G, et al). > > In a different vein, consider the entertainment value. We have > incredibly excellent heroes, deliciously malign villains, and -- > blessed be those monkeys at their typewriters -- hot, endlessly > complicated sex. Oh my! I think I need some private time. > > An excerpt from ""The Hand of God, the Gland of Man: The Trial of > Julian Assange", Act 6, scene 23: > > Attorney for the defense(AFTD) Ingrid Pornquist (played by Merril > Streep) continues: > > So, Miss Arden... > > Arden (played by Katherine Heigl): That's "Ms" Arden if you please... > > AFTD: Ms. Arden, on the night in question, following dinner,...How > was that by the way? Did he pay, did you pay, was it Dutch? > > Arden: He paid, with cash, the security thing, you know. I had the > scallops...yummy.. he had oyster cakes. He's not a big eater. He > would cut the cakes with his fork and lean over and give me a > bite...(she leaps to her feet, looks toward JA at the defense table, > who smiles and winks his support, and declares) I love you Julian! I > never meant it to turn out this way. Please forgive me! > > (The courtroom, packed with tall Swedish blondes of every gender > preference, explodes with shrieks -- "Stay away from him, you slyna, > he's mine!" -- and tumult ) > > Judge BIrgitta Prodsdottir (played by Queen Latifa): Order! (bangs her > gavel) Order in the court! (courtroom quiets down) > > Ms. Arden (in tears): ... just because he paid doesn't mean... > > AFTD: Yes, yes, we're all feminists here. Look at me. I'm a grown up > attorney, and everything. So he paid for dinner, but couldn't expect > to get lucky on that account. All the same, you wasted no time in > jumping his bones, did you? > > AFTP Loni Anderthaler(played by Sarah Palin, her hair dyed blonde) : > Objection! Badgering the witness, your Honor. I can see Russia from > here! (the courtroom is momentarily silent, puzzled. Co-counsel > (played by a blonde Tina Fey) leans toward Palin and whispers in her > ear.) I can see Finland from here! > > Judge Prodsdottir(somewhat disoriented): Sustained. Speed it up > will you, Ms. Pornquist, and please confine yourself to the > juicier,... strike that... to matters of relevance. > > AFTD Pornquist: Yes, your honor. Of course, your honor. (Turning > back to Arden). So, you had a romantic dinner then? > > Arden: Yes. > > AFTD Pornquist: And afterwards a movie, yes? "The Girl with the > Dragon Tattoo"? > > Arden: Yes. > > AFTD Pornquist: Was it a good movie? > > Arden: Yes. > > AFTD Pornquist: A smart movie? > > Arden: Avery smart movie? > > AFTD Pornquist: About a sexually abused young woman who teams up with > an investigative reporter to track down a serial rapist and murderer > of young women. And in the climactic scene, the young woman pursues > and burns to death the raping murdering monster, yes? > > Arden: No, no, that's not right. She doesn't kill him. > > AFTD Pornquist: Oh, I apologize. My mistake. She merely pursues him > on her motorcycle at high speed until he crashes, yes? Then she > stands by as he begs for help, severely injured, helpless in the > crashed vehicle, drenched in gasoline, until the inevitable happens, > fire erupts and he burns to death screaming, yes? Just as a flashback > shows she did years earlier when she threw gasoline on the abuser of > her youth, and then a match to set him > ablaze? Yes? Isn't that the "chick flick" you took Julian Assange to > see/ A film about feminist revenge and murder? > > Arden: Yes, yes, yes. So what? > > AFTD Pornquist: And during this movie about lethal flaming feminist > revenge, you sat in the back of the theater with Julian Assange and > had every kind of sex you could have without actually laying down on > the butter and cum- soiled floor? > > (Massive disruption in the courtroom, everyone shouting, screaming, > shrieking, ranting, fainting. etc) > > Judge Prodsdottir (rises, shouting, pounding gavel): Order! Order! > Silence! Bailiff! > > AFTP Anderthaler(simultaneous with commotion, and as it tails off): > Objection objection objection, your honor. This poor woman should not > be persecuted for her robust sexual expression or her talent for > multi-tasking. > > Judge Prodsdottir: Objection overruled, Ms. Arden answer the question. > > Arden: Well, not EVERY kind. > > (Crowd roars again, then fades out in giggles. Judge raises gavel as > silence descends.) > > AFTD Pornquist: But was it good, and I suppose more to the point, > was it consensual? > > Arden: Yes. (A thoughtful pause) It was consensual. > > AFTD Pornquist: And... > > Arden: It was consensual. > > Julian Assange (dryly, with a slight smile): It was good for me. > > Judge Prodsdottir: You're not helping your case, Mr Assange. Counsel, > please keep you client under control. > > AFTD Pornquist: Yes, your honor. At this time I would like to submit > into evidence as exhibits P and Q this pair of culots worn by Ms Arden > on the August evening in question, and this forensics report which > shows, despite subsequent laundering, substantial traces remaining, on > both knees, of buttery-flavored vegetable oil staining. > > (Momentary disruption of courtroom abruptly silenced by wicked stare > from "the bench") > > Judge Prodsdottir: Counsel... > > AFTD Pornquist: Your honor,... Now Ms. Arden. After this sexual > preamble, which we take it warmed you up, but didn't ring your bell, > (suppressed chuckles from courtroom, stern look from bench), you and > Mr. Assange proceeded back to your apartment for the condom-equipped > main event, isn't that so? > > Arden: Yes. > > AFTD Pornquist: Let's skip over the lurid details (brief roar of > disapproval from the crowd) and cut to the chase, shall we? > > Arden: Please. > > AFTD Pornquist: Who supplied the condom? > > Arden (hesitates, wary): I er, ...I don't remember. > > AFTD Pornquist: You don't remember!!! Well, perhaps this video from > the security camera at your premises, obtained and provided to us by > the whistle-blowing organization Sneakyleaks, will refresh your > memory. Or perhaps this plethismo-cam video obtained from disgruntled > CIA operatives and transmitted to the defense through the > whistle-blowing organization Dickyleaks, will help you to recall. > > Arden (stunned): Yes, yes, I supplied the condom. So what? He's > Australian. They surf; they wrestle crocodiles; they're real men. > They don't wear condoms, and they don't carry them around with them, > the pigs. I wanted to bag him, so what? That's no crime. He's tall, > heroic, over-the-top intelligent; every women on the planet wants him, > even the right-wing skanks who won't admit it. They all want him. > But I'm the one who got him. Me. He's mine. He loves me. Not that > dipstick barbie wannabe Wilen. (Rises, shouting at Assange)I love > you, Julian. No one else loves you like I do. If I can't have you no > one can. I'm better than them. (Breaks down sobbing. Assange slides > down in his chair. The courtroom is hushed. > > AFTD Pornquist: Magnificent. What a marvelous actress you are, > Anna,...if that is your real name. But we both know it's a show don't > we? > > Arden (still sobbing): I don't know what you mean, I love him, > (trails off) I love him. > > AFTD Pornquist: You supplied the condom. And it broke. How sad; how > tragic; how inconvenient! Or maybe not. What became of the condom in > question, Ms Arden?, if that is your name? > > Arden (sobbing softly and unconvincingly): Uh, I don't know, uh threw > it away, I don't know where it is. No one saves old condoms. It's > gone. > > AFTD Pornquist: Would you care to explain to me then this CIA report > -- Your honor, I'd like to submit this into evidence as exhibit R -- > provided to us by the whistle-blowing organization Cheekyleaks, > documenting the cryogenic storage of a semen sample whose source is > listed as one Assange, Julian, with date of acquisition shown as the > day following your assignation with Mr. Assange? > > Arden (confused disoriented): I,...I,... don't understand. > > AFTD Pornquist: No, Well perhaps you could explain this? (holds up > small olive green packet, then as everyone watches tears open the > packet to reveal what appears to be...) Looks like a standard Profil > condom, Sweden's most popular brand, doesn't it Ms Arden? We found it > at your residence, along with the rest of your gear. But this olive > green wrapper -- Profils don't usually come wrapped like this -- > what's this all about? Perhaps Ms. Arden, you'd like to read for the > court what's on the wrapper. (Hands wrapper to Arden.) > > Arden (sits sullenly) > > AFTD Pornquist: Okay then, allow me. It says, "Ordnance, Sheath, > prophylactic, sexual, self-failing, timed, duration 180 secs > post-penetration, Mk 3 mod 1." Code name" Onan's Surprise". Then > there are a bunch of numbers, mil-spec identification number, contract > number, lot number, and a psy-ops command inventory identifier. > > Time to give it up, Anna. You're busted. > > **************************** > > I could go one damn near forever, but you get the point, and I've > "wasted" most of the day working on this. > > Best, Jeff Davis > > "During times of universal deceit, telling the > truth becomes a revolutionary act." > George Orwell > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Thu Dec 16 23:22:37 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:22:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The history of spaceflight Message-ID: <201012170034.oBH0YpJ5017169@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Cool bit of visualization. Reminds me of Tufte -- http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2445/4002050596_0c2b6c4dd2_o.jpg -- David. From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 17 00:54:17 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:54:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] PSI, PSI*, and Psi In-Reply-To: <958396.51628.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <958396.51628.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D0AB4B9.7020307@satx.rr.com> On 12/10/2010 6:22 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > TI is new to me, I ran across a reference to it while I was googling on > retrocasuality. Have a look at this, which is somewhat related: etc etc From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 02:05:23 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:05:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> Message-ID: First, let me say Darren, that I appreciate your participation here, and though we may at times disagree, that's a good thing. It provokes a spirited discourse and keeps us all on our toes. Olive branch. Not personal. I say this because the last time we disagreed, I was fierce and as is sometimes the case, harsh. But I've calmed down and gotten over it. Welcome. Merry Christmas, and I've got your back. Best, Jeff Davis "Enjoying being insulting is a youthful corruption of power. You lose your taste for it when you realize how hard people try, how much they mind, and how long they remember." Martin Amis ...now to substance 2010/12/16 Darren Greer : > What these papers reveal is that the whole system is so > hopelessly corrupt and devoid of ethics that, short of revolution, > people are powerless to do anything about it. I'm torn. Cynicism is a kind of drug for easing the discomfort of despair and seeming-powerlessness . I'm a regular user. It helps me feel better but never persuades. The anger always rises again. Consider the old saying, "Know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Well, yes and no. No, in the sense that it's only the first step. Grabbing the liars by the scruff of the neck, and holding them accountable, well that might be the more difficult part of the truth-leads-to-freedom process. When the anger returns, I have the energy to imagine a way out short of revolution. Currently, I still see a way out. Maybe it's a false hope, maybe not. Anyway, it's the holiday season, so save your cynicism for after the new congress is convened in January. That's the season of despair. > If I had any doubt about this, it disappeared when I started checking public > opinion polls. The majority of people interviewed in a poll in the U.S. over > the August Afghanistan leaks think that governments should be allowed to > keep secrets and we should do just keep quiet and support them. > http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/03/poll-more-americans-view-afghan-war-docs-leak-as-harmful/ AOL is as MSM as you can get. No credibility there. And take a look at the comments section following that article. Nine of ten of the respondents are emphatic in their contempt for the poll results. They think it's a crock. Which "poll" ya gonna believe? > In another more recent on-going poll on MSNBC, > slightly under 50 percent > think Wikileaks should be declared a terrorist organization. > http://www.blameitonthevoices.com/2010/11/poll-is-wikileaks-terrorist.html I took a look at that poll. Incredible. They ask if Wikileaks is a terrorist organization, and then they give the argument in support of that contention, and THEN they ask what the reader thinks. And they still couldn't get a majority to say yes. I must confess however that the recent characterization of Wikileaks and Assange as "terrorists" is quite scary to me. Because it resonates. Falsely. But resonates nevertheless, I suppose because the right has used "terrorist" so widely and loosely tha tnow, anyone or anything in active opposition to US Govt authority -- dissent, activism, independent journalism --is a candidate for the label, and the consequences. But even the MSM is now pushing back against that. Anyway, don't give up hope just yet. I'm still betting that the tech wizardry that has given us the internet and changed the world, will lead us to a solution. > Sorry if I seem a bit cynical. I'm putting up Christmas decorations and I'm trying to get in the mood. :) Meeeeeeeeerry Christmas, ho ho ho. Best, Jeff Davis "And I think to myself, what a wonderful world!" Louie Armstrong From listsb at infinitefaculty.org Fri Dec 17 02:19:50 2010 From: listsb at infinitefaculty.org (Brian Manning Delaney) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:19:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D0AC8C6.6070808@infinitefaculty.org> El 2010-12-16 17:06, Jeff Davis escribi?: [Riotous one-act play snipped.] > I could go one damn near forever, but you get the point, and I've > "wasted" most of the day working on this. Scare quotes indeed: You wrote and published (really, sending something to an email list should count as having published) a delightful one-act play -- not wasted time, on the contrary: good work, and thanks! Brian From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 03:12:08 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:12:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> Message-ID: Jeff wrote: >I must confess however that the recent characterization of Wikileaks and Assange as "terrorists" is quite scary to me.< My favorite history book in the world is Berlin Diary, by William Shirer. He's a terrific writer, but it really gave me an inside look at how totalitarian governments propagandize their own citizens. The endless bullshitting and specious reasoning and outlandish justifications. Whenever Hitler invaded a new country the Nazi propaganda machine always said that a certain segment of the population in the target country were being oppressed and that they were in fact not oppressors themselves blithely goose-stepping their way into foreign territory but rather liberators. Did it in Poland, Czechoslovakia, France. The fact that some government officials want to brand Wikileaks as a terrorist organization should scare you. It should scare all of us. As you suggest, you can paint anything with that particular brush. It reminds me very much of the kind of propaganda tactic that Shirer described. I once belonged to a list like this one only for members of the Writer's Union of Canada. I had to withdraw, because I once compared Bush to Hitler and people on the list were outraged ( that and the fact that many of them said that writers shouldn't be political, which I've always thought was a crock.) I wasn't given the opportunity to explain that though Bush obviously didn't start a holocaust or have a night of the long knives, some the language and the tactics employed to keep people scared and confused and loyal to the political cause during his first term after the 2001 attacks also reminded me a lot of what Shirer described as taking place in Germany in the 30's. >When the anger returns, I have the energy to imagine a way out short of revolution. Currently, I still see a way out. Maybe it's a false hope, maybe not.< I've got my eye on this Wikileaks thing closely. People always think that what happened fifty years ago could never happen again. We're so much more civilized. Maybe not to that degree, but we are still as a species capable of a lot of deadly nonsense. World War II was what? Three or four generations ago? The single largest event in the history of mankind and fifty-two million people murdered just three generations ago out of forty thousand generations total. Not a promising arc. So when I look at things from that perspective I do get a little cynical. But as a rule I try to keep the faith. I was tear-gassed in Quebec City and assaulted in Durban South Africa during protests, and was probably ineffective in what I set out to do. But I'm still glad I did those things. And I would do them again. >I say this because the last time we disagreed, I was fierce and as is sometimes the case, harsh.< Don't even recall it. I'll have to search my archives and revive my outrage. Meantime, have a Merry Christmas yourself. I don't believe that Jesus was anything more than a man, but I know Santa Claus is real. I have the proof: dozens of toys that he gave me when I was a kid that I still have. My favourite is a plastic wind-up r2d2 that sits on my mantle. :) Darren On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > First, let me say Darren, that I appreciate your participation here, > and though we may at times disagree, that's a good thing. It provokes > a spirited discourse and keeps us all on our toes. > > Olive branch. Not personal. > > I say this because the last time we disagreed, I was fierce and as is > sometimes the case, harsh. But I've calmed down and gotten over it. > Welcome. Merry Christmas, and I've got your back. > > Best, Jeff Davis > > "Enjoying being insulting is a youthful corruption > of power. You lose your taste for it when you > realize how hard people try, how much they > mind, and how long they remember." > Martin Amis > > ...now to substance > > > 2010/12/16 Darren Greer : > > What these papers reveal is that the whole system is so > > hopelessly corrupt and devoid of ethics that, short of revolution, > > people are powerless to do anything about it. > > I'm torn. Cynicism is a kind of drug for easing the discomfort of > despair and seeming-powerlessness . I'm a regular user. It helps me > feel better but never persuades. The anger always rises again. > Consider the old saying, "Know the truth and the truth shall set you > free." Well, yes and no. No, in the sense that it's only the first > step. Grabbing the liars by the scruff of the neck, and holding them > accountable, well that might be the more difficult part of the > truth-leads-to-freedom process. > > When the anger returns, I have the energy to imagine a way out short > of revolution. Currently, I still see a way out. Maybe it's a false > hope, maybe not. > > Anyway, it's the holiday season, so save your cynicism for after the > new congress is convened in January. That's the season of despair. > > > > > If I had any doubt about this, it disappeared when I started checking > public > > opinion polls. The majority of people interviewed in a poll in the U.S. > over > > the August Afghanistan leaks think that governments should be allowed to > > keep secrets and we should do just keep quiet and support them. > > > http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/03/poll-more-americans-view-afghan-war-docs-leak-as-harmful/ > > AOL is as MSM as you can get. No credibility there. And take a look > at the comments section following that article. Nine of ten of the > respondents are emphatic in their contempt for the poll results. They > think it's a crock. Which "poll" ya gonna believe? > > > In another more recent on-going poll on MSNBC, > > slightly under 50 percent > > think Wikileaks should be declared a terrorist organization. > > > http://www.blameitonthevoices.com/2010/11/poll-is-wikileaks-terrorist.html > > I took a look at that poll. Incredible. They ask if Wikileaks is a > terrorist organization, and then they give the argument in support of > that contention, and THEN they ask what the reader thinks. And they > still couldn't get a majority to say yes. > > I must confess however that the recent characterization of Wikileaks > and Assange as "terrorists" is quite scary to me. Because it > resonates. Falsely. But resonates nevertheless, I suppose because > the right has used "terrorist" so widely and loosely tha tnow, anyone > or anything in active opposition to US Govt authority -- dissent, > activism, independent journalism --is a candidate for the label, and > the consequences. But even the MSM is now pushing back against that. > > Anyway, don't give up hope just yet. I'm still betting that the tech > wizardry that has given us the internet and changed the world, will > lead us to a solution. > > > > > Sorry if I seem a bit cynical. I'm putting up Christmas decorations and > I'm trying to get in the mood. :) > > Meeeeeeeeerry Christmas, ho ho ho. > > Best, Jeff Davis > > "And I think to myself, what a wonderful world!" > Louie Armstrong > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "In the end that's all we have: our memories - electrochemical impulses stored in eight pounds of tissue the consistency of cold porridge." - Remembrance of the Daleks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 03:56:30 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:56:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Owner of gay bookstore gets second letter from Jesus Message-ID: This guy is a friend of mine. Funny. http://www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa/Gay_stores_get_second_letter_from_Jesus-9566.aspx -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Fri Dec 17 04:29:16 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:29:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] Owner of gay bookstore gets second letter from Jesus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Darren Greer wrote: > This guy is a friend of mine. Funny. > > http://www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa/Gay_stores_get_second_letter_from_Jesus-9566.aspx Whoa, big deal... When I was a student, I received email from pope, urging me to leave workstation and let other students use it. Even our then-president wrote to me, promising lucrative research positions if only I forget about toying with SunOS ( -> a kind of Unix -> proto Linux OS). But I admit it, in my case Jesus didn't step down to terminal (am I jealous a bit? no, of course not...). This man must have something important in his shop. Gold member? Regards and Merry Christmas 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 scerir at alice.it Fri Dec 17 07:28:22 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:28:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] PSI, PSI*, and Psi In-Reply-To: <4D0AB4B9.7020307@satx.rr.com> References: <958396.51628.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4D0AB4B9.7020307@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <585B84C73FB346A8A9064041D5FA63AC@PCserafino> A. Elitzur wrote more than one deep review about TI and related stuff, like IFM, time, block universe and indeterminism, etc.. Very interesting. I'd suggest to start from the first link. http://a-c-elitzur.co.il/uploads/articlesdocs/Elitzur-Dolev13.pdf http://a-c-elitzur.co.il/uploads/articlesdocs/Becoming7-mod.pdf http://a-c-elitzur.co.il/uploads/articlesdocs/MultipleIFM.pdf http://a-c-elitzur.co.il/uploads/articlesdocs/More%20to%20T.pdf http://www.springerlink.com/content/k0xk5213r57283m6/fulltext.pdf From andres at thoughtware.tv Fri Dec 17 11:57:43 2010 From: andres at thoughtware.tv (=?ISO-8859-1?B?QW5kculzIENvbPNu?=) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:57:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Thoughtware.TV News: Augmented Reality IPhone App Translates Signs and Menus Instantly [Video] Message-ID: Word Lens instantly translates printed words from one language to another using the video camera on your iPhone. No network delay, no roaming fees, and no reception problems. http://www.thoughtware.tv/videos/watch/5618 Check it out! Andr?s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 13:19:05 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 06:19:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Humor: facial recognition apps Message-ID: I thought this was quite funny... http://dilbert.com/2010-12-17/ John ; ) From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 14:20:31 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:20:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Humor: facial recognition apps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yup. That is VERY funny. On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:19 AM, John Grigg wrote: > I thought this was quite funny... > > http://dilbert.com/2010-12-17/ > > John ; ) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 15:21:31 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:21:31 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Humor: facial recognition apps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/12/17 Darren Greer : > Yup. That is VERY funny. > > Especially as coincidentally Facebook is rolling out its own face recognition software. So, if it works, every photo of you on Facebook will be tagged with your name. Not just your own photos, but photos uploaded by anyone, even those you don't know about. If it doesn't work, ......... What could possibly go wrong????? BillK From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 15:30:04 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:30:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Humor: facial recognition apps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think maybe I ran across a beta edition of that. I was tagged in someone else's photo and my name came up when you ran the cursor over my face in the pic. Not that automatically do that: massage my own face with a cursor. Darren On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:21 AM, BillK wrote: > 2010/12/17 Darren Greer : > > Yup. That is VERY funny. > > > > > > > Especially as coincidentally Facebook is rolling out its own face > recognition software. > > So, if it works, every photo of you on Facebook will be tagged with > your name. Not just your own photos, but photos uploaded by anyone, > even those you don't know about. > > If it doesn't work, ......... > > > What could possibly go wrong????? > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 15:37:13 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:37:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The history of spaceflight In-Reply-To: <201012170034.oBH0YpJ5017169@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201012170034.oBH0YpJ5017169@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Yes, it is neat. I just adopted it as my desktop wallpaper. It replaced Dr. Evil. Darren On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:22 PM, David Lubkin wrote: > Cool bit of visualization. Reminds me of Tufte -- > > http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2445/4002050596_0c2b6c4dd2_o.jpg > > > -- David. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Fri Dec 17 15:39:11 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:39:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] Humor: facial recognition apps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, BillK wrote: > 2010/12/17 Darren Greer : > > Yup. That is VERY funny. > > > > > > > Especially as coincidentally Facebook is rolling out its own face > recognition software. > > So, if it works, every photo of you on Facebook will be tagged with > your name. Not just your own photos, but photos uploaded by anyone, > even those you don't know about. > > If it doesn't work, ......... > > > What could possibly go wrong????? There is a considerable number of celeb look-alikes... What could go wrong with this? If, say, they snap me while I am sitting crosslegged, with false beard and towel around my head :-). While having ak-47-look-alike cut from styro in one hand and checking material quality of someone's bikini with second hand... 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 Fri Dec 17 16:50:07 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:50:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Humor: facial recognition apps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005701cb9e0a$76375370$62a5fa50$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of BillK ... >Especially as coincidentally Facebook is rolling out its own face recognition software...So, if it works, every photo of you on Facebook will be tagged with your name. Not just your own photos, but photos uploaded by anyone, even those you don't know about...If it doesn't work, ...What could possibly go wrong? BillK If it doesn't work is not as bad as if it does work. A business competitor could slam Facebook with pictures identified as you doing such things as drawing cartoons of Joseph Smith for instance. One could be slain by radical Mormons in such a way that the one ultimately responsible for the murder pays nothing and faces zero risk of legal repercussions. But other than that, this sounds cool. spike From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 17:18:54 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:18:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Humor: facial recognition apps In-Reply-To: <005701cb9e0a$76375370$62a5fa50$@att.net> References: <005701cb9e0a$76375370$62a5fa50$@att.net> Message-ID: Spike, Radical SLC based Mormons would sneak all the booze, coffee, tea and caffeinated soda out of your house, remove all of the R-rated movies, and at the very worst, tie you down and perpetrate the Clockwork Orange treatment, as they made you watch hours after hour of BYU television programming! John ; ) On 12/17/10, spike wrote: > > ... On Behalf Of BillK > ... > >>Especially as coincidentally Facebook is rolling out its own face > recognition software...So, if it works, every photo of you on Facebook will > be tagged with your name. Not just your own photos, but photos uploaded by > anyone, even those you don't know about...If it doesn't work, ...What could > possibly go wrong? BillK > > If it doesn't work is not as bad as if it does work. A business competitor > could slam Facebook with pictures identified as you doing such things as > drawing cartoons of Joseph Smith for instance. One could be slain by > radical Mormons in such a way that the one ultimately responsible for the > murder pays nothing and faces zero risk of legal repercussions. > > But other than that, this sounds cool. > > spike > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 18:30:48 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:30:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quantum phenomena and >4D dimensionality Message-ID: I'm getting old. I recall fondly the good old days. Days filled with the enjoyment of science. Science I seemed to grasp well enough to feel good about myself, to feel smart. This new stuff challenges me. Presenting a burdensome expanse of the just-now-dimly-seen, emergent, implicit-yet-still-all-but-entirely-unknown unknown. Blessed be the incredible lightness of the still entirely unknown unknown. http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26144/?nlid=3900 Now go take a look at the above-linked article. Then come back and read the rest below. ********************************************* So I'm sitting here at my little netbook, composing that first paragraph, when my wife comes to me with two necklace loops. These are continuous loops with no junction to allow them to be opened into a single straight strand with ends. And the loops are connected like two links of chain. She hands them to me and says, "Could you please separate these? They were in my jewelery case and got hooked together." I looked at the two linked strands-without-ends and I replied, "What you have here is a quantum singularity." I was not being strictly rigorous (is that redundant?) with my terminology -- because rigor is not strictly required in my domestic setting, where the uncertainty principle dominates -- but was merely indulging in my habit, when confronted in the real world with the clearly impossible, of blaming it on quantum "weirdness". What was really spooky, however, was combination of the timing, and the striking "congruence" of the subject matter of the above-linked article and the "impossible" yet undeniably real topological conundrum dropped at that moment in my lap by my wife. I studied the problem of the two loops until, after a while, I was able to apply string theory and the likely -- subsequently confirmed -- dimensional overlap (implied by trans-modal energy-flow periodicities) to disentangle the two loops. It wasn't all that hard, actually. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 17 18:36:48 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:36:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Humor: facial recognition apps In-Reply-To: References: <005701cb9e0a$76375370$62a5fa50$@att.net> Message-ID: <007001cb9e19$5db36500$191a2f00$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of John Grigg >Subject: Re: [ExI] Humor: facial recognition apps >Spike, >Radical SLC based Mormons would sneak all the booze, coffee, tea and caffeinated soda out of your house, remove all of the R-rated movies, and at the very worst, tie you down and perpetrate the Clockwork Orange treatment, as they made you watch hours after hour of BYU television programming! John ; ) No pal, you are referring to the true Mormons, the real Mormons, those who make up the vast majority of the peaceful Mormon religion. But there is a tiny minority, often children of affluent true Mormons, who mysteriously become radicalized and dangerous. Some of them object to US troops stationed in Salt Lake City, or some other real or perceived blasphemy. Society perpetuates the myth that their radicalization is somehow based on poverty and ignorance, and thus prescribe completely ineffective if not counterproductive antidotes to this mysterious memetic virus that leads otherwise educated and prosperous young Mormons into murderous rage. The booze and TV they can have, but they will get my coffee when they pry it from my cold dead hands. spike From pharos at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 17:07:32 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:07:32 +0000 Subject: [ExI] META: Windows Computer Security Message-ID: Microsoft this week released Security Essentials 2.0 anti-malware software as a free download. Microsoft Security Essentials provides real-time protection for your home PC that guards against viruses, spyware, and other malicious software. Microsoft has updated the anti-malware engine to make the software faster and smarter at detecting security hazards. The software also now ties in with Windows Firewall, giving you the option of turning the firewall on or off. Supported Operating Systems: Windows 7;Windows Vista;Windows XP ----------------- If you *must* run Windows, Security Essentials 2.0 is a good *free* all-in-one security package that can replace similar non-free packages like those from McAfee or Symantec. It is NOT suitable if you prefer to run stand-alone anti-virus or anti-spyware software from other manufacturers as they would conflict with each other. Similarly if you have a stand-alone firewall, then you should switch off the Windows firewall. But as a simple do-everything package for unsophisticated users, it is pretty good. BillK From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 19:02:33 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:02:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Humor: facial recognition apps In-Reply-To: <007001cb9e19$5db36500$191a2f00$@att.net> References: <005701cb9e0a$76375370$62a5fa50$@att.net> <007001cb9e19$5db36500$191a2f00$@att.net> Message-ID: Spike wrote: No pal, you are referring to the true Mormons, the real Mormons, those who make up the vast majority of the peaceful Mormon religion. But there is a tiny minority, often children of affluent true Mormons, who mysteriously become radicalized and dangerous. Some of them object to US troops stationed in Salt Lake City, or some other real or perceived blasphemy. Society perpetuates the myth that their radicalization is somehow based on poverty and ignorance, and thus prescribe completely ineffective if not counterproductive antidotes to this mysterious memetic virus that leads otherwise educated and prosperous young Mormons into murderous rage. The booze and TV they can have, but they will get my coffee when they pry it from my cold dead hands. >>> Your scenario for psychological/sociological dissent makes me think of the 1960's in microcosm. I bet it also happens in other close-knit religious bodies. When Romney wins, the BYU molecular biology dept. will release it's coffee bean killing virus and then all the soda companies (owned by Mormons) will be ordered to make only caffeine free beverages! Mormons will have miscalculated, and Romney of course will be impeached, with angry but slow-moving & very tired looking mobs out hunting for Mormons! John ; ) On 12/17/10, spike wrote: > >>... On Behalf Of John Grigg >>Subject: Re: [ExI] Humor: facial recognition apps > >>Spike, > >>Radical SLC based Mormons would sneak all the booze, coffee, tea and > caffeinated soda out of your house, remove all of the R-rated movies, and at > the very worst, tie you down and perpetrate the Clockwork Orange treatment, > as they made you watch hours after hour of BYU television programming! John > ; ) > > > No pal, you are referring to the true Mormons, the real Mormons, those who > make up the vast majority of the peaceful Mormon religion. But there is a > tiny minority, often children of affluent true Mormons, who mysteriously > become radicalized and dangerous. Some of them object to US troops > stationed in Salt Lake City, or some other real or perceived blasphemy. > Society perpetuates the myth that their radicalization is somehow based on > poverty and ignorance, and thus prescribe completely ineffective if not > counterproductive antidotes to this mysterious memetic virus that leads > otherwise educated and prosperous young Mormons into murderous rage. > > The booze and TV they can have, but they will get my coffee when they pry it > from my cold dead hands. > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 19:20:09 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:20:09 +0000 Subject: [ExI] quantum phenomena and >4D dimensionality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > So I'm sitting here at my little netbook, composing that first > paragraph, when my wife comes to me with two necklace loops. ?These > are continuous loops with no junction to allow them to be opened into > a single straight strand with ends. And the loops are connected like > two links of chain. ?She hands them to me and says, "Could you please > separate these? ?They were in my jewelery case and got hooked > together." ?I looked at the two linked strands-without-ends and I > replied, "What you have here is a quantum singularity." > > I studied the problem of the two loops until, after a while, I was > able to apply string theory and the likely -- subsequently confirmed > -- dimensional overlap (implied by trans-modal energy-flow > periodicities) to disentangle the two loops. ?It wasn't all that hard, > actually. > > I get landed with a very simiar problem. My wife has a favorite necklace with a thin silver chain which seems to be an as yet unknown form of artifical life. As soon as it is taken off and put down in a box, or in a purse, as random examples, it immediately ties itself into knots. Not simple knots, Oh no, but knots such as only an experienced sailing ship deckhand would know. Who needs lego when you have puzzles such as this to work on? BillK From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 17 21:08:16 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 22:08:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101217210816.GI9434@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:12:08PM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: > rather liberators. Did it in Poland, Czechoslovakia, France. The fact that > some government officials want to brand Wikileaks as a terrorist > organization should scare you. It should scare all of us. As you suggest, > you can paint anything with that particular brush. It reminds me very much > of the kind of propaganda tactic that Shirer described. Apologies for a me-too. But it's not "reminds me very much of". It is absolutely very much exactly 100% the very same thing. This is the threshold where Godwin's law starts to break down. Caveat emptor. Your soul is at stake. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 21:34:14 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:34:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: <20101217210816.GI9434@leitl.org> References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> <20101217210816.GI9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:12:08PM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: > rather liberators. Did it in Poland, Czechoslovakia, France. The fact that > some government officials want to brand Wikileaks as a terrorist > organization should scare you. It should scare all of us. As you suggest, > you can paint anything with that particular brush. It reminds me very much > of the kind of propaganda tactic that Shirer described. Eugen replied: Apologies for a me-too. But it's not "reminds me very much of". It is absolutely very much exactly 100% the very same thing. This is the threshold where Godwin's law starts to break down. Caveat emptor. Your soul is at stake. >>> I remember as a teenager seeing documentaries about McCarthyism and thinking to myself, "those sorts of things could never happen again!" I turned out to be so horribly wrong about that... John On 12/17/10, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:12:08PM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: > >> rather liberators. Did it in Poland, Czechoslovakia, France. The fact that >> some government officials want to brand Wikileaks as a terrorist >> organization should scare you. It should scare all of us. As you suggest, >> you can paint anything with that particular brush. It reminds me very >> much >> of the kind of propaganda tactic that Shirer described. > > Apologies for a me-too. But it's not "reminds me very much of". > It is absolutely very much exactly 100% the very same thing. This is > the threshold where Godwin's law starts to break down. > Caveat emptor. Your soul is at stake. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 22:04:36 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:04:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> <20101217210816.GI9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: >I remember as a teenager seeing documentaries about McCarthyism and thinking to myself, "those sorts of things could never happen again!" I turned out to be so horribly wrong about that...< As dispiriting as it is to think that we haven't come very far, in the end I believe it's a good thing to contemplate and understand. I think it was Elie Wiesel that said that if we continue to brand Hitler and the European fascists as sheer monsters instead of ordinary humans capable of monstrous acts, we won't be able to recognize and forestall it when it's happening again. The tuning point in my understanding of where we are politically came when I read John Keegan's Second World War and Henry Wallace's (Roosevelt's VP) 1944 essay The Danger Of American Fascism. http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm Up until then I thought, like most, that fascism was overt totalitarian control by the few over the many, and characterized by jack-booted racial intolerance. I got my eyes opened for good when I read that essay and Mussolini's definition of it: *"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism **because it is a merger of state and corporate power."* * * Then I learned that the U.S. congress has a fasces symbol on one of its interior walls, and that was the end of my political innocence. I'm not exactly a New Wold Order Conspiracy theorist, mostly because I don't believe these guys are clever or patient enough to plan for that long and in such secrecy. But I'm not exactly brimming over with civic pride and trust in our political leaders either. And if I ever do get invited to Bilderberg, I'm wearing a wire. Darren On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:34 PM, John Grigg wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:12:08PM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: > > > rather liberators. Did it in Poland, Czechoslovakia, France. The fact > that > > some government officials want to brand Wikileaks as a terrorist > > organization should scare you. It should scare all of us. As you suggest, > > you can paint anything with that particular brush. It reminds me very > much > > of the kind of propaganda tactic that Shirer described. > > Eugen replied: > Apologies for a me-too. But it's not "reminds me very much of". > It is absolutely very much exactly 100% the very same thing. This is > the threshold where Godwin's law starts to break down. > Caveat emptor. Your soul is at stake. > >>> > > > John > > > > On 12/17/10, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:12:08PM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: > > > >> rather liberators. Did it in Poland, Czechoslovakia, France. The fact > that > >> some government officials want to brand Wikileaks as a terrorist > >> organization should scare you. It should scare all of us. As you > suggest, > >> you can paint anything with that particular brush. It reminds me very > >> much > >> of the kind of propaganda tactic that Shirer described. > > > > Apologies for a me-too. But it's not "reminds me very much of". > > It is absolutely very much exactly 100% the very same thing. This is > > the threshold where Godwin's law starts to break down. > > Caveat emptor. Your soul is at stake. > > > > -- > > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > > ______________________________________________________________ > > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 22:22:49 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:22:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> <20101217210816.GI9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: >This is the threshold where Godwin's law starts to break down.< I'm guilty of conforming to Godwin's Law a lot, btw. But at least you can still carry on the discussion once Hitler is invoked. More often than not, even with a bunch of atheists and agnostics like us (or most of us -- don't want to assume) God eventually gets dragged into it, and then you're really screwed. I have a new roomier law: once God or Spinoza or the Many World's Interpretation is mentioned, the on-line discussion is for all practical purposes kaput. Darren On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Darren Greer wrote: > > >I remember as a teenager seeing documentaries about McCarthyism and > thinking to myself, "those sorts of things could never happen again!" > I turned out to be so horribly wrong about that...< > > As dispiriting as it is to think that we haven't come very far, in the end > I believe it's a good thing to contemplate and understand. I think it was > Elie Wiesel that said that if we continue to brand Hitler and the European > fascists as sheer monsters instead of ordinary humans capable > of monstrous acts, we won't be able to recognize and forestall it when it's > happening again. > > The tuning point in my understanding of where we are politically came when > I read John Keegan's Second World War and Henry Wallace's (Roosevelt's VP) > 1944 essay The Danger Of American Fascism. > > http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm > > Up until then I thought, like most, that fascism was > overt totalitarian control by the few over the many, and characterized by > jack-booted racial intolerance. I got my eyes opened for good when I read > that essay and Mussolini's definition of it: *"Fascism should more > appropriately be called corporatism **because it is a merger of state and > corporate power."* > * > * > Then I learned that the U.S. congress has a fasces symbol on one of its > interior walls, and that was the end of my political innocence. I'm not > exactly a New Wold Order Conspiracy theorist, mostly because I don't believe > these guys are clever or patient enough to plan for that long and in such > secrecy. But I'm not exactly brimming over with civic pride and trust in > our political leaders either. And if I ever do get invited to Bilderberg, > I'm wearing a wire. > > Darren > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:34 PM, John Grigg wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:12:08PM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: >> >> > rather liberators. Did it in Poland, Czechoslovakia, France. The fact >> that >> > some government officials want to brand Wikileaks as a terrorist >> > organization should scare you. It should scare all of us. As you >> suggest, >> > you can paint anything with that particular brush. It reminds me very >> much >> > of the kind of propaganda tactic that Shirer described. >> >> Eugen replied: >> Apologies for a me-too. But it's not "reminds me very much of". >> It is absolutely very much exactly 100% the very same thing. This is >> the threshold where Godwin's law starts to break down. >> Caveat emptor. Your soul is at stake. >> >>> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> On 12/17/10, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:12:08PM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: >> > >> >> rather liberators. Did it in Poland, Czechoslovakia, France. The fact >> that >> >> some government officials want to brand Wikileaks as a terrorist >> >> organization should scare you. It should scare all of us. As you >> suggest, >> >> you can paint anything with that particular brush. It reminds me very >> >> much >> >> of the kind of propaganda tactic that Shirer described. >> > >> > Apologies for a me-too. But it's not "reminds me very much of". >> > It is absolutely very much exactly 100% the very same thing. This is >> > the threshold where Godwin's law starts to break down. >> > Caveat emptor. Your soul is at stake. >> > >> > -- >> > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org >> > ______________________________________________________________ >> > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org >> > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE >> > _______________________________________________ >> > extropy-chat mailing list >> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > > -- > *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." > * > > > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 17 22:28:00 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:28:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> <20101217210816.GI9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <00a401cb9e39$aa275520$fe75ff60$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of John Grigg... Subject: Re: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address >>>On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:12:08PM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: > rather liberators. Did it in Poland, Czechoslovakia, France. The fact > that some government officials want to brand Wikileaks as a terrorist >Eugen replied: Apologies for a me-too. But it's not "reminds me very much of". It is absolutely very much exactly 100% the very same thing. This is the threshold where Godwin's law starts to break down. Caveat emptor. Your soul is at stake. >>> >I remember as a teenager seeing documentaries about McCarthyism and thinking to myself, "those sorts of things could never happen again!" I turned out to be so horribly wrong about that...John Oh yeah? Well then Johnny, you must be a card carrying communist! {8^D I never did get the whole card-carrying bit. Why would they need to carry a card? To prove they were card carrying communists? What if they were commies but didn't carry the card? Or what if they were secret capitalists but carried the communist card? The 50s were weird. The part I still don't see is why the focus is so much on Julian. He's not the leaker, the leak is upstream of him. If you have a leak in your yard irrigation system, the actual leak is at the faucet. So why all the attention to Assange? He's the sprinkler, PFC Manning is the hose(d). The leaking faucet is the system which allowed one guy to download an email archive. That being said, I still suspect a trap, as apparently the mainstream news outlets do as well. They still aren't taking the bait as far as I know. Has anyone here seen any of the majors reporting scandalous anything based on Wikileaks? spike From pharos at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 23:06:37 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:06:37 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The world of bullshit Message-ID: What a catalogue! The year in nonsense by Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 17 December 2010 It?s been a marvellous year for bullshit. We saw quantitative evidence showing that drug adverts aimed at doctors are routinely factually inaccurate, while pharmaceutical company ghostwriters were the secret hands behind letters to the Times, and a whole series of academic papers. We saw more drug companies and even regulators withholding evidence from doctors and patients that a drug was dangerous ? the most important and neglected ethical issue in modern medicine. Bias is everywhere. Academic papers from people who get money from tobacco companies are vastly more likely to say that cigarettes prevent Alzheimer?s, and we saw the first good quantitative evidence describing how academics routinely mislead readers about their negative results in academic papers, by spinning them as positive. Dodgy facts aren?t the only reason clever people believe stupid things, as demonstrated by a gale of research on irrationality. Superstitious rituals really do improve performance. And on, and on, and on........... ------------------------- BillK From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 18 01:22:12 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:22:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The world of bullshit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00cc01cb9e51$ffb80260$ff280720$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: [ExI] The world of bullshit >What a catalogue! > >The year in nonsense... It's been a marvelous year for bullshit. We saw quantitative evidence showing that drug adverts aimed at doctors are routinely factually inaccurate...And on, and on, and on...BillK Thanks BillK, excellent. I liked this one: http://www.badscience.net/2010/10/the-caveat-in-paragraph-number-19/ perhaps because it reinforces my prejudices. {8-] Now if someone tries to disabuse me of my favorite prejudices, I can legitimately conclude that they suffer from the same delusions that are in the minds of anyone who doesn't see the plain truth. {8^D As an aside, I did note that Goldacre specifically and conspicuously avoids any mention of climate science. Regarding the caveat in scientific reporting by the popular press, I have made a longstanding practice of finding that caveat paragraph second, immediately after reading the headline and the first paragraph. Often the caveat is in either the second or third paragraph from the end of the article, and is often a noticeably short paragraph. In some cases, as the one cited in badscience, the caveat completely torpedoes the central thesis of the entire article. Good example of a caveat paragraph: the article is titled . Strict diet two days a week 'cuts risk of breast cancer by 40 per cent' . In the third paragraph from the end of the article with the above title, we find the startling comment: . But Dr Julie Sharp, senior science information manager at Cancer Research UK, said: 'This study is not about breast cancer, it's a study showing how different diet patterns affect weight loss and it's misleading to draw any conclusions about breast cancer from this research.' . OK, may I now sue to get those ten minutes back that I wasted reading the article? Some of you code jockeys should write a routine that can identify the caveat paragraph and move it forward to right under the title. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Dec 18 01:30:19 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:30:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The nature of humans was ambiguously evil british Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:41 PM, John Grigg wrote: snip > I remember as a teenager seeing documentaries about McCarthyism and > thinking to myself, "those sorts of things could never happen again!" > I turned out to be so horribly wrong about that... Under a thin veneer of culture lies the stone age human. It turns out to be obvious to those who understand evolutionary psychology that we are wired up to be *both* peaceful *and* warlike with the perception of conditions getting better or worse switching our social (mass) behavior from one mode to the other. Good times and the perception of good into the future, we are peaceful. With the perception of bad times a-coming we turn up the gain on xenophobic memes, demonize others and attempt to kill them for the resources they hold. Just like the stone age behavior of our ancestors. We have had an exceptional half century where technical advances ran ahead of population growth in most of the world. Where it did not we had Rwanda and Cambodia. *If* such advances stall out--and they might--expect to see wars knock the population back. How much I don't know. If wars just stopped commerce, an awful lot of the world does not grow enough food to keep them from starving. As an engineer, I think there is plenty of room to solve the problems--largely energy problems. But it's not obvious it will be done. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 18 02:19:11 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:19:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The nature of humans was ambiguously evil british In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D0C1A1F.4090609@satx.rr.com> What a great subject line! From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Dec 18 03:10:22 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 22:10:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humor: facial recognition apps In-Reply-To: <007001cb9e19$5db36500$191a2f00$@att.net> References: <005701cb9e0a$76375370$62a5fa50$@att.net> <007001cb9e19$5db36500$191a2f00$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:36 PM, spike wrote: >>... On Behalf Of John Grigg >>Radical SLC based Mormons would sneak all the booze, coffee, tea and > caffeinated soda out of your house, remove all of the R-rated movies, and at > the very worst, tie you down and perpetrate the Clockwork Orange treatment, > as they made you watch hours after hour of BYU television programming! ?John > > No pal, you are referring to the true Mormons, the real Mormons, those who > make up the vast majority of the peaceful Mormon religion. ?But there is a > tiny minority, often children of affluent true Mormons, who mysteriously > become radicalized and dangerous. ?Some of them object to US troops Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk. I think it will be good to have a giant like Facebook (et al.) employ some automated photo tagging and "recognition" applications that spectacularly flubs it. No so much that it is immediately recalled - but enough that my identity is no longer guaranteed by the mere presence of a picture "on the internet." When the machines automate mistakes with the same efficiency as they uncover private details there is some hope it might just cancel itself out. Even if I think of myself as "one in a million" that means there should be (statistically speaking) almost 7000 people on this planet just like me enough to be recognized incorrectly. From rtomek at ceti.pl Sat Dec 18 05:31:49 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 06:31:49 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: <00a401cb9e39$aa275520$fe75ff60$@att.net> References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> <20101217210816.GI9434@leitl.org> <00a401cb9e39$aa275520$fe75ff60$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, spike wrote: > That being said, I still suspect a trap, as apparently the mainstream news > outlets do as well. They still aren't taking the bait as far as I know. > Has anyone here seen any of the majors reporting scandalous anything based > on Wikileaks? Crap. I tried to resist taking part in anything W-l-related... I've went to great lengths trying to write only about golden members and false beards. And now I fail like a stone into the mud... Here in Poland there were some news about how US decided to station a battery of Patriot rockets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PATRIOT_battery_in_Poland,_2010.JPG but it has been "uncovered" by journalists (after reading the leaks) that they were unloaded. Or useless, I reckon. This was, however, known by some officials (few of them perished in Tupolev's catastrophe in Russia earlier this year). Seems like only the public was kept unaware of this, instead being given nice pictures of bright side of the coin. Yeah, this gullible public. Would they believe in anything but colorful pictures? I'm not really sure how things proceeded next. Few days after that I've seen PL-president and US-president shaking each other's hands, which probably meant that either one of them, or maybe both, were cool. But I've decided I was busy and stopped paying attention. So perhaps the uselessness of the said battery was part of the plan - empty launchers go first, do some field training with our troops, next will come a time to blow something up, or down. But my cynicism hints me that I am naive. No, I have no bad feelings towards USians, really. I understand politics is a bitch. I'm just, kind of, indifferent. Anyway, there was a "knews" about this. For me, not scandalous, but I think there is so little that could surprise me. I mean, after realising that moral standard in international relations is backstabbing and banging dead body until it falls apart into pieces, what could shock me, really? Since quite a long time news are just, "yeah, yawn, go on", But yes, one kind of leak could have shocked me - the one proving me how wrong I was. For a moment, my only long term reaction to all muddy bloody dirty facts is that since a world can do quite well without humans, having children is not a priority (yes, leaders, better start raising hens, maybe hundred years from now there is noone else for you to fuck? alas, I guess I am naive again). Aw yes, and the second reaction is my turning my ass to the world and my front to the maths (one has to entertain oneself somehow, right? and amateur maths sounds like great challenge, great enough to make me happy). However, it perhaps needs to be said again, in plain text - W-l is not so big deal for me, and changed nothing in my attitude. Maybe a hole here or there has been plugged, but the wall was already standing strong. I didn't bother to start BT client. Also, however pessimistic and pitiful my writing may sound (don't know this, does it?), I am not tying any kind of sadness with all this stuff. I guess I just make decisions and that's it. No place for anything but a computation. 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 anders at aleph.se Sat Dec 18 10:46:52 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 11:46:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The nature of humans was ambiguously evil british In-Reply-To: <4D0C1A1F.4090609@satx.rr.com> References: <4D0C1A1F.4090609@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4D0C911C.4060305@aleph.se> On 2010-12-18 03:19, Damien Broderick wrote: > What a great subject line! Well, life is solitary, poor, nasty, British, and short. We better fix that. Hmm, maybe I am in the wrong place for it :-) -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Sat Dec 18 10:46:55 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 11:46:55 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The world of bullshit In-Reply-To: <00cc01cb9e51$ffb80260$ff280720$@att.net> References: <00cc01cb9e51$ffb80260$ff280720$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D0C911F.6010003@aleph.se> Sorry, as someone hanging out with too many philosophers I must quibble: most of what Ben Goldacre describes is not bullshit. H.G Frankfurt wrote an excellent essay/little book called "On Bullshit" where he analysed the concept. He concluded that when you deceive, you know what is true and choose to signal information that makes people believe untrue things. When you are bullshitting, you don't care what is true. The biased academic papers, ghostwritten letters and withheld information are all deception of different kinds. Someone knows or suspects a true state of the world and acts to conceal it from others. However, a lot of the bad newspaper reporting *is* bullshit by Frankfurt's definition - the journalists are often not trying to deceive, they just write stories. Deception and bullshit are bad, but I think I agree with Frankfurt that bullshit is more corrosive. Calling deception is easier and causes more direct embarrassment, while the bullshitter often isn't embarrassed. They ought to be. Here is a homespun yule present idea: to publicly call out something untrue or bullshit that annoys a person dear to you. "Dear Aunt Mary: since I know you hate historical revisionism and love smoking, I have made the following blog post where I document the photo-editing of old photos of smoking celebrities..." -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 18 16:54:14 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 08:54:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> <20101217210816.GI9434@leitl.org> <00a401cb9e39$aa275520$fe75ff60$@att.net> Message-ID: <001701cb9ed4$33e8c7e0$9bba57a0$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Tomasz Rola... Subject: Re: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, spike wrote: > > I still suspect a trap, as apparently the mainstream > >news outlets do as well. They still aren't taking the bait as far as I know. > >Has anyone here seen any of the majors reporting scandalous anything > >based on Wikileaks? >...Here in Poland there were some news about how US decided to station a battery of Patriot rockets... So they say, but: >... it has been "uncovered" by journalists (after reading the leaks) that they were unloaded... So they say, but: >Or useless, I reckon... On the contrary. Very useful I reckon. Reasoning: they deploy the launcher trucks with dummy missiles, which are then reported to be scarecrows while simultaneously being reported to be fake scarecrows, guys dressed up as scarecrows with actual shotguns. The external view of those trucks is identical, regardless of whether they are loaded or not. So the trucks are everywhere, with some unknown fraction carrying weapons. This provides a test case, to see if there are any local guerillas who will try to attack the trucks, they believing they carry actual missiles. If the commies conclude that *all* the trucks are dummies, they fire their weapons, they are mysteriously shot down by one of the dummy trucks. >... This was, however, known by some officials... So they say, but: >... Seems like only the public was kept unaware of this... Or perhaps the public was intentionally informed, in a way they would believe: the public are suckers for anything marked secret. They think that one word makes it automatically true. Imagine an army with plenty of rifles but little ammunition, facing a possible invader. Every third rifle is loaded, the rest have only dummy shells. The soldiers themselves do not know if they are loaded or harmless, the invading enemy knows not that there are unloaded weapons. I can imagine that being a very effective deterrent. >... Few days after that I've seen PL-president and US-president shaking each other's hands, which probably meant that either one of them, or maybe both, were cool... Once the trucks are in place, the dummies can be replaced with real missiles at any time or in any proportion, without attracting attention. ... Regards, Tomasz Rola After all this, I am seeing *plenty* of ways governments could fight transparency. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Dec 18 20:16:59 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:16:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> Message-ID: On 14 December 2010 06:05, spike wrote: > Alan, I like your tagline. ?As Judge Hudson said today, health care reform > is a laudable goal, but it must be done legally. Why, was the American Revolution done legally? ;-) -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Dec 18 19:56:03 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 20:56:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] More information on EOD fasting for the CR/life extension crowd In-Reply-To: <4D0526B1.2000500@gnolls.org> References: <4D0526B1.2000500@gnolls.org> Message-ID: On 12 December 2010 20:46, J. Stanton wrote: > > I'm seeing more and more evidence that EOD (every other day) fasting gains > us most of the same benefits as full-time calorie restriction. > I expect most of those benefits to be statistically tiny, but on empirical or rather anedoctical evidence I suspect that contrary to the commonplace ("eat little, but frequently") eating once a day may be better in terms of quality of life. Interestingly, relatively abundant but sparse meals go hand in hand with paleo and/or protein-rich diets, while grain and sugar addicts require food every two or three hours to deal with withdrawal symptoms... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 18 20:47:45 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 12:47:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> Message-ID: <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj Subject: Re: [ExI] a good day for liberty On 14 December 2010 06:05, spike wrote: >> Alan, I like your tagline. ?As Judge Hudson said today, health care reform is a laudable goal, but it must be done legally. >Why, was the American Revolution done legally? ;-) Stefano Vaj Yes because it predated the constitution. The firing on Fort Sumter was done illegally however. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Dec 18 20:02:59 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:02:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Biological immortality and the paleo diet In-Reply-To: <002c01cb9a3b$1ccee460$566cad20$@att.net> References: <4D0526EF.6040504@gnolls.org> <002c01cb9a3b$1ccee460$566cad20$@att.net> Message-ID: On 12 December 2010 21:28, spike wrote: > I suggest nothing too > painful, just something that adjusts one's attitude a bit. I suspect most "pain" in any less-than-36-hours fasting to be just glucose/insuline withdrawal symptoms. Personally, in a diet based on fish, meat, green vegetables and some nuts, if I have something more interesting to do I do not suffer much, or rather at all, by not eating anything for such a period. If anything, I enjoy a little more my steak at the end... :-) -- Stefano Vaj From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 18 21:38:19 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:38:19 -0600 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D0D29CB.50707@satx.rr.com> On 12/18/2010 2:47 PM, spike wrote: >> Why, was the American Revolution done legally? ;-) Stefano Vaj > > Yes because it predated the constitution. I hope that was a joke, because it's a terrible argument. You mean British subjects had no law (even when they were nasty, poor and short)? And if they did, but it was okay to break that law because there was no constitution in North America, does that authorize breaking current laws because one day there might be a New Constitution? Damien Broderick From max at maxmore.com Sat Dec 18 21:29:46 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:29:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Biological immortality and the paleo diet Message-ID: <201012182156.oBILubLT001707@andromeda.ziaspace.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 18 22:02:25 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:02:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: <4D0D29CB.50707@satx.rr.com> References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> <4D0D29CB.50707@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01cb9eff$4170c630$c4525290$@att.net> ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick Subject: Re: [ExI] a good day for liberty On 12/18/2010 2:47 PM, spike wrote: >>> Why, was the American Revolution done legally? ;-) Stefano Vaj > >> Yes because it predated the constitution. >...I hope that was a joke, because it's a terrible argument. You mean British subjects had no law (even when they were nasty, poor and short)? The British had law, handed down from its royalty and parliament. The American colonists were more and more being born in America or other places outside England. They were granted no representation in the British parliament, yet were expected to pay British taxes. They refused, imagine that. We would do the same today: taxation without representation is tyranny, and must be opposed. With no negative feedback loop, those tax rates are free to grow unopposed. This they will do, as if by a law of nature. >...And if they did, but it was okay to break that law because there was no constitution in North America, does that authorize breaking current laws because one day there might be a New Constitution?...Damien Broderick They must actually fight and win the war before there is any new constitution. Since Americans vote, we now have a symbolic insurgency every two years. It may be far more difficult to gain sufficient support for a revolution when we have that important symbolic rebellion in which we take part periodically. spike From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat Dec 18 22:03:31 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:03:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 1:47 PM, spike wrote: > >>Why, was the American Revolution done legally? ;-) Stefano Vaj > > Yes because it predated the constitution. > spike Check with King George on that. Washington and his gang were terrorists. Best, Jeff Davis "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." P.J. O'Rourke From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 18 23:04:24 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:04:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <000a01cb9f07$ea901650$bfb042f0$@att.net> >>>Why, was the American Revolution done legally? ;-) Stefano Vaj >> Yes because it predated the constitution... spike >Check with King George on that. Washington and his gang were terrorists. Best, Jeff Davis Ja, but they were *good* terrorists. {8^D spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Dec 18 23:19:18 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:19:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: <000d01cb9eff$4170c630$c4525290$@att.net> References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> <4D0D29CB.50707@satx.rr.com> <000d01cb9eff$4170c630$c4525290$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D0D4176.3010901@satx.rr.com> On 12/18/2010 4:02 PM, spike wrote: > They were granted no representation in the British > parliament, yet were expected to pay British taxes. They refused, imagine > that. We would do the same today: taxation without representation is > tyranny, and must be opposed. Curiously enough, I have been in that situation for the last seven years. I pay US taxes on my earnings, but can't vote. Granted, I haven't yet sought citizenship (just permanent residency), but still, I get no representation and have to pay up anyway. Not complaining, you understand. Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 18 23:27:31 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:27:31 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Biological immortality and the paleo diet In-Reply-To: <201012182156.oBILubLT001707@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201012182156.oBILubLT001707@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: 2010/12/18 Max More wrote: > The paleo idea is spreading fast it seems. I'm still not sure about Michael > Rose's view that you need not switch to paleo until age 35 or 40 (I haven't > yet found a clear explanation of that, though I'm starting to read a pre-pub > version of his co-authored 2011 book that might satisfy), but I'm urging > everyone to at least read up on this approach, if they are serious about > improving health and longevity. > > I have a big problem with special diets. Basically it comes down to Cost / Benefit analysis. Diets are long-term projects. Therefore if discomfort or suffering is involved it is also long-term and the cumulative suffering cost will become rather large on the Cost side. (This would not apply to the chocolate and ice-cream diet, for example). On the other hand, feeling healthier and possibly living longer get added to the Benefit side of the equation. The trouble is, the Costs are added daily and the pain is felt every day, guaranteed. The Benefits are more problematical. You may feel good every day, but how do you know that is due to your diet? You might be generally healthy no matter what you eat - within reason. You won't know if you will live longer for another 50 years. And again, how do you prove it is due to your diet? Some heavy smokers live to be 100. And you might get crushed by a falling piano next year. These long life diet plans always make me think of the Ninja warriors in Hollywood films who train daily for twenty years, then meet the American hero who pulls out a gun and shoots them dead. So much for their twenty years training! BillK From jebdm at jebdm.net Sat Dec 18 23:39:23 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 18:39:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: <4D0D4176.3010901@satx.rr.com> References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> <4D0D29CB.50707@satx.rr.com> <000d01cb9eff$4170c630$c4525290$@att.net> <4D0D4176.3010901@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 12/18/2010 4:02 PM, spike wrote: > >> taxation without representation is tyranny, and must be opposed. >> > > Curiously enough, I have been in that situation for the last seven years. I > pay US taxes on my earnings, but can't vote. Residents of Washington, D.C. are in the same situation. They have no voting representatives in Congress. Their license plates humorously reflect this: http://daviding.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/20071009_dc_license_plate.jpg -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 03:15:56 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:15:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: <000a01cb9f07$ea901650$bfb042f0$@att.net> References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> <000a01cb9f07$ea901650$bfb042f0$@att.net> Message-ID: >> Yes because it predated the constitution... spike >Check with King George on that. Washington and his gang were terrorists. Best, Jeff Davis >Ja, but they were *good* terrorists.< Carl Sagan said if we like them, they're freedom fighters. If we don't, they're terrorists. And if we can't make up our minds, they're guerillas. d. On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:04 PM, spike wrote: > >>>Why, was the American Revolution done legally? ;-) Stefano Vaj > > > {8^D > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 03:31:41 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 20:31:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> <4D0D29CB.50707@satx.rr.com> <000d01cb9eff$4170c630$c4525290$@att.net> <4D0D4176.3010901@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Spike wrote: They must actually fight and win the war before there is any new constitution. Since Americans vote, we now have a symbolic insurgency every two years. It may be far more difficult to gain sufficient support for a revolution when we have that important symbolic rebellion in which we take part periodically. >>> Everyone seems to be forgetting the classic quote, "the winners write the history books!" Spike, the problem is that our symbolic insurgency has been hijacked by powerful corporate interests that with massive soft money slush funds and insider lobbyists, make sure those elected do their bidding, and to hell with the masses! The recent bailouts of Wall Street, despite middle class outrage against it, proves my point. John On 12/18/10, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Damien Broderick > wrote: > >> On 12/18/2010 4:02 PM, spike wrote: >> >>> taxation without representation is tyranny, and must be opposed. >>> >> >> Curiously enough, I have been in that situation for the last seven years. >> I >> pay US taxes on my earnings, but can't vote. > > > Residents of Washington, D.C. are in the same situation. They have no > voting representatives in Congress. Their license plates humorously reflect > this: > http://daviding.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/20071009_dc_license_plate.jpg > > -- > Jebadiah Moore > http://blog.jebdm.net > From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 04:47:19 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 00:47:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> <4D0D29CB.50707@satx.rr.com> <000d01cb9eff$4170c630$c4525290$@att.net> <4D0D4176.3010901@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: John wrote: >the problem is that our symbolic insurgency has been hijacked by powerful corporate interests that with massive soft money slush funds and insider lobbyists, make sure those elected do their bidding, and to hell with the masses! That alone wouldn't so successfully counter change if those same interests hadn't manage to keep people divided and at at each other's throats by decorating each party platform in its own brightly colored brand of moral wall paper. Vote one way you're voting left and vote another way you're voting right. When in fact, no matter which way you vote -- left or right -- the real agenda had little to do with social or moral reforms. Those are just colored bubbles, to keep us all angry and emotional and feeling as if we're actually accomplishing something when we elect a new government or support the old one. When it comes to turning a democracy into a plutocracy, neither the democrats or republicans, or liberals and conservatives in my country, can claim to be doing anything different. Glass-Steagel was repealed under Clinton. Obama has made more Wall Street appointments than Bush. Openly right wing Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has on a number of occasions rebuffed China on the grounds that they are human rights abusers. Yet it doesn't take a genius to see that from a western corporate stand-point Canada and its precious supply of oil and other natural resources, which China needs and was negotiating with the former elected government to acquire, must be kept as far away from them as possible, and so hiding behind the guise of human rights in order to alienate them is as corporate-minded, and as slimy, as it gets. The problem is, you can't get at this stuff by listening to what you're told on the evening news. You've got to do you're own digging and thinking. And most people are just too busy, too tired, too angry or too trusting to do it. I blame journalists a lot. I went to a good journalism school here in Canada, and I know these guys aren't dumb. They see it. They talk about it over drinks. But they rarely write about it. Just dumping information alone is not enough, like Wikileaks did. People need and want information to be interpreted for them, and right now we have few media outlets doing that who haven't been hi-jacked by corporate interests themselves. Those that are free to say what they want are so concerned with journalistic neutrality that they forget that those wishing to manipulate them have no such principles. I wish we had more journalists like Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, who with one no-holds-barred article kicked Goldman Sachs in the b***s and forced them into the public eye. They've been scrambling to undo the public relations damage ever since, but have not been able to successfully counter one single accusation made in that piece. Darren On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 11:31 PM, John Grigg wrote: > Spike wrote: > They must actually fight and win the war before there is any new > constitution. Since Americans vote, we now have a symbolic insurgency > every > two years. It may be far more difficult to gain sufficient support for a > revolution when we have that important symbolic rebellion in which we take > part periodically. > >>> > > Everyone seems to be forgetting the classic quote, "the winners write > the history books!" > > Spike, the problem is that our symbolic insurgency has been hijacked > by powerful corporate interests that with massive soft money slush > funds and insider lobbyists, make sure those elected do their bidding, > and to hell with the masses! The recent bailouts of Wall Street, > despite middle class outrage against it, proves my point. > > John > > > On 12/18/10, Jebadiah Moore wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Damien Broderick > > wrote: > > > >> On 12/18/2010 4:02 PM, spike wrote: > >> > >>> taxation without representation is tyranny, and must be opposed. > >>> > >> > >> Curiously enough, I have been in that situation for the last seven > years. > >> I > >> pay US taxes on my earnings, but can't vote. > > > > > > Residents of Washington, D.C. are in the same situation. They have no > > voting representatives in Congress. Their license plates humorously > reflect > > this: > > > http://daviding.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/20071009_dc_license_plate.jpg > > > > -- > > 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 > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 19 07:35:14 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:35:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: <4D0D4176.3010901@satx.rr.com> References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> <4D0D29CB.50707@satx.rr.com> <000d01cb9eff$4170c630$c4525290$@att.net> <4D0D4176.3010901@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <003501cb9f4f$46e1ff80$d4a5fe80$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... >Curiously enough, I have been in that situation for the last seven years. I pay US taxes on my earnings, but can't vote. Granted, I haven't yet sought citizenship (just permanent residency), but still, I get no representation and have to pay up anyway. Not complaining, you understand. Damien Broderick Hmmmm that isn't just. Anyone who pays taxes should have a say in how it is squandered. spike From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 19 13:09:12 2010 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 13:09:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Doesn't the subject line sound like a science publisher's dream? And indeed this is the title of a book by Terence Kealey, subtitled "How people evolved to make money". You can imagine my excitement on seeing this in my local library, and eagerly taking it home so I can start an argument with Keith Henson about evolutionary psychology and economics. Like all the best advertising, the title, cover and blurb on the back are utterly false. Instead, this is a book on the history of science viewed through the lens of free-market economics. It touches on EP, and the section on the stone age and early civilisations covers some of the points the "what counts as paleo" arguments on here have. The main thrust of the book is how Bacon's view of science as a public good are incorrect, and how government funding gets in the way. He does make many good points - for all that people assume pure science research leads to commercial spin-offs, there is the counter-argument that steam engines built by scientifically uneducated artisans led to industrial uses, and that these steam engines inspired Carnot's work on thermodynamics. In fact, if you'd tried to follow one of the leading scientific theories of the time, that heat was a substance, you wouldn't have been able to build a steam engine. He also points to research that shows government-funded R&D "crowds out" commercial R&D, and that increased funding for scientific research has no positive correlation with economic growth. In the 19th century, French scientists complained that every fine development they had was commercialised in England, just as in the 20th American and British scientists complained about the Japanese. One set of examples is striking - the first jet airliner (Comet), first commercial supercomputer (manufactured by Ferranti), commercial nuclear power station, and only supersonic airliner (Concorde, a french/british government initiative) were all great technological advances, and all commercial disasters funded at the British taxpayer's expense. Kealey is generally anti-patent, and he tries to show that sharing information can be more profitable than patenting and trade secrets. He acknowledges that the regulatory costs of pharmaceuticals may make that one area that patents are necessary, and cites a paper by P Grootendorst and L Di Matteo "The Effect of Pharmaceutical Patent Term Length on Research and Development and Drug Expenditures in Canada", Healthcare Policy 2007, 2:63-84. Kealey also makes the case that science is unlike most goods described by economists - it's not purely a public good, nor a private good, and doesn't fit the normal criteria for "hybrid goods" used by economists. He calls science a "collegiate good" - one which can only be directly used by the scientifically educated, but produces benefits both public and private. Another point covered is that publishing academic papers is essentially a status activity, and as such the economics of it can be likened to vanity publishing - this is one reason why some journals have decided to charge subscribers to the journal less and instead charge people submitting papers as a way of sharing the costs. There are many amusing incidents and asides in the book that show a different picture of historical events. My favourite is the part on Charles Babbage. While Babbage is lauded as a computational visionary, Kealey looks at his work from the side of the government - Babbage applied for funding, burnt through the lot without producing a working Difference Engine, and then applied for more money saying he had a new idea - the Analytial Engine. When the government rejected him, bearing in mind the results of his last project, he turned round and wrote a book "The Decline of British Science" in which he complained that Britain was going downhill as no-one would fund science. Of course, the nineteenth century saw many British discoveries and science doing well without government funding. I'll stop there as I think I've covered enough ground already, and I've probably exceeded the attention span of half the list. Tom From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 16:00:14 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:00:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: <003501cb9f4f$46e1ff80$d4a5fe80$@att.net> References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> <4D0D29CB.50707@satx.rr.com> <000d01cb9eff$4170c630$c4525290$@att.net> <4D0D4176.3010901@satx.rr.com> <003501cb9f4f$46e1ff80$d4a5fe80$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 2:35 AM, spike wrote: > Hmmmm that isn't just. ?Anyone who pays taxes should have a say in how it is > squandered. ?spike If you buy an American car now you have some say in where they'll "donate" $250 to charity. I'd like to pay back my mortgage by sending checks to charity, but I borrowed from a bank instead of from taxpayers... From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 19 16:04:04 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 08:04:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000b01cb9f96$5bf3db90$13db92b0$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Tom Nowell Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits >...Doesn't the subject line sound like a science publisher's dream? Hey, it sold me. >... by Terence Kealey, subtitled "How people evolved to make money"... Ooooh, that sounds even sexier. >... this is a book on the history of science viewed through the lens of free-market economics... My favorite lens! >...I'll stop there as I think I've covered enough ground already, and I've probably exceeded the attention span of half the list. Tom Don't stop, that discussion was getting me totally turned on. You had me at "evolved to make money." And I am a flaming hetero! Actually we should coin an actual word for those who find money inherently sexy. Prosperosexual? Capulationist? Politician? Very well written post Tom, and an interesting sounding book. Thanks man. {8-] spike From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 19 16:33:59 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 08:33:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> <000a01cb9f07$ea901650$bfb042f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <000501cb9f9a$8a6adbf0$9f4093d0$@att.net> >>>Check with King George on that. Washington and his gang were terrorists. Best, Jeff Davis >>Ja, but they were *good* terrorists.< spike >Carl Sagan said if we like them, they're freedom fighters. If we don't, they're terrorists. And if we can't make up our minds, they're guerillas. darren. Haaa, thanks Darren. Puzzling comment by the US vice president: Biden says if Assange conspired to get classified documents with a member of the U.S. military, then "that's fundamentally different" than if a reporter were given classified material by a source. The vice president tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that he would argue it's closer to being "a high-tech terrorist" than what happened in the Pentagon Papers -- with the 1971 leak of a government study about U.S. involvement in Vietnam. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/19/biden-slams-wikileaks-document-ha nd-close-terrorism/?test=latestnews So then, that covers two of four cases, but what is a reporter who conspirers with GI Joe? What if GI Joe gives documents to Wikileaks without the conspiracy? Is that at terreporter? So it all depends on whose privacy is being violated? This determines if the information activist is a terrorist, a freedom fighter, a guerilla or a reporter, and determines if GI Joe is a source or a traitor? Pentagon Papers = good, Wikileaks = bad? I see. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Sun Dec 19 16:54:37 2010 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:54:37 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's address In-Reply-To: <001701cb9ed4$33e8c7e0$9bba57a0$@att.net> References: <002c01cb9cb0$00716640$015432c0$@att.net> <004601cb9cbc$3ddf7330$b99e5990$@att.net> <4D09735D.70503@satx.rr.com> <006201cb9ccf$ae849940$0b8dcbc0$@att.net> <20101217210816.GI9434@leitl.org> <00a401cb9e39$aa275520$fe75ff60$@att.net> <001701cb9ed4$33e8c7e0$9bba57a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Dec 2010, spike wrote: > ... On Behalf Of Tomasz Rola... > Subject: Re: [ExI] the ambiguously evil british have leaked julian assange's > address > > On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, spike wrote: > > > > I still suspect a trap, as apparently the mainstream > > >news outlets do as well. They still aren't taking the bait as far as I > know. > > >Has anyone here seen any of the majors reporting scandalous anything > > >based on Wikileaks? > > >...Here in Poland there were some news about how US decided to station a > battery of Patriot rockets... > > So they say, but: > > >... it has been "uncovered" by journalists (after reading the leaks) that > they were unloaded... > > So they say, but: > > >Or useless, I reckon... > > On the contrary. Very useful I reckon. Reasoning: they deploy the launcher > trucks with dummy missiles, which are then reported to be scarecrows while > simultaneously being reported to be fake scarecrows, guys dressed up as > scarecrows with actual shotguns. The external view of those trucks is > identical, regardless of whether they are loaded or not. So the trucks are > everywhere, with some unknown fraction carrying weapons. This provides a > test case, to see if there are any local guerillas who will try to attack > the trucks, they believing they carry actual missiles. If the commies > conclude that *all* the trucks are dummies, they fire their weapons, they > are mysteriously shot down by one of the dummy trucks. Uh-hum. I am not sofisticated enough, so nuances of this strategy are beyond my limits of comprehension. My guess is, if you want to attack, you just deploy force big enough to overwhelm every known truck, and if some happen to be dummies, you're even happier. If you want to make guessing your attack harder, you just make a lot of dummy launch sites, dummy silos, dummy stores, dummy rockets and dummy warheads. And dummy army supporting them. However, after skimming through first chapter of game theory book, you come to a conclusion that it's much better to make no dummies at all. And your enemy comes to the same conclusion as well. At least this is what I think, but I haven't computed it on paper yet, so I might be wrong. We don't have guerillas at the moment - unless you count some politicians in. They restrict their actions to places where they could be most effective, i.e. parliament and surrounding areas, government institutions etc. BTW, I'm not afraid of Russian rockets. War is a business (did they told it was about ideals? no, not really). I see no business for them in firing rockets, at least as long as they want to sell and we want to buy. Also, I guess their rockets are mothballed since at least 10 or 15 years - and only time will show if mothballing does them any good. However, whether leaks are true or false, they weaken our position in diplomatic relations. Or at a very minimum, for the next few years (maybe decade) there is no point in mentioning we are US allies since it doesn't sound too well. Just MHO. [...] > Imagine an army with plenty of rifles but little ammunition, facing a > possible invader. Every third rifle is loaded, the rest have only dummy > shells. The soldiers themselves do not know if they are loaded or harmless, > the invading enemy knows not that there are unloaded weapons. I can imagine > that being a very effective deterrent. See above - you don't want to send people with dummy weapons to the battlefield. > Once the trucks are in place, the dummies can be replaced with real missiles > at any time or in any proportion, without attracting attention. If anybody gives a damn about doing this. I see a pattern here and I don't like it. > After all this, I am seeing *plenty* of ways governments could fight > transparency. Huh? What's transparency? 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 darren.greer3 at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 18:54:54 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:54:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: <000b01cb9f96$5bf3db90$13db92b0$@att.net> References: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000b01cb9f96$5bf3db90$13db92b0$@att.net> Message-ID: >Actually we should coin an actual word for those who find money inherently sexy. Prosperosexual? Capulationist? Politician? 42-year-old economaniac seeking long-term investment with like-minded individual. Into capitalingus, inflatio and quiet evenings by soft-glowing plasma screen monitoring StockMarketWatch.com. Not interested in having baby stocks, though do enjoy the occasional junk bond. Monogamy considered, but open to diversification experiences too. Come on: take a chance. Last one in the portfolio is a ponzy! d. On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:04 PM, spike wrote: > ... On Behalf Of Tom Nowell > Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits > > >...Doesn't the subject line sound like a science publisher's dream? > > Hey, it sold me. > > >... by Terence Kealey, subtitled "How people evolved to make money"... > > Ooooh, that sounds even sexier. > > >... this is a book on the history of science viewed through the lens of > free-market economics... > > My favorite lens! > > >...I'll stop there as I think I've covered enough ground already, and I've > probably exceeded the attention span of half the list. Tom > > Don't stop, that discussion was getting me totally turned on. You had me > at > "evolved to make money." And I am a flaming hetero! > > Prosperosexual? Capulationist? Politician? > > Very well written post Tom, and an interesting sounding book. Thanks man. > {8-] spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * spenm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mrjones2020 at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 19:07:02 2010 From: mrjones2020 at gmail.com (Mr Jones) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:07:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: References: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000b01cb9f96$5bf3db90$13db92b0$@att.net> Message-ID: Haha. Loved it! On Dec 19, 2010 1:55 PM, "Darren Greer" wrote: >Actually we should coin an actual word for those who find money inherently sexy. Prosperosexual? C... 42-year-old economaniac seeking long-term investment with like-minded individual. Into capitalingus, inflatio and quiet evenings by soft-glowing plasma screen monitoring StockMarketWatch.com. Not interested in having baby stocks, though do enjoy the occasional junk bond. Monogamy considered, but open to diversification experiences too. Come on: take a chance. Last one in the portfolio is a ponzy! d. On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:04 PM, spike wrote: > > > > ... On Behalf Of Tom Nowell > > Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits > > > > >...Doesn't the subject ... > > > Prosperosexual? Capulationist? Politician? > > > > Very well written post Tom, and an interesting s... > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * spenm _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 19 19:41:27 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:41:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: References: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000b01cb9f96$5bf3db90$13db92b0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101219194126.GX9434@leitl.org> . On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 02:07:02PM -0500, Mr Jones wrote: > Haha. Loved it! > > On Dec 19, 2010 1:55 PM, "Darren Greer" wrote: > > >Actually we should coin an actual word for those who find money inherently > sexy. Prosperosexual? C... > 42-year-old economaniac seeking long-term investment with like-minded > individual. Into capitalingus, inflatio and quiet evenings by soft-glowing > plasma screen monitoring StockMarketWatch.com. Not interested in having baby > stocks, though do enjoy the occasional junk bond. Monogamy considered, but > open to diversification experiences too. Come on: take a chance. Last one in > the portfolio is a ponzy! > > d. > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:04 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > > > ... On Behalf Of Tom Nowell > > > Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits > > > > > > >...Doesn't the subject ... > > > > > Prosperosexual? Capulationist? Politician? > > > > > > Very well written post Tom, and an interesting s... > > > > > > -- > *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." > * > > spenm > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 21:16:51 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 22:16:51 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Biological immortality and the paleo diet In-Reply-To: References: <201012182156.oBILubLT001707@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 19 December 2010 00:27, BillK wrote: > Diets are long-term projects. Therefore if discomfort or suffering is > involved it is also long-term and the cumulative suffering cost will > become rather large on the Cost side. > (This would not apply to the chocolate and ice-cream diet, for example). The truth is that while I suffered myself some very moderate withdrawal symptoms for the first 20 or 30 days when I almost entirely removed grains, potatoes, rice, etc. from my diet some eight or ten years ago, I did not much else than complying with personal dietary inclinations already in place, and accepting the pain of fighting "ideological", but above all social, pressures to conform with the dietary mainstream ("please, have some cake, I made it with my hands, just taste it, I am taking offence...") of the same kind I suspect vegans or muslims or teetotallers are usually better trained and motivated to resist. ;-) Thus, I never felt I was renouncing to much, since in spaghetti with meat balls what I had always found the most interesting was the meat balls anyway, so that by removing the spaghetti if anything one improves the experience. ;-) -- Stefano Vaj From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 21:54:25 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:54:25 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Biological immortality and the paleo diet In-Reply-To: References: <201012182156.oBILubLT001707@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > The truth is that while I suffered myself some very moderate > withdrawal symptoms for the first 20 or 30 days when I almost entirely > removed grains, potatoes, rice, etc. from my diet some eight or ten > years ago, I did not much else than complying with personal dietary > inclinations already in place, and accepting the pain of fighting > "ideological", but above all social, pressures to conform with the > dietary mainstream ("please, have some cake, I made it with my hands, > just taste it, I am taking offence...") of the same kind I suspect > vegans or muslims or teetotallers are usually better trained and > motivated to resist. ;-) > > Thus, I never felt I was renouncing to much, since in spaghetti with > meat balls what I had always found the most interesting was the meat > balls anyway, so that by removing the spaghetti if anything one > improves the experience. ;-) > > That is the ideal solution. To find a diet plan that you actually enjoy (apart from an initial period of adjustment). That would reduce the Costs side of the equation significantly. So that even if it turns out that the diet has little effect of your health or longevity, you still gain, because you enjoy it. (Provided that the chosen diet plan doesn't actually cause long-term damage, of course). On the other hand, there is the quotation - "Everything you see, I owe to spaghetti." Sophia Loren. BillK BillK From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 19 21:59:14 2010 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:59:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <53179.87840.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Darren wrote: "42-year-old economaniac seeking long-term investment with like-minded individual. Into capitalingus, inflatio and quiet evenings by soft-glowing plasma screen monitoring StockMarketWatch.com. Not interested in having baby stocks, though do enjoy the occasional junk bond. Monogamy considered, but open to diversification experiences too. Come on: take a chance. Last one in the portfolio is a ponzy!" Actually, inflatio probably is a sex act in France. Their politicians keep making Freudian slips: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sec9Gkf_tXk and related videos, where Rachida Dati says "Fellation" instead of "Inflation", I believe her quote translates roughly as "Savers are looking for returns in an environment where fellation is practically zero" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udErQWACcaY where a minister talks about "genital prints" rather than "fingerprints" You see, their well-educated politicians make gaffes every big as J Danforth Quayle and George Walker Bush do in the English language. Regarding sexual attraction to money, where Kealey touches on evolutionary psychology, he points out that status is a vital part of human motivation and sexuality. Status is equivalent to sexual attractiveness to people belonging to the same group. Money works very well as a proxy for status, acting as a method of keeping score for people participating in a market economy. (Kealey does also mention things like the concubines of egyptian pharaohs and the like, in a section sure to please Spike.) So, sexual attraction to money is no more perverse than finding dyed hair; or the airbrushed models on the cover of a beauty magazine; or internet Z-list celebrity attractive. Tom From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 19 22:15:18 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:15:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: <20101219194126.GX9434@leitl.org> References: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000b01cb9f96$5bf3db90$13db92b0$@att.net> <20101219194126.GX9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4D0E83F6.2080305@satx.rr.com> On 12/19/2010 1:41 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > . eh? From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 19 22:04:37 2010 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 22:04:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <511195.80326.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> So, I was looking through TEDx videos, trying to find a topic to inspire me, when I came across this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl4xppek2gY People across the world get concerned about linguistic shifts - whether it's non-English speakers getting upset about English infiltrating their language, or British people getting upset about the Americanisation of everything, or the creoles and pidgins and patois that evolve in areas muddying the waters. This talk shows how Urdu has shifted and been referred to by many names over the years, and how the language has changed to reflect its speakers sense of identity. It's amazing how much a language can tell you about its speakers. Tom From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 23:27:34 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:27:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: <4D0E83F6.2080305@satx.rr.com> References: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000b01cb9f96$5bf3db90$13db92b0$@att.net> <20101219194126.GX9434@leitl.org> <4D0E83F6.2080305@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: >On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 12/19/2010 1:41 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > . >> > > eh?< Yeah, I was wondering what Eugen's post meant too. Seemed so profound, I was afraid to respond lest I seem dense. Thanks for taking the plunge, Damien. Darren On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 12/19/2010 1:41 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > . >> > > eh? > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Sun Dec 19 23:32:29 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 18:32:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Biological immortality and the paleo diet In-Reply-To: References: <201012182156.oBILubLT001707@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20101219183229.t89e6f91og4c4w8g@webmail.maxmore.com> Each person will have to do the cost-benefit calculation individually. We all experience both sides of the equation differently. As far as I'm concerned, the costs of going paleo are very small. Even when traveling, I haven't had much difficulty. It helps that extremely stable blood glucose levels mean that I can easily skip a meal without hunger. I don't experience the diet as "restrictive". Since starting, I've been eating a much wider variety of meats, fruits, and vegetables before. Salads are more colorful and tasty than ever. The diet has also spurred me to learn how to cook more dishes. Your terms "discomfort", "pain", and "suffering" just don't enter into my experience. More familiar would be "pleasure", "satisfaction", and "pride" in taking control of my diet. You also ask: "how do you know that is due to your diet?" I'm quite sure my significantly reduced blood pressure is due to the diet. It's never been this low, and it dropped immediately after starting paleo. My next set of blood tests (which I get regularly) should be another good indication, since I haven't radically changed much else relevant to those readings. YMMV Max Quoting BillK : > 2010/12/18 Max More wrote: >> The paleo idea is spreading fast it seems. I'm still not sure about Michael >> Rose's view that you need not switch to paleo until age 35 or 40 (I haven't >> yet found a clear explanation of that, though I'm starting to read a pre-pub >> version of his co-authored 2011 book that might satisfy), but I'm urging >> everyone to at least read up on this approach, if they are serious about >> improving health and longevity. >> >> > > > I have a big problem with special diets. Basically it comes down to > Cost / Benefit analysis. > > Diets are long-term projects. Therefore if discomfort or suffering is > involved it is also long-term and the cumulative suffering cost will > become rather large on the Cost side. > (This would not apply to the chocolate and ice-cream diet, for example). > > On the other hand, feeling healthier and possibly living longer get > added to the Benefit side of the equation. > > The trouble is, the Costs are added daily and the pain is felt every > day, guaranteed. > > The Benefits are more problematical. You may feel good every day, but > how do you know that is due to your diet? You might be generally > healthy no matter what you eat - within reason. > You won't know if you will live longer for another 50 years. And > again, how do you prove it is due to your diet? Some heavy smokers > live to be 100. And you might get crushed by a falling piano next > year. > > These long life diet plans always make me think of the Ninja warriors > in Hollywood films who train daily for twenty years, then meet the > American hero who pulls out a gun and shoots them dead. So much for > their twenty years training! > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Max More, PhD Strategic Philosopher The Proactionary Project Vice Chair, Humanity+ Founder, Extropy Institute From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 23:39:29 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:39:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <511195.80326.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <511195.80326.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >People across the world get concerned about linguistic shifts - whether it's non-English speakers getting upset about English infiltrating their language, or British people getting upset about the Americanisation of everything, or the creoles and pidgins and patois that evolve in areas muddying the waters. This talk shows how Urdu has shifted and been referred to by many names over the years, and how the language has changed to reflect its speakers sense of identity. It's amazing how much a language can tell you about its speakers.< I dated a linguist once. His big claim-to-fame was speaking and writing Tolkien's elvish. He introduced me to the concept of post-scriptivisim vs. descriptivism. Those who would have new words officially monitored and approved for usage by academics, and those who would have a more organic growth based on popular usage alone. I've been a descriptivist ever since. I can't imagine a transhumanist who wasn't. d. On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Tom Nowell wrote: > So, I was looking through TEDx videos, trying to find a topic to inspire > me, when I came across this: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl4xppek2gY > > People across the world get concerned about linguistic shifts - whether > it's non-English speakers getting upset about English infiltrating their > language, or British people getting upset about the Americanisation of > everything, or the creoles and pidgins and patois that evolve in areas > muddying the waters. This talk shows how Urdu has shifted and been referred > to by many names over the years, and how the language has changed to reflect > its speakers sense of identity. It's amazing how much a language can tell > you about its speakers. > > Tom > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 19 23:48:50 2010 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:48:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Darren wrote: "I dated a linguist once. His big claim-to-fame was speaking and writing Tolkien's elvish. He introduced me to the concept of post-scriptivisim vs. descriptivism. Those who would have new words officially monitored and approved for usage by academics, and those who would have a more organic growth based on popular usage alone. I've been a descriptivist ever since. I can't imagine a transhumanist who wasn't." Neither could FM-2030 - in his book "Are You a Transhuman?: Monitoring and Stimulating Your Personal Rate of Growth in a Rapidly Changing World" he included quizzes for a variety of things, and Chapter 1 is "how updated is your vocabulary?" (wikipedia directed me to a copy at http://fm-2030.narod.ru/ARE_YOU_A_TRANSHUMAN.pdf - interesting, but I don't know how many would respond to that format these days) Tom From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 20 00:06:42 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:06:42 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: <53179.87840.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <53179.87840.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006c01cb9fd9$c8656940$59303bc0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Tom Nowell >...(Kealey does also mention things like the concubines of egyptian pharaohs and the like, in a section sure to please Spike.)... Ja, it works for me, thanks Tom. {8-] >...So, sexual attraction to money is no more perverse than finding dyed hair; or the airbrushed models on the cover of a beauty magazine; or internet Z-list celebrity attractive. Tom I have long thought that the whole money-as-a-sexual-attractant notion has traditionally gotten a bad rap that it doesn't deserve. I am pleased to live in a world where wealth can (to some extent) serve as a proxy for actual sexual attractiveness, for the latter is so random, so genetic. One is born with it or without it, or with more or less of it, whereas one has the option of working one's ass off, or being especially diligent in saving and investing and so forth. Thus one can actually earn a certain amount of sexual attractiveness to compensate for what nature failed to supply. So what's the big crime in that? Do we not you remember (with disdain) high school? No one had any money back then, so we geeks were forced to compensate for lack of attractiveness by actually being nice, and kindhearted, and all that, oy vey. Now all we need is to have a ton of money. Such a deal! And for some, the whole being nice thing still works (even without money) for those who are good at it, such as John Grigg. If you meet him you will know exactly what I mean. But the Beatles had it all wrong with that whole money can't buy me love biz. It damn well should be able to. In any ideal world, we should be able to buy a certain amount of beauty. I begrudge no one for either buying sexual attractiveness, or for selling that which nature so generously bestowed on the fortunate few. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 20 00:38:50 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 18:38:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: References: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000b01cb9f96$5bf3db90$13db92b0$@att.net> <20101219194126.GX9434@leitl.org> <4D0E83F6.2080305@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4D0EA59A.9000300@satx.rr.com> On 12/19/2010 5:27 PM, Darren Greer wrote: > . > eh? > Yeah, I was wondering what Eugen's post meant too. Seemed so profound, I > was afraid to respond lest I seem dense. I was tempted to ask, "What's your point?" From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Mon Dec 20 00:54:32 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:54:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: <4D0EA59A.9000300@satx.rr.com> References: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000b01cb9f96$5bf3db90$13db92b0$@att.net> <20101219194126.GX9434@leitl.org> <4D0E83F6.2080305@satx.rr.com> <4D0EA59A.9000300@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Damien wrote: >I was tempted to ask, "What's your point?"< If you don't make one, you don't have to defend one. I'm assuming it it was a premature hit "send" but truly: I'm dumb enough that I require an explanation. You suppose someone with a 10 000 I.Q. would respond that way? Baffle us all? Admit it Eugen: you've been uploaded. Darren On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 12/19/2010 5:27 PM, Darren Greer wrote: > >> . >> > > eh? >> > > Yeah, I was wondering what Eugen's post meant too. Seemed so profound, I >> was afraid to respond lest I seem dense. >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 20 01:21:22 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:21:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: References: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000b01cb9f96$5bf3db90$13db92b0$@att.net> <20101219194126.GX9434@leitl.org> <4D0E83F6.2080305@satx.rr.com> <4D0EA59A.9000300@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4D0EAF92.7030400@satx.rr.com> On 12/19/2010 6:54 PM, Darren Greer wrote: > >I was tempted to ask, "What's your point?"< > > If you don't make one, you don't have to defend one. But Eugen did make one. A point, a palpable point. Look, here it is again: . Watch it jump about: . . . . From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Mon Dec 20 01:25:07 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:25:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: <4D0EAF92.7030400@satx.rr.com> References: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000b01cb9f96$5bf3db90$13db92b0$@att.net> <20101219194126.GX9434@leitl.org> <4D0E83F6.2080305@satx.rr.com> <4D0EA59A.9000300@satx.rr.com> <4D0EAF92.7030400@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: loll On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 12/19/2010 6:54 PM, Darren Greer wrote: > > >I was tempted to ask, "What's your point?"< >> >> If you don't make one, you don't have to defend one. >> > > But Eugen did make one. A point, a palpable point. Look, here it is again: > > . > > Watch it jump about: > > . > . . > > . > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mrjones2020 at gmail.com Mon Dec 20 01:35:11 2010 From: mrjones2020 at gmail.com (Mr Jones) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:35:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: References: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000b01cb9f96$5bf3db90$13db92b0$@att.net> <20101219194126.GX9434@leitl.org> <4D0E83F6.2080305@satx.rr.com> <4D0EA59A.9000300@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: *sticks his neck out* It was his way of agreeing with me. I'm guessing he found it as entertaining as me. On Dec 19, 2010 7:55 PM, "Darren Greer" wrote: Damien wrote: >I was tempted to ask, "What's your point?"< If you don't make one, you don't have to defend one. I'm assuming it it was a premature hit "send" but truly: I'm dumb enough that I require an explanation. You suppose someone with a 10 000 I.Q. would respond that way? Baffle us all? Admit it Eugen: you've been uploaded. Darren On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > > On 12/19/2010 5:27 PM, Darren Greer wrote: > >> > >> . > > > > > >> eh? > > > > > >> Yeah, I was wonde... > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.e... > -- "Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." _______________________________________________ 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 Mon Dec 20 03:24:14 2010 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 22:24:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: References: <511195.80326.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/12/19 Darren Greer > I dated a linguist once. His big claim-to-fame was speaking and writing > Tolkien's elvish. He introduced me to the concept of post-scriptivisim vs. > descriptivism. Those who would have new words officially monitored and > approved for usage by academics, and those who would have a more organic > growth based on popular usage alone. I've been a descriptivist ever since. > I can't imagine a transhumanist who wasn't. > I think the term you want is "prescriptivism", as in "prescribed". It's not necessarily about words being officially monitored (as is the case in several European countries--though sometimes this is done by bureaucrats rather than academics) as much as it is about the idea that there is some sort of right and wrong in language use. Anytime somebody says "that's not good English" or "never end a sentence with a preposition" or "ain't ain't a word" or even "learn to spell", they are demonstrating linguistic prescriptivism. It's not quite as clear-cut a thing as you make it out to be, though, and most linguists wouldn't say that they were prescriptivists or descriptivists--it's not a political affiliation. Linguistics, as a (social) science, is descriptive in nature; in this sense, most linguists are opposed to prescription because it introduces bias. On the other hand, just as physicists aren't anti-engineering and political scientists aren't anti-government (at least all the time ;)), linguists are not all anti-prescription in general. The problem is that without prescription, languages diverge faster. Of course, people will tend to modify their language minimally, since it decreases their intelligibility to others, but without some oversight (at least from parents and teachers) it still can happen more rapidly than is ideal. This can be especially problematic in specialized fields, and in language modalities which are less commonly used. In specialized fields, the lack of standard definitions for words, leading to decreased intelligibility across time and between groups, can greatly inhibit progress; just look at philosophy! I kid, but it is clear that this has been a motivation at least within bureaucracies and other systems which use old texts in a modern context. In these cases, while you don't usually get the specialized part of the language standardized across the majority of speakers, you do usually get a standardization within the field, so that all lawyers or bureaucrats or priests speak a standardized language variant, at least while they're doing their work. So, what I'm getting at is that it's not as clear-cut a thing as you've implied. Of course, there are some linguists who (nominally) oppose prescriptivism in all forms, usually on the basis that it is oppressive, exclusionary, and inhibits language development; but most of these same linguists would be annoyed if you started calling them "describers" or "anti-word-dictators". I think the mainstream view among linguists is that prescriptivism in everyday language is usually counter-productive (except sometimes with regard to spelling and writing, since there is often significant random divergence there without some enforcement from teachers). On the other hand, most linguists usually favor at least a weak form of prescription in specialized fields. (IANNAL) -- Jebadiah Moore http://blog.jebdm.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 20 07:53:37 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:53:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <005f01cb9c7a$7c22a6e0$7467f4a0$@att.net> References: <005f01cb9c7a$7c22a6e0$7467f4a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <000001cba01b$02a7bea0$07f73be0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike . >.I notice none of the news majors are reporting. Perhaps they suspect a trap? We have seen it before. Maybe. spike OK I now see one of the news majors reporting on specific material on wikileaks. Yemen left radioactive material unguarded: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/20/wikileaks-yemen-nuclear-material-uns ecured/ Oy vey. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 20 08:28:56 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:28:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: <4D0E83F6.2080305@satx.rr.com> References: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000b01cb9f96$5bf3db90$13db92b0$@att.net> <20101219194126.GX9434@leitl.org> <4D0E83F6.2080305@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20101220082856.GZ9434@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 04:15:18PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 12/19/2010 1:41 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >> . > > eh? I was thinking that adding a dot at the top was enough reason to quote the entire message. Since we don't appreciate each other's time anymore and do not bother with quoting properly, I decided to join the fray. Wheeeee! This is fun!!! -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 20 11:27:00 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:27:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: References: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000b01cb9f96$5bf3db90$13db92b0$@att.net> <20101219194126.GX9434@leitl.org> <4D0E83F6.2080305@satx.rr.com> <4D0EA59A.9000300@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20101220112659.GI9434@leitl.org> . boing boing boing On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 08:35:11PM -0500, Mr Jones wrote: > *sticks his neck out* It was his way of agreeing with me. I'm guessing he > found it as entertaining as me. > > On Dec 19, 2010 7:55 PM, "Darren Greer" wrote: > > Damien wrote: > > > >I was tempted to ask, "What's your point?"< > If you don't make one, you don't have to defend one. I'm assuming it it was > a premature hit "send" but truly: I'm dumb enough that I require an > explanation. You suppose someone with a 10 000 I.Q. would respond that way? > Baffle us all? Admit it Eugen: you've been uploaded. > > Darren > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Damien Broderick > wrote: > > > > > > > On 12/19/2010 5:27 PM, Darren Greer wrote: > > >> > > >> . > > > > > > > > >> eh? > > > > > > > > >> Yeah, I was wonde... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > extropy-chat at lists.e... > > > > > > -- > "Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Mon Dec 20 12:13:40 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:13:40 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: <20101220112659.GI9434@leitl.org> References: <888253.49720.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <000b01cb9f96$5bf3db90$13db92b0$@att.net> <20101219194126.GX9434@leitl.org> <4D0E83F6.2080305@satx.rr.com> <4D0EA59A.9000300@satx.rr.com> <20101220112659.GI9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > . > > boing > > boing > > boing > > Gmail automatically hides quoted text, so you can quote pages of uncut threads and all I see is your new text. The system now hides users misbehaviour. BillK From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Mon Dec 20 13:34:14 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:34:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: References: <511195.80326.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: yes, you're right and I wasn't. It is prescriptivism, not post. It's been in issue in Canada, because of the Quebec language/culture thing. Thanks. d. 2010/12/19 Jebadiah Moore > 2010/12/19 Darren Greer > > I dated a linguist once. His big claim-to-fame was speaking and writing >> Tolkien's elvish. He introduced me to the concept of post-scriptivisim vs. >> descriptivism. Those who would have new words officially monitored and >> approved for usage by academics, and those who would have a more organic >> growth based on popular usage alone. I've been a descriptivist ever since. >> I can't imagine a transhumanist who wasn't. >> > > I think the term you want is "prescriptivism", as in "prescribed". It's > not necessarily about words being officially monitored (as is the case in > several European countries--though sometimes this is done by bureaucrats > rather than academics) as much as it is about the idea that there is some > sort of right and wrong in language use. Anytime somebody says "that's not > good English" or "never end a sentence with a preposition" or "ain't ain't a > word" or even "learn to spell", they are demonstrating linguistic > prescriptivism. > > It's not quite as clear-cut a thing as you make it out to be, though, and > most linguists wouldn't say that they were prescriptivists or > descriptivists--it's not a political affiliation. Linguistics, as a > (social) science, is descriptive in nature; in this sense, most linguists > are opposed to prescription because it introduces bias. On the other hand, > just as physicists aren't anti-engineering and political scientists aren't > anti-government (at least all the time ;)), linguists are not all > anti-prescription in general. > > The problem is that without prescription, languages diverge faster. Of > course, people will tend to modify their language minimally, since it > decreases their intelligibility to others, but without some oversight (at > least from parents and teachers) it still can happen more rapidly than is > ideal. This can be especially problematic in specialized fields, and in > language modalities which are less commonly used. In specialized fields, > the lack of standard definitions for words, leading to decreased > intelligibility across time and between groups, can greatly inhibit > progress; just look at philosophy! I kid, but it is clear that this has > been a motivation at least within bureaucracies and other systems which use > old texts in a modern context. In these cases, while you don't usually get > the specialized part of the language standardized across the majority of > speakers, you do usually get a standardization within the field, so that all > lawyers or bureaucrats or priests speak a standardized language variant, at > least while they're doing their work. > > So, what I'm getting at is that it's not as clear-cut a thing as you've > implied. Of course, there are some linguists who (nominally) oppose > prescriptivism in all forms, usually on the basis that it is oppressive, > exclusionary, and inhibits language development; but most of these same > linguists would be annoyed if you started calling them "describers" or > "anti-word-dictators". I think the mainstream view among linguists is that > prescriptivism in everyday language is usually counter-productive (except > sometimes with regard to spelling and writing, since there is often > significant random divergence there without some enforcement from teachers). > On the other hand, most linguists usually favor at least a weak form of > prescription in specialized fields. > > (IANNAL) > > -- > 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 > > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 20 13:55:17 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:55:17 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Sex, Science & Profits In-Reply-To: References: <20101219194126.GX9434@leitl.org> <4D0E83F6.2080305@satx.rr.com> <4D0EA59A.9000300@satx.rr.com> <20101220112659.GI9434@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101220135517.GB16518@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:13:40PM +0000, BillK wrote: > Gmail automatically hides quoted text, so you can quote pages of uncut Yes, some proprietary systems will do things. Other systems will do other things. It's good that Gmail works out for you. It doesn't mean we should all apply for an account with teh GOOG, and read email just from there henceforth. Hiding quoted text is not the problem. Just pooping text at the top without bothering to supply context just because it saves time on your end is definitely a problem. Assuming that threading will take care of it assumes that email clients don't munge headers, or that users will honor starting new threads by not replying to existing ones. Alas, too many of them do. People who're unaware or don't care are typically not worth reading. Lists which tolerate such behaviour degrade to the point where they're not worth reading. Please, keep list hygiene. Do not poop into the channel. We, who drink from this stream, thank you. > threads and all I see is your new text. The system now hides users > misbehaviour. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Dec 20 16:53:18 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:53:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <511195.80326.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <511195.80326.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <952081.61159.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Languages change. Nothing's static here. It might just be that the pace of change is faster today or more noticeable -- since we went through a period of rapid standardization with the proliferation of printing and then of nation states. Regards, Dan From: Tom Nowell To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Sun, December 19, 2010 5:04:37 PM Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts So, I was looking through TEDx videos, trying to find a topic to inspire me, when I came across this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl4xppek2gY People across the world get concerned about linguistic shifts - whether it's non-English speakers getting upset about English infiltrating their language, or British people getting upset about the Americanisation of everything, or the creoles and pidgins and patois that evolve in areas muddying the waters. This talk shows how Urdu has shifted and been referred to by many names over the years, and how the language has changed to reflect its speakers sense of identity. It's amazing how much a language can tell you about its speakers. Tom ? ______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Dec 20 17:43:57 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:43:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] NYTimes.com: Decoding the Human Brain, With Help From a Fly In-Reply-To: References: <4d07b9b7.818c2a0a.1289.6b48SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: 2010/12/14 Keith Henson : > In terms similar to those that define computers, the team describes the > general architecture of the fly?s brain as composed of 41 local processing > units, 58 tracts that link the units to other parts of the brain, and six > hubs. Come on! Being biological, they *must* exhibit some incredibly exotic God-imparted and/or "quantum" nature... ;-) -- Stefano Vaj From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 20 18:11:14 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:11:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <952081.61159.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <511195.80326.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <952081.61159.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20101220181114.GQ16518@leitl.org> . po0t . On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 08:53:18AM -0800, Dan wrote: > Languages change. Nothing's static here. It might just be that the pace of > change is faster today or more noticeable -- since we went through a period of > rapid standardization with the proliferation of printing and then of nation > states. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > From: Tom Nowell > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Sent: Sun, December 19, 2010 5:04:37 PM > Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts > > So, I was looking through TEDx videos, trying to find a topic to inspire me, > when I came across this: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl4xppek2gY > > People across the world get concerned about linguistic shifts - whether it's > non-English speakers getting upset about English infiltrating their language, or > British people getting upset about the Americanisation of everything, or the > creoles and pidgins and patois that evolve in areas muddying the waters. This > talk shows how Urdu has shifted and been referred to by many names over the > years, and how the language has changed to reflect its speakers sense of > identity. It's amazing how much a language can tell you about its speakers. > > Tom > ? > ______________________________________________ > 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 -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From lubkin at unreasonable.com Mon Dec 20 19:19:25 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:19:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <000001cba01b$02a7bea0$07f73be0$@att.net> References: <005f01cb9c7a$7c22a6e0$7467f4a0$@att.net> <000001cba01b$02a7bea0$07f73be0$@att.net> Message-ID: <201012202033.oBKKXp2q010529@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Spike wrote: >OK I now see one of the news majors reporting on specific material >on wikileaks. Yemen left radioactive material unguarded: > >http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/20/wikileaks-yemen-nuclear-material-unsecured/ > > >Oy vey. I don't think you're allowed to say that in Yemen.... -- David. From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 20 22:33:40 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:33:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working Message-ID: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> A few years ago a treaty was signed which was to counteract global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. I see from the weather patterns everywhere this week good evidence that it is working. {8^D http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1968828/odd_weather_patterns_bring_summ er_snow_to_australia/ http://www.thirdage.com/news/mammoth-mountain-receives-9-feet-snow_12-20-201 0 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101219/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_weather http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101217/ap_on_re_eu/eu_europe_weather http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/world/europe/21snow.html Yes I know, weather is not climate. Happy solstice to all and to all a good night! {8-] spike From nymphomation at gmail.com Mon Dec 20 23:11:07 2010 From: nymphomation at gmail.com (*Nym*) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:11:07 +0000 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> Message-ID: On 20 December 2010 22:33, spike wrote: > > A few years ago a treaty was signed which was to counteract global warming > by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. ?I see from the weather patterns > everywhere ?this week good evidence that it is working. > > {8^D > > http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1968828/odd_weather_patterns_bring_summ > er_snow_to_australia/ > > http://www.thirdage.com/news/mammoth-mountain-receives-9-feet-snow_12-20-201 > 0 > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101219/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_weather > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101217/ap_on_re_eu/eu_europe_weather > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/world/europe/21snow.html > > Yes I know, weather is not climate. Good thing, that sort of talk could get you in trouble.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk =:o) 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 21 03:28:02 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:28:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Paleo/primal health In-Reply-To: <4CE57DE3.8040708@gnolls.org> References: <4CE57DE3.8040708@gnolls.org> Message-ID: <4D101EC2.4020403@satx.rr.com> My wife Barbara Lamar is posting a series about her experiments with paleo-like diet: and here's Barbara riding the rails... Damien Broderick From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Dec 21 09:45:20 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:45:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Will the upcoming big-budget Hollywood "H+" film lead to confusion for the H+ transhumanist organization? Message-ID: Bryan Singer (X-Men, Superman) is doing a film titled "H+" where many people have the net directly connected to their brains and nervous systems, but then a virus infects them and billions die! I wonder to what extent the name of this film will lead to major confusion for the H+ transhumanist organization? http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/h-tv-show-produced-by-x-men-director.html John From anders at aleph.se Tue Dec 21 11:29:49 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:29:49 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Will the upcoming big-budget Hollywood "H+" film lead to confusion for the H+ transhumanist organization? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D108FAD.4090305@aleph.se> On 2010-12-21 10:45, John Grigg wrote: > Bryan Singer (X-Men, Superman) is doing a film titled "H+" where many > people have the net directly connected to their brains and nervous > systems, but then a virus infects them and billions die! I wonder to > what extent the name of this film will lead to major confusion for the > H+ transhumanist organization? Or vice versa... if they are stupid enough to use a term that "belongs" to another group, it means a lot of traffic is going to go to transhumanist sites. Plenty of opportunity to not just do rebuttals (who reads those) but to play around with the meaning of the film. My guess is that H+ is the working name and then they change it to something else in order to avoid this kind of messiness, the risk of domain name squatting and losing advertising money... -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Tue Dec 21 11:32:02 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:32:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> The NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) is pretty cool actually. It is a fine example of how the weight of eigenmode can fluctuate. It can be modeled rather elegantly as a differential equation driven with noise. The current ensemble forecasts of the NAO index http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.shtml suggest that we will be having more nasty winter weather until at least middle January. Most likely it is not strongly climate coupled, according to what I have read myself and discussed with the Oxford climate scientists. Not quite weather, but definitely not climate either. And since NAO and a bunch of the other oscillatory modes are connected in a messy way we shouldn't be too surprised by correlated unusual weather. (OK, time to start preparing for getting out into the Swedish snow rather than sit in front of the cozy broadband connection...) -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Tue Dec 21 11:31:58 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:31:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> An interesting take on language evolution came up during our roleplaying game session yesterday. Set in the post-singularity universe of Eclipse Phase, a young transhuman kid was talking to the crusty spaceship old-timer (born sometime around 2010!) Their personal AIs were struggling to translate the slang either used, since the same word had changed meaning so many times between them ("I think your owner is thinking of 'munchkin' in the game-meaning, not the software, economic, documentary or biotech sense... unless he is talking about asteroids, of course") Automated translation will always suffer from the dynamics of real languages. Not to mention the effects of automatic translation - we adapt our languages to the technology, so if translation is easy people will talk in such a way that their talk can be translated well enough, not in the "right" way. Och of course vi speak flytande Swenglish here i Sweden these dagar. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Tue Dec 21 12:44:04 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 08:44:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "The Future Soon" - Jonathan Coulton Message-ID: Another transhuman-ish song by Jonathan Coulton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDiDK_yBCw0&feature=fvst -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Tue Dec 21 13:18:56 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:18:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <595870.10765.qm@web114401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> spike wrote: >... On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj > >> Alan, I like your tagline. ?As Judge Hudson said today, health care > reform is a laudable goal, but it must be done legally. > > >Why, was the American Revolution done legally? ;-) Stefano Vaj > > Yes because it predated the constitution. LOL, spoken like a true American, spike! I suppose it's only failed revolutions that are not 'legal'. History is written by the victors, as they say. Ben Zaiboc From bbenzai at yahoo.com Tue Dec 21 13:31:59 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:31:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Biological immortality and the paleo diet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <998790.52453.qm@web114413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message: 7 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:29:46 -0600 From: Max More To: Extropy-Chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Biological immortality and the paleo diet Message-ID: <201012182156.oBILubLT001707 at andromeda.ziaspace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: Is it fair to ask that posters post in plain text? Max wrote: > > > That reflects my experience too, since going full paleo more than two > months ago. When I ate more carbs, even though they were often from > double-fiber whole wheat bread, I would want to eat frequently. On a > paleo diet, I can easily go for quite a few hours without *needing* to > eat.

> The paleo idea is spreading fast it seems. I'm still not sure about > Michael Rose's view that you need not switch to paleo until age 35 or 40 > (I haven't yet found a clear explanation of that, though I'm starting to > read a pre-pub version of his co-authored 2011 book that might satisfy), > but I'm urging everyone to at least read up on this approach, if they are > serious about improving health and longevity.

> Max

>
>
> On 12 December 2010 21:28, spike > <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > I suggest nothing too
> > painful, just something that adjusts one's attitude a bit.

> I suspect most "pain" in any less-than-36-hours fasting to be > just glucose/insuline withdrawal symptoms.

> Personally, in a diet based on fish, meat, green vegetables and some > nuts, if I have something more interesting to do I do not suffer much, or > rather at all, by not eating anything for such a period.

> If anything, I enjoy a little more my steak at the end... :-)

> --
> Stefano Vaj
I've just had an experience that confirms this. Been eating broadly palaeo for a few weeks, and feeling a lot better for it, no hunger pangs, eating meals farther apart, but recently I was in a situation where that was just not really possible without a lot of inconvenience, and I've abruptly reversed the gradual weight loss (gained a kilo in a week), been more hungry and irritable and felt the need to eat more frequently than I've got used to. And felt the irresistible call of croissants for breakfast this morning! Now I have to go through the process of weaning myself off wheat all over again.. Ben Zaiboc From max at maxmore.com Tue Dec 21 14:33:46 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 08:33:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Biological immortality and the paleo diet Message-ID: <201012211433.oBLEXv7l020105@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: > > > >Is it fair to ask that posters post in plain text? Yes. Sorry about that. I didn't realize Eudora was sending it out as anything else (and it came back to me as plain text). Must have had some formatted text quoted and accidentally hit the "Styled" button when sending. My bad, as I'm told the young people say these days. Max From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 21 16:36:33 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 08:36:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> Message-ID: <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg ... >Most likely it is not strongly climate coupled, according to what I have read myself and discussed with the Oxford climate scientists. Not quite weather, but definitely not climate either. And since NAO and a bunch of the other oscillatory modes are connected in a messy way we shouldn't be too surprised by correlated unusual weather.--Anders Sandberg . . But Anders, I am so puzzled. We were assured the science was *settled* on all this. When I looked at it, the science sure as hell didn't look settled to me. Doesn't still now. The problem I see once again with the current European cold snap is that while the global climate may be warming, humans perceive weather. And people vote and pay taxes. At least twice now we have seen major global warming conventions during a local freak cold snap. In both cases nothing of any significance came of them, for reasons very possibly related to weather. Any solution to global warming must be market driven as opposed to politically driven. It might not work, but it must sell. Local freak warm snaps will help them sell. Cold spells will hurt sales. The critical point is overall sales. spike From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 21 16:49:32 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 08:49:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> Message-ID: <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Subject: Re: [ExI] Linguistic shifts ... >...Och of course vi speak flytande Swenglish here i Sweden these dagar. I can translate that: "Eh, of course I speak a mixture of English and Swedish, but here in Sweden I carry this really big knife." >...Automated translation will always suffer from the dynamics of real languages. Not to mention the effects of automatic translation - we adapt our languages to the technology, so if translation is easy people will talk in such a way that their talk can be translated well enough, not in the "right" way.Anders Sandberg So we need to think of adapting language in such a way that automated translation effectively translates it. A good technical paper is already written that way: engineering terms are often universal, mathematical equations are exactly universal. So we start by eliminating figures of speech specific to our own cultures, and migrate towards words that have more universal and very specific meanings. spike From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 21 17:34:19 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 09:34:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: <595870.10765.qm@web114401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <595870.10765.qm@web114401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001cba135$4cc04a00$e640de00$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc ... > >> >Why, was the American Revolution done legally? ;-) Stefano Vaj > >> Yes because it predated the constitution. >...LOL, spoken like a true American, spike! You are too kind sir. {8-] >...I suppose it's only failed revolutions that are not 'legal'. History is written by the victors, as they say...Ben Zaiboc Exactly! This works for markets as well. Consider the early days of video tape, when we had VHS and Beta. Sony's Beta was actually a technically superior product, but few know that today, since the more open tech VHS won in the marketplace. But back to history, I did some studying after the initial discussion here, and learned some interesting revisionist history regarding the origins of the Declaration of Independence and the US constitution. According to some sources (which I didn't keep but now need to find again) the early acts of civil disobedience in the American colonies in the 1770s were not about taxes but rather about abolition of slavery. Many vocal colonists wanted to abolish slavery in the colonies, but King George of England insisted that the colonies were under British law, which allowed it. The Brithish reminded the local colonial governments they had not the authority to overrule the crown. This is compelling, once one realizes that around 70% of the signers of the Declaration had no slaves. Some sources argue that the comment "...all men are created equal..." with divine right to "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." were put in there specifically and with the intent to set the stage for freeing all remaining slaves. This effort failed of course, and set the stage for a horrifying war nearly a century later. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 21 18:21:41 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:21:41 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D10F035.6070104@satx.rr.com> On 12/21/2010 10:49 AM, spike wrote: > So we start by eliminating figures of > speech specific to our own cultures, and migrate towards words that have > more universal and very specific meanings. Esperanto hasn't exactly taken over the world. You might have noticed that generational and other tribalisms go in exactly the opposite direction: mutations, ellipses, neologisms, inversions. And I suspect that as the global landscape becomes ever-more interconnected and blandized, there will be an increasing pressure to reclaim or invent linguistic differences. That might well occur parallel to the "business/political" trend to uniformity, but as ever more humans drop out the loop of production and marginal political influence I can foresee an increase in creoles that are deliberately unintelligible to Others, especially the hegemonic. (AI translators will presumably have little trouble keeping up, although it might be expedient/polite not to make that too obvious.) Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 21 19:14:21 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:14:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <4D10F035.6070104@satx.rr.com> References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> <4D10F035.6070104@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001e01cba143$4643f290$d2cbd7b0$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Damien Broderick Subject: Re: [ExI] Linguistic shifts On 12/21/2010 10:49 AM, spike wrote: >> So we start by eliminating figures of >> speech specific to our own cultures, and migrate towards words that >> have more universal and very specific meanings. >...Esperanto hasn't exactly taken over the world... Ja, and it shouldn't. The point is not to invest one's own limited biodisk memorizing a new language, but rather to modify one's own speech in one's own language (keeping the charming accents such as Australian). The goal is to use a kind of a subset of our own language where each word and usage is more perfectly machine-translatable. Many of us have flown on airlines where we have the option of listening to the cockpit radio chatter. That is an example of a language that is based on English but is actually a subset: the vocabulary is very specific. A good example is seen in an airline crash in NJ a few years ago, where the flight engineer made a mistake in the fuel calcs but used language outside the airliner-tower subset. As the plane was coming in he knew he was low on fuel, got on the radio and said "... ah well I think we need priority..." The tower didn't know what he was talking about. Had he said "Avianca 052 mayday mayday mayday, fuel critical, request 27 over." The tower would have come back and said "Roger Avianca 052 cleared to land 27 over." Then ATC would get everyone else the hell outta the way, knowing a really big really thirsty bird was coming down. But the English-speaking New York air traffic controllers could not interpret "I think I need priority to land" and that aircraft fuel starved and crashed, ending the lives of 73 proles on 19 July 1989. We can derive machine-translatable disambiguated subsets of our own languages, completely based on our own languages. >...You might have noticed that generational and other tribalisms go in exactly the opposite direction: mutations, ellipses, neologisms, inversions. Ja! We could even have street-slang based machine translatable subsets of language. Recall Barbara Billingsley translating jive in Airplane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymMBEwtRZOg We need not memorize a new language, but rather derive a subset, like Winston's comrade tried to do creating Newspeak in Orwell's 1984. >...And I suspect that as the global landscape becomes ever-more interconnected and blandized, there will be an increasing pressure to reclaim or invent linguistic differences... Damien Broderick "Blandized" seems like an unnecessarily negative term. Currently English is the official language in many African nations, so the children learn both English and their indigenous languages. But ja, we can have it all: geekspeak, street rap, chat room, biz universal, all condensed into some kind of intelligible machine translatable form, with the translations understandable by speakers of the various languages and dialects. Many of the languages such as teenspeak would have only a few hundred words, many of which would look like alphabet soup, such as ROTFLMAO. But it is the job of the machine to memorize them all, not the humans. We compose only the thoughts, then let the machines deal with the mechanics of transmitting the messages. I read 1984 in high school (late 70s) and thought the notion of newspeak a great idea at the time. I am getting D?j? vu. Didn't we cover similar ground here a few years ago? spike From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 21 20:13:29 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:13:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> Message-ID: <003601cba14b$88f77910$9ae66b30$@att.net> >...The problem I see once again with the current European cold snap is that while the global climate may be warming, humans perceive weather...spike On this, George Monbiot and I agree: "Sod all that, my correspondents insist: just look out of the window. No explanation of the numbers, no description of the North Atlantic oscillation or the Arctic dipole, no reminder of current temperatures in other parts of the world, can compete with the observation that there's a foot of snow outside. We are simple, earthy creatures, governed by our senses. What we see and taste and feel overrides analysis. The cold has reason in a deathly grip." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/uk-snow-global-warming The Gaians will never be able to sell this notion until they figure out how to get the notion to *selllll.* In the long run, everything really is about sales and profits. Harness that, you win. Otherwise not. spike From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 21 21:09:58 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:09:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality Message-ID: <000901cba153$6cbb68d0$46323a70$@att.net> My son was given a wii bowling game. Some of you may be familiar with it: a simulated bowling game in which the player holds a device instrumented with accelerometers that simulates a bowling ball, with a simulated alley and pins. Those of us who play bowling or have done so recognize that it is a poor substitute for the real thing, but one aspect of the simulated wii game caught my attention. It can be set up to simulate interesting variations on a well-worn theme. Bowling has ten pins, but what if our sim could offer us any arbitrary number? What if we could have instead of four pins along the back row, about twenty? Then the total number of pins would be 210. To set up an actual alley and maintain the same spacing as 10 pin, the alley construction would present some practical real-world show stoppers. The alley would need to be five times the width, and logically five times the length, so 25 times the floor area in high-cost super flat and level hard wood. Never mind attempting to set up a mechanized pin setter. But a good computer sim can do a convincing job of calculating what would happen if you did manage to set up such a cool arrangement. It would open wide the possibilities, such as struggling to be the first person in history to achieve a strike in 28 pin, where the back row has seven instead of the usual four pins. Or set the world record for the largest single-roll score in 55 pin, where a strike is universally considered impossible. I can imagine the sim being sophisticated enough that it takes a minute or two to calculate all the dynamics of scattering bowling pins, even with today's highly capable processors. This sets the stage for international wii bowling-variant tournaments, where no one needs to leave their own home. Imagine the fuel savings. That game would be a kick in the ass! It is getting easier now for me to imagine future entertainment, much less passive than sitting like a boiled rutabaga in front of a big silver screen, far more interactive, more people involved, less money changing hands, waaay more variation in the old familiar games. spike From anders at aleph.se Tue Dec 21 21:31:11 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:31:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> On 2010-12-21 17:36, spike wrote: > But Anders, I am so puzzled. We were assured the science was *settled* on > all this. When I looked at it, the science sure as hell didn't look settled > to me. Doesn't still now. Yup. But I think professor Steve Rayner (one of our stars over in Oxford, big name in sociology, climate and geoengineering) nailed it when he was asked about climate during a meeting with some business people. He said roughly: "The climate models are crappy. [succinct rant about their main failures] However, as decision-making aids they have been *better* than the kind of input we accept as relevant input for business decisions since the middle 90's." The fact that the politicized climate industry is going to go on raving about how settled things are is irrelevant. I find it more interesting to talk to the real climate scientists and discuss real science with them. They do have some pretty nifty forecasting methods, a lot of knowledge of different kinds of uncertainty and their individual problems, even some very cool large-scale simulation tools. Very useful for completely different domains. > Any solution to global warming must be market driven as opposed to > politically driven. It might not work, but it must sell. Local freak warm > snaps will help them sell. Cold spells will hurt sales. The critical point > is overall sales. An interesting issue is that the markets do not seem to be pricing like they expect climate to be a big problem. Either they are very shortsighted, investors are mis-investing, or they do not "believe" (as information markets) in major climate change. Either way, there is likely arbitrage to be made. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Tue Dec 21 21:37:21 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:37:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D111E11.6000300@aleph.se> On 2010-12-21 17:49, spike wrote: > ... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > Subject: Re: [ExI] Linguistic shifts > > ... > >> ...Och of course vi speak flytande Swenglish here i Sweden these dagar. > > I can translate that: "Eh, of course I speak a mixture of English and > Swedish, but here in Sweden I carry this really big knife." Ah, I can hear that you know Swedish well! > So we need to think of adapting language in such a way that automated > translation effectively translates it. A good technical paper is already > written that way: engineering terms are often universal, mathematical > equations are exactly universal. So we start by eliminating figures of > speech specific to our own cultures, and migrate towards words that have > more universal and very specific meanings. Many terms also have fixed meanings: "nonlinear" - scary. "it is generally believed that" - I think. "It is obvious that" - I'm too lazy to explain. I like the idea of developing useful subsets of languages. The problem is figuring out when you are encountering them. Philosophese often sounds like slightly stilted English, but some words are entire rabbit holes of strangeness (case in point: intentionality). Maybe we should have markers indicating when we get into a special domain. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 21 22:17:06 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:17:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <4D111E11.6000300@aleph.se> References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> <4D111E11.6000300@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4D112762.60108@satx.rr.com> On 12/21/2010 3:37 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Philosophese often > sounds like slightly stilted English Does it also sound like slightly stilted German or French? I developed the strong impression that some of the more bizarre contortions of English-language deconstruction arose from treasonous translations from French especially, not to mention French-itself-translated-from-German. I recall one hilarious episode of a seminar of pomo psychiatrists tormenting a page of Lacan, trying to work out exactly what he was so brilliantly saying about the multiple ghosts of light (or some such); finally I mentioned that he might be talking about spectra, not specters. (But since he was Lacan he probably meant both, and more, and less...) Damien Broderick From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Dec 21 22:24:29 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:24:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Biological immortality and the paleo diet In-Reply-To: <998790.52453.qm@web114413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <998790.52453.qm@web114413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 21 December 2010 14:31, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > I've just had an experience that confirms this. Been eating broadly palaeo > for a few weeks, and feeling a lot better for it, no hunger pangs, eating > meals farther apart, but recently I was in a situation where that was just > not really possible without a lot of inconvenience, and I've abruptly > reversed the gradual weight loss (gained a kilo in a week), been more hungry > and irritable and felt the need to eat more frequently than I've got used > to. And felt the irresistible call of croissants for breakfast this > morning! Now I have to go through the process of weaning myself off wheat > all over again.. Yes. Even though while I somewhat like crossants their appeal for me is far from irresistitble this reflects more or less my experience. I also think that a big psychological help for people having a harsher battle to fight against withdrawal is that when, in face to unlimited quantities of excellent meat, fish, salad of which you do not want any more for the time being, you crave a piece of bread, you can be certain that this is not any kind of healthy "hunger", it is just addiction kicking in. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Dec 21 22:26:28 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:26:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <4D111E11.6000300@aleph.se> References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> <4D111E11.6000300@aleph.se> Message-ID: <20101221172628.u1bs39by4g8ogog0@webmail.natasha.cc> Quoting Anders Sandberg : > I like the idea of developing useful subsets of languages. The problem > is figuring out when you are encountering them. Philosophese often > sounds like slightly stilted English, but some words are entire rabbit > holes of strangeness (case in point: intentionality). Maybe we should > have markers indicating when we get into a special domain. Let's talk about intentionality. [Roy Ascott, my PhD advisor (who you will meet at the upcoming neuro/media-arts conference at the University of Plymouth), once said to me to be careful about intentionality. I still don't really know what he meant. Husserl, Bretano, Dennett, etc. ... ?] I wasn't sure if Roy was criticizing my view about life extension being a result of human survival instinct, as if I was making an "aboutness" about human nature and purpose, or if he was saying criticizing my transhumanist views in reference to the mind as a construct of the brain. In your view, how would intentionality come into play in the philosophy of transhumanism and also in the domain of human enhancement / life prolongation? Natasha From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Tue Dec 21 23:32:48 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:32:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <20101221172628.u1bs39by4g8ogog0@webmail.natasha.cc> References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> <4D111E11.6000300@aleph.se> <20101221172628.u1bs39by4g8ogog0@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: Natasha wrote: >once said to me to be careful about intentionality< I'm not sure if this is how your thesis advisor meant it, but the brilliant (in my opinion) scientist and social activist Canadian David Suzuki was once talking about scientific research grants, and how the phenomenon of focussed intentionality based on predetermined objectives often required for preliminary funding can blind us to the serendipitous, which was once, and still should be, the heart and soul of scientific discovery. Scientific method aside, it is often the failure of a hypothesis in an experiment that leads to the billion dollar insights. No? I can't see anyone funding Einstein's initial insight -- that if if he were on a tram that was in turn riding a light beam away from the town clock, that at no point during his journey would the second hand ever advance a single iota. Intentionality requires an outcome, and the best ideas don't presuppose an outcome, but just deal in circumstance and let the outcome take care itself. Just a thought. I'm also a little drunk. I rarely drink but just came back from a Christmas party. So I may wake up tomorrow and regret this post. :) Darren On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:26 PM, wrote: > Quoting Anders Sandberg : > > I like the idea of developing useful subsets of languages. The problem >> is figuring out when you are encountering them. Philosophese often >> sounds like slightly stilted English, but some words are entire rabbit >> holes of strangeness (case in point: intentionality). Maybe we should >> have markers indicating when we get into a special domain. >> > > Let's talk about intentionality. [Roy Ascott, my PhD advisor (who you will > meet at the upcoming neuro/media-arts conference at the University of > Plymouth), once said to me to be careful about intentionality. I still > don't really know what he meant. Husserl, Bretano, Dennett, etc. ... ?] > > I wasn't sure if Roy was criticizing my view about life extension being a > result of human survival instinct, as if I was making an "aboutness" about > human nature and purpose, or if he was saying criticizing my transhumanist > views in reference to the mind as a construct of the brain. > > In your view, how would intentionality come into play in the philosophy of > transhumanism and also in the domain of human enhancement / life > prolongation? > > Natasha > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 21 23:33:56 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:33:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4D113964.3000609@satx.rr.com> On 12/21/2010 3:31 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > An interesting issue is that the markets do not seem to be pricing like > they expect climate to be a big problem. Either they are very > shortsighted, investors are mis-investing, or they do not "believe" (as > information markets) in major climate change. Either way, there is > likely arbitrage to be made. Barbara comments: Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 21 23:52:53 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:52:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] intentionality In-Reply-To: References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> <4D111E11.6000300@aleph.se> <20101221172628.u1bs39by4g8ogog0@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <4D113DD5.10502@satx.rr.com> On 12/21/2010 5:32 PM, Darren Greer wrote: >>once said to me to be careful about intentionality< > > I'm not sure if this is how your thesis advisor meant it, but the > brilliant (in my opinion) scientist and social activist Canadian David > Suzuki was once talking about scientific research grants, and how the > phenomenon of focussed intentionality based on predetermined objectives > often required for preliminary funding can blind us to the > serendipitous, which was once, and still should be, the heart and soul > of scientific discovery. Not really; not in a philosophical sense. Check out etc etc From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 21 23:49:26 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:49:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> Message-ID: <002901cba169$b3989370$1ac9ba50$@att.net> On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Subject: Re: [ExI] cure for global warming is working On 2010-12-21 17:36, spike wrote: >> But Anders, I am so puzzled. We were assured the science was >> *settled* on all this. When I looked at it, the science sure as hell >> didn't look settled to me. Doesn't still now. >Yup... professor Steve Rayner: "The climate models are crappy. [succinct rant about their main failures] However, as decision-making aids they have been *better* than the kind of input we accept as relevant input for business decisions since the middle 90's." Ja. The critical aspect of comparing climate models with business models is that the business investors rely on the uncertain models to risk *their own* money as opposed to someone else's. >...The fact that the politicized climate industry is going to go on raving about how settled things are is irrelevant... Ja. Anders I am thankful for you pal. Your even-handed approach to this is as refreshing as a cool breeze on a scorching summer day. {8-] >... I find it more interesting to talk to the real climate scientists and discuss real science with them... Me too. This whole field seems hopelessly mired in a morass of controversy from which extrication appears impossible. >...They do have some pretty nifty forecasting methods, a lot of knowledge of different kinds of uncertainty and their individual problems, even some very cool large-scale simulation tools. Very useful for completely different domains... If it sells, may they prosper and grow. >...An interesting issue is that the markets do not seem to be pricing like they expect climate to be a big problem... Ja. Governments seem slow to grasp this. >... Either they are very shortsighted, investors are mis-investing, or they do not "believe" (as information markets) in major climate change. Either way, there is likely arbitrage to be made. --Anders Sandberg As I see it, the question is much bigger than the mere possibility of disrupting centuries old agriculture techniques, mass starvation, collapse of civilization and the risk of rendering the planet uninhabitable by all presently-known organisms. We face a far more critical question: how much authority do we entrust to our national governments to act on this. Our consistent answer: not much, and less as in the future. spike From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 22 00:06:27 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:06:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: <4D113964.3000609@satx.rr.com> References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> <4D113964.3000609@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <003c01cba16c$14980c80$3dc82580$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Damien Broderick Subject: Re: [ExI] cure for global warming is working On 12/21/2010 3:31 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > An interesting issue is that the markets do not seem to be pricing > like they expect climate to be a big problem... Barbara comments: >...Insurance companies seem to be anticipating rises in sea level... This is interesting. Insurance companies are entering a bet. The customer is betting a bad outcome will occur, the company is betting it will not. Insurance companies can make a *ton* of money off of the perception of risk of rising sea levels, while actually betting against it. The time scale for rising sea level is not the same as the flash-in-the-pan time scale of any insurance company. They profit from playing up the risk posed by sea level change, or perhaps more accurately, they profit from merely trading on perceptions of risk already in place. Insurance companies recognize that sex sells, but death sells even better. >... quite a bit of research is being done on crops that are less sensitive to temperature extremes (especially high temps) than existing crops... Damien Broderick Ja, but I would interpret this alternatively than researchers anticipating higher peak temperatures from global warming. Rather we have vast expanses of existing dry hot land (such as Mexico and your Texas) into which agriculture can profitably expand, should we figure out how to develop crops capable of withstanding higher temperatures and longer dry spells. A more heat-tolerant strain of wheat for instance would be worth a cubic buttload of money immediately, regardless of future climate. spike From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Wed Dec 22 00:24:44 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:24:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] intentionality In-Reply-To: <4D113DD5.10502@satx.rr.com> References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> <4D111E11.6000300@aleph.se> <20101221172628.u1bs39by4g8ogog0@webmail.natasha.cc> <4D113DD5.10502@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Thanks Damien. Too wasted to check it out tonight, But will tomorrow. Why is it that the Christians, when they can't get at me any other time of year, always get me with *C**2**H**5**OH? :)* * * *D. * On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 12/21/2010 5:32 PM, Darren Greer wrote: > > once said to me to be careful about intentionality< >>> >> >> I'm not sure if this is how your thesis advisor meant it, but the >> brilliant (in my opinion) scientist and social activist Canadian David >> Suzuki was once talking about scientific research grants, and how the >> phenomenon of focussed intentionality based on predetermined objectives >> often required for preliminary funding can blind us to the >> serendipitous, which was once, and still should be, the heart and soul >> of scientific discovery. >> > > Not really; not in a philosophical sense. Check out > > > > of the word ?intentionality? should not be confused with the ordinary > meaning of the word ?intention.? As the Latin etymology of ?intentionality? > indicates, the relevant idea of directedness or tension (an English word > which derives from the Latin verb tendere) arises from pointing towards or > attending to some target. In medieval logic and philosophy, the Latin word > intentio was used for what contemporary philosophers and logicians nowadays > call a ?concept? or an ?intension?: something that can be both true of > non-mental things and properties?things and properties lying outside the > mind?and present to the mind. On the assumption that a concept is itself > something mental, an intentio may also be true of mental things. For > example, the concept of a dog, which is a first-level intentio, applies to > individual dogs or to the property of being a dog. It also falls under > various higher-level concepts that apply to it, such as being a concept, > being mental, etc. If so, then while the first-level concept is true of > non-mental things, the higher-level concepts may be true of something > mental. Notice that on this way of thinking, concepts that are true of > mental things are presumably logically more complex than concepts that are > true of non-mental things.> etc etc > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Dec 22 00:27:24 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:27:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: <002901cba169$b3989370$1ac9ba50$@att.net> References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> <002901cba169$b3989370$1ac9ba50$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:49 PM, spike wrote: > As I see it, the question is much bigger than the mere possibility of > disrupting centuries old agriculture techniques, mass starvation, collapse > of civilization and the risk of rendering the planet uninhabitable by all > presently-known organisms. ?We face a far more critical question: how much > authority do we entrust to our national governments to act on this. ?Our > consistent answer: not much, and less as in the future. > > The US government approval rating has now dropped to a record low of 17%. (Gallup). It is pretty obvious that the government is working for Wall Street, not for 'We, the people'. BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Dec 22 01:52:50 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:52:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> <4D111E11.6000300@aleph.se> <20101221172628.u1bs39by4g8ogog0@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <20101221205250.jael9ygn440cw4g4@webmail.natasha.cc> Thanks for your comemnts. Hope your evening is a lot of fun. I am still waiting for Ander's reply on this thread please! Quoting Darren Greer : > Natasha wrote: > >> once said to me to be careful about intentionality< > > I'm not sure if this is how your thesis advisor meant it, but the brilliant > (in my opinion) scientist and social activist Canadian David Suzuki was once > talking about scientific research grants, and how the phenomenon of focussed > intentionality based on predetermined objectives often required for > preliminary funding can blind us to the serendipitous, which was once, and > still should be, the heart and soul of scientific discovery. Scientific > method aside, it is often the failure of a hypothesis in an experiment that > leads to the billion dollar insights. No? I can't see anyone funding > Einstein's initial insight -- that if if he were on a tram that was in turn > riding a light beam away from the town clock, that at no point during his > journey would the second hand ever advance a single iota. Intentionality > requires an outcome, and the best ideas don't presuppose an outcome, but > just deal in circumstance and let the outcome take care itself. > > Just a thought. I'm also a little drunk. I rarely drink but just came back > from a Christmas party. So I may wake up tomorrow and regret this post. :) > > Darren > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:26 PM, wrote: > >> Quoting Anders Sandberg : >> >> I like the idea of developing useful subsets of languages. The problem >>> is figuring out when you are encountering them. Philosophese often >>> sounds like slightly stilted English, but some words are entire rabbit >>> holes of strangeness (case in point: intentionality). Maybe we should >>> have markers indicating when we get into a special domain. >>> >> >> Let's talk about intentionality. [Roy Ascott, my PhD advisor (who you will >> meet at the upcoming neuro/media-arts conference at the University of >> Plymouth), once said to me to be careful about intentionality. I still >> don't really know what he meant. Husserl, Bretano, Dennett, etc. ... ?] >> >> I wasn't sure if Roy was criticizing my view about life extension being a >> result of human survival instinct, as if I was making an "aboutness" about >> human nature and purpose, or if he was saying criticizing my transhumanist >> views in reference to the mind as a construct of the brain. >> >> In your view, how would intentionality come into play in the philosophy of >> transhumanism and also in the domain of human enhancement / life >> prolongation? >> >> Natasha >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > > -- > *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." > * > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Dec 22 03:32:59 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:32:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 5:20 PM, "spike" wrote: snip > Any solution to global warming must be market driven as opposed to > politically driven. snip The best way I see is to come up with an energy source considerably less expensive than fossil fuels. As some of you know, I have been working in this direction for a number of years. Solar is one choice, but because solar (and wind) are dilute and intermittent it takes inspired engineering and close attention to cost. The StratoSolar project has become much more complicated, requiring rotating, buoyant aerodynamic shrouds around the light pipe plus the ability to run on hydrocarbon fuels for as much as a week out of the year. Keith From eugen at leitl.org Wed Dec 22 12:47:09 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:47:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: <003601cba14b$88f77910$9ae66b30$@att.net> References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <003601cba14b$88f77910$9ae66b30$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101222124709.GQ16518@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:13:29PM -0800, spike wrote: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/uk-snow-global-warming > > The Gaians will never be able to sell this notion until they figure out how > to get the notion to *selllll.* In the long run, everything really is about > sales and profits. Harness that, you win. Otherwise not. What's nice about reality that it doesn't give a flying fuck about nice suits, speeches, and sales. It judges everybody exactly the same way. The fossil record is full of those who couldn't quite figure out that reality thing. From anders at aleph.se Wed Dec 22 13:01:01 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:01:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <20101221172628.u1bs39by4g8ogog0@webmail.natasha.cc> References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> <4D111E11.6000300@aleph.se> <20101221172628.u1bs39by4g8ogog0@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <4D11F68D.9070900@aleph.se> On 2010-12-21 23:26, natasha at natasha.cc wrote: > Quoting Anders Sandberg : > >> I like the idea of developing useful subsets of languages. The problem >> is figuring out when you are encountering them. Philosophese often >> sounds like slightly stilted English, but some words are entire rabbit >> holes of strangeness (case in point: intentionality). Maybe we should >> have markers indicating when we get into a special domain. > > Let's talk about intentionality. But will we make any heads or tails of it? Damien posted a link to the Stanford Encyclopedia entry, which is likely a good overview or at least a start... i.e. deeply confusing. Searle and the others are really trying to get at something important in our minds, something which might not exist or be different from what we normally use the term for. Not too different from how physicists are discovering just how weird matter really is when investigated closely. On the other hand, for many practical purposes we do not need the full conceptual hadron collider. When I say I intend to do something (like baking cookies later this morning) I mean something relatively straightforward in the usual social space (although my mother, knowing how I delay projects like this, would say that my intention is not so much to bake but to decide to bake...) However, the SEoP meaning is more about how my mind is representing the situation rather than whether I will actually bake or be held morally responsible for baking. (I love the SEoP, just check out the enormous and very exact essay about vagueness, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/ ) > [Roy Ascott, my PhD advisor (who you > will meet at the upcoming neuro/media-arts conference at the University > of Plymouth), once said to me to be careful about intentionality. I > still don't really know what he meant. Husserl, Bretano, Dennett, etc. > ... ?] > > I wasn't sure if Roy was criticizing my view about life extension being > a result of human survival instinct, as if I was making an "aboutness" > about human nature and purpose, or if he was saying criticizing my > transhumanist views in reference to the mind as a construct of the brain. > > In your view, how would intentionality come into play in the philosophy > of transhumanism and also in the domain of human enhancement / life > prolongation? "I intend to enhance myself" - this usually means that I have formed an image of some future state and/or process that will enhance me, and I think this is a good course of action. There are of course subtle problems here: "I": My mind is actually a collective of subsystems, not all on them on speaking terms. Some are deeply influenced by memes or projections from other people or my culture in general. My mind might have external parts (as per Sasha Chislenko and David Chalmers). My personal identity is fluid and affected both by bodily aspects (ageing, blood sugar levels, being a particular body in a particular place) as well as how I construct it (my life narrative, my philosophical views of personal identity, etc). The "I" that is intending things might not be very unitary. "intend": See above discussion - Where are my mental states? How are they grounded in this messy "I"? How did they come about? My vision of becoming better, is it based on merely projecting my current state along directions I find good, or is it something internally consistent? "enhance": the usual issues of why we think something is better than something else, but also the issue of whether this enhancement itself will affect my intentionality. If I add a tweak to my motivation system, it will both change how I run my life (and maybe who i am, as below) but also how my motivational states are represented - the tweak might involve extending my mind with external tools, which hence become part of my intentional processes or properties. "myself": not just the usual discussions about our right to enhance and whether a sufficiently enhanced self is really me, but there are also issues about our relationship to our future selves and the fact that we have messy, disjointed selves. Good reason to be careful about intentionality. Especially since it is not just a messy, technical concept that is somewhat different in philosophy from everyday usage, but that philosophers also have fundamental disagreements on what it is, how to use it and what that implies. In the case of life extension one could argue that life extension aims at extending our ability to continue our intentions, but that is the everyday meaning of the word. Going into the deep stuff will likely be enough to write a dense book... which few might be able to follow. And of course, if intentionality is too easy, there is also intensionality. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Dec 22 15:00:11 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 09:00:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <4D11F68D.9070900@aleph.se> References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se><004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> <4D111E11.6000300@aleph.se><20101221172628.u1bs39by4g8ogog0@webmail.natasha.cc> <4D11F68D.9070900@aleph.se> Message-ID: <7084F5DB06E84C38BE05F36AADE68686@DFC68LF1> Anders wrote: On 2010-12-21 23:26, natasha at natasha.cc wrote: > Quoting Anders Sandberg : > >> I like the idea of developing useful subsets of languages. The >> problem is figuring out when you are encountering them. Philosophese >> often sounds like slightly stilted English, but some words are entire >> rabbit holes of strangeness (case in point: intentionality). Maybe we >> should have markers indicating when we get into a special domain. > > Let's talk about intentionality. "But will we make any heads or tails of it? Damien posted a link to the Stanford Encyclopedia entry, which is likely a good overview or at least a start... i.e. deeply confusing." Yes, I had read that material online at the original site and it does not address the issue. I think that Darren's response to me was partially correct and Damien's response to him took it far into the matter, but not enough to find an answer to the question. "Searle and the others are really trying to get at something important in our minds, something which might not exist or be different from what we normally use the term for. Not too different from how physicists are discovering just how weird matter really is when investigated closely." >From Plato to radical constructivism. "On the other hand, for many practical purposes we do not need the full conceptual hadron collider. When I say I intend to do something (like baking cookies later this morning) I mean something relatively straightforward in the usual social space (although my mother, knowing how I delay projects like this, would say that my intention is not so much to bake but to decide to bake...) However, the SEoP meaning is more about how my mind is representing the situation rather than whether I will actually bake or be held morally responsible for baking." Or whether the baking will happen at all. I think this is what Roy Ascott was getting at. It is fun to conceptualize immortality, but in actuality it may exist in the mind's construction and not hold or have an "object" space. And, of course, if the mind is a looked at through the lens of constructivism, there is no materiality of immortality. (I love the SEoP, just check out the enormous and very exact essay about vagueness, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/ ) Yup, Best, Natasha > [Roy Ascott, my PhD advisor (who you > will meet at the upcoming neuro/media-arts conference at the University > of Plymouth), once said to me to be careful about intentionality. I > still don't really know what he meant. Husserl, Bretano, Dennett, etc. > ... ?] > > I wasn't sure if Roy was criticizing my view about life extension being > a result of human survival instinct, as if I was making an "aboutness" > about human nature and purpose, or if he was saying criticizing my > transhumanist views in reference to the mind as a construct of the brain. > > In your view, how would intentionality come into play in the philosophy > of transhumanism and also in the domain of human enhancement / life > prolongation? "I intend to enhance myself" - this usually means that I have formed an image of some future state and/or process that will enhance me, and I think this is a good course of action. There are of course subtle problems here: "I": My mind is actually a collective of subsystems, not all on them on speaking terms. Some are deeply influenced by memes or projections from other people or my culture in general. My mind might have external parts (as per Sasha Chislenko and David Chalmers). My personal identity is fluid and affected both by bodily aspects (ageing, blood sugar levels, being a particular body in a particular place) as well as how I construct it (my life narrative, my philosophical views of personal identity, etc). The "I" that is intending things might not be very unitary. "intend": See above discussion - Where are my mental states? How are they grounded in this messy "I"? How did they come about? My vision of becoming better, is it based on merely projecting my current state along directions I find good, or is it something internally consistent? "enhance": the usual issues of why we think something is better than something else, but also the issue of whether this enhancement itself will affect my intentionality. If I add a tweak to my motivation system, it will both change how I run my life (and maybe who i am, as below) but also how my motivational states are represented - the tweak might involve extending my mind with external tools, which hence become part of my intentional processes or properties. "myself": not just the usual discussions about our right to enhance and whether a sufficiently enhanced self is really me, but there are also issues about our relationship to our future selves and the fact that we have messy, disjointed selves. Good reason to be careful about intentionality. Especially since it is not just a messy, technical concept that is somewhat different in philosophy from everyday usage, but that philosophers also have fundamental disagreements on what it is, how to use it and what that implies. In the case of life extension one could argue that life extension aims at extending our ability to continue our intentions, but that is the everyday meaning of the word. Going into the deep stuff will likely be enough to write a dense book... which few might be able to follow. And of course, if intentionality is too easy, there is also intensionality. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Dec 22 17:52:01 2010 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:52:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: <003c01cba16c$14980c80$3dc82580$@att.net> References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> <4D113964.3000609@satx.rr.com> <003c01cba16c$14980c80$3dc82580$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 7:06 PM, spike wrote: > > Ja, but I would interpret this alternatively than researchers anticipating > higher peak temperatures from global warming. ?Rather we have vast expanses > of existing dry hot land (such as Mexico and your Texas) into which > agriculture can profitably expand, should we figure out how to develop crops > capable of withstanding higher temperatures and longer dry spells. ?A more > heat-tolerant strain of wheat for instance would be worth a cubic buttload > of money immediately, regardless of future climate. ### Thanks to CO2 fertilization existing plant varieties are now able to function better under dry and hot conditions which explains the shrinking of deserts observed especially in the last 30 years. Also, increased temperatures, if they were to actually occur, would not result in diminished humidity - on the contrary, there would be more precipitation, faster turnover of water in the atmosphere. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Dec 22 17:48:05 2010 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:48:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:36 AM, spike wrote: > > The problem I see once again with the current European cold snap is that > while the global climate may be warming, humans perceive weather. ### No worry spike, global climate is *not* warming - once you look at the actual data, there is no evidence of a global warming trend. There is a lot of publication bias and outright fraud (especially the GISS temperature reconstructions), some UHI effects but overall not much going on (at least in the physical reality). And most climate scientists will hem and haw when asked privately rather than honestly look you in the eye and say they know there is detectable anthropogenic carbon dioxide impact on current climate. In grant writing and publications they will of course imply the opposite, at least if they know which side their bread is buttered on. Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 22 18:23:36 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:23:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> <4D113964.3000609@satx.rr.com> <003c01cba16c$14980c80$3dc82580$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D124228.4020408@satx.rr.com> On 12/22/2010 11:48 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > And most climate > scientists will hem and haw when asked privately rather than honestly > look you in the eye and say they know there is detectable > anthropogenic carbon dioxide impact on current climate. On 12/22/2010 11:52 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### Thanks to CO2 fertilization existing plant varieties are now able > to function better under dry and hot conditions which explains the > shrinking of deserts observed especially in the last 30 years. I'm confused, Rafal. You mean the fertilization by the extra CO2 that doesn't exist? Or it does exist but can't possibly affect the climate? Damien Broderick From js_exi at gnolls.org Wed Dec 22 19:47:35 2010 From: js_exi at gnolls.org (J. Stanton) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:47:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Mechanisms of carbohydrate/sugar addiction (was Re: Paleo/primal health) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D1255D7.50402@gnolls.org> I've become convinced by my own experience, by seeing articles like Barbara's (below) and posts like Stefano's, Max's, and Ben's, and by the alarming statistic that to a first approximation, 100% of diets fail -- -- that there are addictive components to carbohydrate consumption, most particularly bread. Inspired by all of your posts, I did some research, found some surprising facts, put them together, and wrote this article: "Mechanisms of Sugar Addiction: Or, Why You're Addicted To Bread" http://www.gnolls.org/905/mechanisms-of-sugar-addiction-or-why-youre-addicted-to-bread/ I'm very interested to hear what you think. JS http://www.gnolls.org > From: Damien Broderick > > My wife Barbara Lamar is posting a series about her experiments with > paleo-like diet: > > From sparge at gmail.com Wed Dec 22 20:56:39 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:56:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mechanisms of carbohydrate/sugar addiction (was Re: Paleo/primal health) In-Reply-To: <4D1255D7.50402@gnolls.org> References: <4D1255D7.50402@gnolls.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:47 PM, J. Stanton wrote: > > Inspired by all of your posts, I did some research, found some surprising > facts, put them together, and wrote this article: > > "Mechanisms of Sugar Addiction: Or, Why You're Addicted To Bread" > > http://www.gnolls.org/905/mechanisms-of-sugar-addiction-or-why-youre-addicted-to-bread/ > > I'm very interested to hear what you think. > Overall, I like it it. It presents a strong case pretty succinctly. A couple minor quibbles: -you compare whole wheat bagels to Skittles. I don't see whole wheat bagels in the GI table, and your photo shows a plain bagel. Plain bagel means "not whole wheat". -"In other words, we are told to graze?like cattle." Grazing refers to eating grass, not chowing down on grains. I think you mean something like: "In other words, we are told to load up on grains?like cattle being fattened for slaughter." -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Dec 22 23:25:59 2010 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:25:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: <4D124228.4020408@satx.rr.com> References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> <4D113964.3000609@satx.rr.com> <003c01cba16c$14980c80$3dc82580$@att.net> <4D124228.4020408@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 12/22/2010 11:48 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> And most climate >> scientists will hem and haw when asked privately rather than honestly >> look you in the eye and say they know there is detectable >> anthropogenic carbon dioxide impact on current climate. > > On 12/22/2010 11:52 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> ### Thanks to CO2 fertilization existing plant varieties are now able >> to function better under dry and hot conditions which explains the >> shrinking of deserts observed especially in the last 30 years. > > I'm confused, Rafal. You mean the fertilization by the extra CO2 that > doesn't exist? Or it does exist but can't possibly affect the climate? ### Is there anything in what I wrote that would justify your questions? Did you get the impression that I think CO2 concentration is stable or that it is not a greenhouse gas? Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 23 00:04:13 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:04:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> <4D113964.3000609@satx.rr.com> <003c01cba16c$14980c80$3dc82580$@att.net> <4D124228.4020408@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4D1291FD.3080706@satx.rr.com> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >>> >> And most climate >>> >> scientists will hem and haw when asked privately rather than honestly >>> >> look you in the eye and say they know there is detectable >>> >> anthropogenic carbon dioxide impact on current climate. >>> >> ### Thanks to CO2 fertilization existing plant varieties are now able >>> >> to function better under dry and hot conditions which explains the >>> >> shrinking of deserts observed especially in the last 30 years. >> > I'm confused, Rafal. You mean the fertilization by the extra CO2 that >> > doesn't exist? Or it does exist but can't possibly affect the climate? > ### Is there anything in what I wrote that would justify your > questions? Obviously I thought so, or I wouldn't have asked. > Did you get the impression that I think CO2 concentration > is stable or that it is not a greenhouse gas? Yes. If not, why do climate scientists avoid your eye and hem and haw when you ask if CO2 is increasing and acting as a greenhouse gas by impacting climate? What am I missing here? Damien Broderick From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Dec 22 23:48:50 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:48:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:49 AM, spike wrote: > So we need to think of adapting language in such a way that automated > translation effectively translates it. ?A good technical paper is already > written that way: engineering terms are often universal, mathematical > equations are exactly universal. ?So we start by eliminating figures of > speech specific to our own cultures, and migrate towards words that have > more universal and very specific meanings. > Newspeak? Difficult to do either quickly or completely. These shifts will still be subject to a propagation lag so before a population has completely adopted the forced-pattern those early adopters have already shifted it and started a new wave. You see this happen with internet memes. (need help? http://knowyourmeme.com/) I think it's more likely that we'll continue to evolve local niche-languages even all the way back to tribal dialects (or the new tribe: the cube-dwelling coworkers with whom you spend most of your day OR the regulars in your social media games) We will likely still be able to communicate with the general population because our access to the internet will be through increasingly context-aware abstractions. Software abstractions (what used to be "AI"?) will translate our intent into a neutral language transparently. Anyone reading a message will probably do so through another translation into their own local idioms. If my agent needs more context to frame your ideas, it should contact your agent and build the requisite context transparently. I predict these "apps" will become capable enough to on-the-fly rewrite just about everything we consume. Those rose-colored glasses will take on any hue you like but what color you like may be a function of what color you're currently using. From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Dec 22 23:28:55 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:28:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <000901cba153$6cbb68d0$46323a70$@att.net> References: <000901cba153$6cbb68d0$46323a70$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:09 PM, spike wrote: > It is getting easier now for me to imagine future entertainment, much less > passive than sitting like a boiled rutabaga in front of a big silver screen, > far more interactive, more people involved, less money changing hands, waaay > more variation in the old familiar games. > I had an idea for a crowd controlled pong paddle where time-dependent directive of each player is summed to create the action of each paddle. If we both choose to make the left-side paddle move "up" (and there are no erroneous counter-controls or griefers) then we get a swift response to our collective goal. Otherwise the amount of negative influence puts drag or some other sense of restraint against immediate satisfaction. I imagine most would be enjoy the opportunity to positively defend their side and grief their opponent. As you mentioned, there is no reason why the game must be only 2 paddles in a rectangle - the number of paddles could be a function of the number of players and the room/board could be any N-gon [N > 2] I started with pong because the game itself is classically simplistic and would present a basic learning space for the crowd controlled interface - but that would revolutionize all those old Atari games once people collectively got the hang of it. Space Invaders comes to mind as an obvious next choice. (getting 10,000 people to fire that last leading-the-invader shot could be interesting) btw, if there are any iPhone/Flash/etc. developers reading this who decide to build it, please send me an email so I can get skilled earlier rather than later. :) From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 23 02:55:01 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:55:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> Message-ID: <002001cba24c$cb5ff9b0$621fed10$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty Subject: Re: [ExI] Linguistic shifts On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:49 AM, spike wrote: > So we need to think of adapting language in such a way that automated > translation effectively translates it... > Newspeak? Difficult to do either quickly or completely. These shifts will still be subject to a propagation lag so before a population has completely adopted the forced-pattern those early adopters have already shifted it and started a new wave. You see this happen with internet memes. (need help? http://knowyourmeme.com/)... Mike Mike consider this game: take a sentence or comment, use Babelfish to translate to German, then German to French, then French to English: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Wir die Leute der Vereinigten Staaten, zwecks einen vollkommeneren Anschluss zu bilden, stellen Gerechtigkeit her, versichern inl?ndische Ruhe, stellen f?r die allgemeine Verteidigung zur Verf?gung, f?rdern die allgemeine Wohlfahrt und befestigen den Segen der Freiheit an uns selbst und unsere Nachwelt, ordinieren und stellen diese Konstitution f?r die Staaten von Amerika her. Nous les personnes des Etats-Unis former pour un raccordement plus parfait, fabriquons la justice, assurons un repos national, mettons ? la disposition pour la d?fense g?n?rale, encourageons la prosp?rit? g?n?rale et attachons la pri?re de la libert? ? nous-m?mes et notre post?rit?, ordinieren et fabriquons cette constitution pour les ?tats d'Am?rique. We them people of the United States to form for a more perfect connection, manufacture justice, ensure a national rest, place at the disposal for general defense, encourage general prosperity and attach the prayer of freedom to ourselves and our posterity, ordinieren and manufacture this constitution for the States d' America. That kinda works. I like that We them people bit. Sounds a bit red-neck. Manufacture justice sounds like a lawsuit my parents were in recently, where the judge attempted to manufacture justice. Let see what happens when we go with the same passage, English to French to German to English: If it populates us from the United States to form over a more perfect combination sets up the law, plans the common defense, favours the general well-being issue and specifies the Benediktionen of the freedom ensures the house peace on us, and our descendants instruct and place this condition for the United States d' up; America. Notice it doesn't work nearly as well in this direction. One can pretty much tell what old Jefferson is talking about in the E->G->F->E loop, but the E->F->G->E direction is definitely up fucked. spike From js_exi at gnolls.org Thu Dec 23 07:27:06 2010 From: js_exi at gnolls.org (J. Stanton) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:27:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Crowd Pong (was: simulation as an improvement over reality) Message-ID: <4D12F9CA.70906@gnolls.org> Mike Dougherty wrote: > I had an idea for a crowd controlled pong paddle where time-dependent > directive of each player is summed to create the action of each > paddle. If we both choose to make the left-side paddle move "up" (and > there are no erroneous counter-controls or griefers) then we get a > swift response to our collective goal. Otherwise the amount of > negative influence puts drag or some other sense of restraint against > immediate satisfaction. I imagine most would be enjoy the opportunity > to positively defend their side and grief their opponent. As you > mentioned, there is no reason why the game must be only 2 paddles in a > rectangle - the number of paddles could be a function of the number of > players and the room/board could be any N-gon [N > 2] Reality has beat you there by almost 20 years. Someone at Lucasarts (I think Loren Carpenter) did this at Siggraph 1991, with each side of the theater audience controlling a paddle. http://stage.itp.nyu.edu/history/timeline/cinematrix.html From painlord2k at libero.it Thu Dec 23 08:17:04 2010 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:17:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: <003601cba14b$88f77910$9ae66b30$@att.net> References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <003601cba14b$88f77910$9ae66b30$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D130580.4040804@libero.it> Il 21/12/2010 21.13, spike ha scritto: >> ...The problem I see once again with the current European cold snap is that > while the global climate may be warming, humans perceive weather...spike > On this, George Monbiot and I agree: > "The cold has reason in a deathly grip." Reality have Reason in its cold grip. -- Leggimi su Extropolitica Blog Leggimi su Estropico Blog *Mirco Romanato* ----- Nessun virus nel messaggio. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 10.0.1170 / Database dei virus: 1435/3331 - Data di rilascio: 22/12/2010 From atymes at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 09:04:08 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 01:04:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <000901cba153$6cbb68d0$46323a70$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > I had an idea for a crowd controlled pong paddle where time-dependent > directive of each player is summed to create the action of each > paddle. ?If we both choose to make the left-side paddle move "up" (and > there are no erroneous counter-controls or griefers) then we get a > swift response to our collective goal. ?Otherwise the amount of > negative influence puts drag or some other sense of restraint against > immediate satisfaction. > btw, if there are any iPhone/Flash/etc. developers reading this who > decide to build it, please send me an email so I can get skilled > earlier rather than later. ?:) As someone who's written and tested games, I can tell you that wouldn't be as awesome as that sounds. In the case of Pong, either there is a paddle in position to intercept or there is not. A crowd-controlled paddle would rarely be in a given, small range of position, if there is little time to get it into that position and any question about what that position is, even ignoring deliberate griefing. (In crowd control, assume that most people will be newbies - at least to the crowd-controlled version, regardless of any experience they have with the single player version, which they won't put to good use. Barring a massively popular game that over a billion people - by today's population - have at least heard of, you'll usually be right.) The resulting inability to play well, with no apparent way to improve (because any loss is "obviously" everybody else's fault), would discourage most people from playing more than a few times. From bbenzai at yahoo.com Thu Dec 23 11:56:56 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 03:56:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> "spike" wrote: > > This sets the stage for international wii bowling-variant > tournaments, where > no one needs to leave their own home.? Imagine the > fuel savings.? That game > would be a kick in the ass! > > It is getting easier now for me to imagine future > entertainment, much less > passive than sitting like a boiled rutabaga in front of a > big silver screen, > far more interactive, more people involved, less money > changing hands, waaay > more variation in the old familiar games. And this is precisely why I shake my head sadly at the people who insist that life as an upload would be *less* rather than *more* interesting, full of opportunities, capabilities, possibilities... With our current impoverished imaginations, we can only just scratch the surface of what would be possible. Ben Zaiboc From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 11:48:06 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 05:48:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Crowd Pong (was: simulation as an improvement over reality) In-Reply-To: <4D12F9CA.70906@gnolls.org> References: <4D12F9CA.70906@gnolls.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 1:27 AM, J. Stanton wrote: > Reality has beat you there by almost 20 years. Someone at Lucasarts (I > think Loren Carpenter) did this at Siggraph 1991, with each side of the > theater audience controlling a paddle. > http://stage.itp.nyu.edu/history/timeline/cinematrix.html My early morning haze had me thinking of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VczbbiRmDik - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 23 13:26:59 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:26:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 03:56:56AM -0800, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > And this is precisely why I shake my head sadly at the people who insist that life as an upload would be *less* rather than *more* interesting, full of opportunities, capabilities, possibilities... > > With our current impoverished imaginations, we can > only just scratch the surface of what would be possible. My limited imagination has absolutely no problems realizing that the result will be incomprehensible and remain incomprehensible to anyone trapped in slowtime outside, like a fly in amber. From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 13:39:43 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 13:39:43 +0000 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: My limited imagination has absolutely no problems > realizing that the result will be incomprehensible and > remain incomprehensible to anyone trapped in slowtime > outside, like a fly in amber. > To the flies trapped in amber it will probably look like suicide. The upload will blink into life and within a few seconds of real time blink out again. Even though they may have lived a thousand lifetimes in those few seconds, that cannot be communicated to those left on the outside. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 23 14:20:02 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:20:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101223142001.GQ16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 01:39:43PM +0000, BillK wrote: > To the flies trapped in amber it will probably look like suicide. I don't know how exactly it will look to the frozen people, but I hope they survive it. Good luck. They're probably going to need it. > The upload will blink into life and within a few seconds of real time > blink out again. While there will be ephemeral species, others could outlast the Sun. > Even though they may have lived a thousand lifetimes in those few Maximum speedup is probably 10^9, so a second is worth only about 30 years. With 10^6 a second is about two weeks. I don't know that the substrate doubling rate is, but it would be probably in hours to days rather than minutes. > seconds, that cannot be communicated to those left on the outside. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 14:49:45 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:49:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/12/15 Omar Rahman > "Do we have any way to confirm any of it?" Is that a serious question?How about investigative journalism and civil/criminal inquiries? In any event, the authenticity only has to be proved when it is formally denied by the individuals concerned ("A part of the document was added, another part was removed, such a document on that date and with those recipients never existed in the first place"). "No comment", let alone a "no comment" issued by a third party, let alone "it is really, really bad to disclose my secrets" does not really qualify. Actually, the latter statement might even be construed as an implicit admissions (fabrications may be criticised under other aspects but do not betray any confidentiality whatsoever). Moreover, for the leaks to be technically "true" it is sufficient (and indeed scandalous enough) that what has been uploaded is an actual copy of the relevant document. The fact that its author was telling the factual truth is not required. Rather, the suggestion that in one instance or another he or she may not be opens a whole set of additional, perhaps even more embarassing, questions. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 15:14:05 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:14:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] a good day for liberty In-Reply-To: <000a01cb9f07$ea901650$bfb042f0$@att.net> References: <002401cb9b4c$90a3e130$b1eba390$@att.net> <003101cb9ef4$d33277e0$799767a0$@att.net> <000a01cb9f07$ea901650$bfb042f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 19 December 2010 00:04, spike wrote: >>>>Why, was the American Revolution done legally? ;-) Stefano Vaj >>Check with King George on that. ?Washington and his gang were terrorists. > Best, Jeff Davis > > Ja, but they were *good* terrorists. This reflects a curious American attitude towards such issues. My impression is that in Europe, out of historical experience perhaps, we are readier to accept that the very definition of "terrorism" depends on the side of it we find ourselves, and in more general terms on whether the terrorists are ultimately successful or not, the successful kind being more usually remembered as "patriots", "revolutionaries", "insurgents", "fighters for freedom", etc. In any event, I suspect that it is practically unavoidable that a revolution be in breach of the pre-existing legal framework. Even when no or very little violence is involved (something which is obviously not the case of the American Revolution). -- Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 23 17:28:37 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:28:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <000001cba01b$02a7bea0$07f73be0$@att.net> References: <005f01cb9c7a$7c22a6e0$7467f4a0$@att.net> <000001cba01b$02a7bea0$07f73be0$@att.net> Message-ID: <003501cba2c6$d5a9cb10$80fd6130$@att.net> Insight-inducing Wikileaks article in the Guardian today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileaks-afghani stan "Well, anything might happen but nothing has happened. And we are not about to leave the field of doing good simply because harm might happen . In our four-year publishing history no one has ever come to physical harm that we are aware of or that anyone has alleged. On the other hand, we have changed governments and constitutions and had tremendous positive outcomes." Julian Assange. In reference to Wikileaks exposing massive corruption in the Kenyan government: "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak." Julian Assange These are not necessarily contradictory statements. When he says "no one" he doesn't actually specify to what "one" refers. We ordinarily think it means humans, but perhaps he meant not a single aardvark was harmed, not one platypus or walrus displaced. Or if the slain and displaced Kenyans were all corrupt bureaucrats, then they are not human, so they don't count, or they had it coming. Or if a person saved or benefitted counts as a negative person harmed, then one's score could be positive overall, analogous to a job saved or created is a negative job lost. If I have any complaint about the article, it tries to reduce the work of Wikileaks down to a single number, positive or negative, when the question is far more complicated and nuanced. Increased transparency both benefits and harms both good and bad people. Julian's comment that no one has ever come to physical harm from Wikileaks is absurd. But I will buy the notion that plenty have benefitted. I even buy the notion that the overall impact has been beneficial. So if some transparency is an overall positive, then more of it is still better, ja? There is no clear end to that line of reasoning, no point where still more transparency becomes cumulatively harmful. Or does it work like a transparency Laffer curve, where there is somewhere an ideal level of transparency? If so, we could have info-liberals who favor more transparency than we have now, and info-conservatives, who favor less, and info-libertarians who think all information wants to be free, and info totalitarians who think Wikileaks and the whole internet thing should be regulated or shut down, and info-hypocrites who want the other guy exposed while keeping her own secrets, and info-(?) who hide among a jungle of false information or intentionally create doubts about the veracity of their own history. What would that be called? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 23 17:52:35 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:52:35 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <003501cba2c6$d5a9cb10$80fd6130$@att.net> References: <005f01cb9c7a$7c22a6e0$7467f4a0$@att.net> <000001cba01b$02a7bea0$07f73be0$@att.net> <003501cba2c6$d5a9cb10$80fd6130$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101223175235.GU16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 09:28:37AM -0800, spike wrote: > Insight-inducing Wikileaks article in the Guardian today: I don't see why we keep discussing this tired thing in here, but I'm game: http://www.webstock.org.nz/blog/2010/the-blast-shack/ (and, no, I don't at all agree with that one). > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileaks-afghani > stan -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 23 17:45:16 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:45:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004901cba2c9$2932c370$7b984a50$@att.net> > On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc Subject: Re: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality "spike" wrote: >> >... >And this is precisely why I shake my head sadly at the people who insist that life as an upload would be *less* rather than *more* interesting, full of opportunities, capabilities, possibilities... >With our current impoverished imaginations, we can only just scratch the surface of what would be possible. Ben Zaiboc I agree Ben. There are plenty of interesting discoveries that have been made by first writing a simulation and toying with that. Thirty years ago I took flying lessons in a Cessna. Fifteen years ago, I spent some time with a good PC based flight simulator. I learned waaaay more about how an airplane handles using that simulator, way more. In a real plane you can't risk the plane or yourself, can't take chances and push envelopes, can't shoot down Nazis, none of that. Ten years ago when I got a chance to fly a Pitts Special stunt plane, I was good at it first time I tried it, already had all the intuitions in place, all from flying a PC sim, not a Cessna. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From atymes at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 18:59:29 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:59:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 5:39 AM, BillK wrote: > To the flies trapped in amber it will probably look like suicide. > > The upload will blink into life and within a few seconds of real time > blink out again. Why so? Why ever seek an end? Unless you mean, blinking out of what the outside can perceive. > Even though they may have lived a thousand lifetimes in those few > seconds, that cannot be communicated to those left on the outside. Sure it can. Spit out output that might take the outside a thousand years to read in its entirety - but the outside can immediately grasp that there is output. I recall a sci-fi story where intelligent life was discovered on a neutron star. A crew of human explorers decided to try beaming down knowledge of human civilization. The neutron star life forms lived so fast, they decrypted this during the transmission, and bootstrapped themselves to beyond human levels before the transmission was complete. Then they decided to reverse the process: writing information into the ship's computer, and when that was not enough, on convenient moons. It was mentioned that humanity would need a long time to fully understand the information that had been given - but the explorers immediately knew that something had been given back. From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 23 19:26:06 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 11:26:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes ... >...I recall a sci-fi story where intelligent life was discovered on a neutron star... Hi Adrian, the neutron star part sounds like a flaw in an otherwise cool premise. I need to check the calculations on this, but I think it is impossible for anything other than neutrons to exist on a neutron star long term. Perhaps if it is small enough one could have protons and electrons coexisting with a neutron core for a while, but I think I recall the interface between the neutronium and the ordinary compressed matter catalyzes the reaction that presses the ordinary matter into neutrons, sending blasts of neutrinos and gammas everywhere in a short but violent contraction. Again I could be remembering this incorrectly, but considering how a neutron star comes into existence in the first place, any possible lifeforms would need to come down from somewhere else. Landing on a neutron star would likely be a rough landing indeed, even if the life could think of any good reason why it would be a good idea to go down to the surface of a neutron star. {8^D Otherwise it sounds like an interesting story. spike From atymes at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 20:04:39 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 12:04:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:26 AM, spike wrote: > ... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > ... >>...I recall a sci-fi story where intelligent life was discovered on a > neutron star... > > Hi Adrian, the neutron star part sounds like a flaw in an otherwise cool > premise. ?I need to check the calculations on this, but I think it is > impossible for anything other than neutrons to exist on a neutron star long > term. I could be wrong about the type of star. I mainly remember that it was fast-lived, fast-generation life forms that evolved to live on a certain type of star. From atymes at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 20:31:29 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 12:31:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <002001cba24c$cb5ff9b0$621fed10$@att.net> References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> <002001cba24c$cb5ff9b0$621fed10$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 6:55 PM, spike wrote: > the United States d' up; America. I have long wondered why it is so common in automated translations, that a common word (such as "of") can be translated one way, but that translation is missing from the reverse. (Granted, in this case it was a loop translation, but that's a common enough word that its equivalent should have been in all six of E->F, F->E, E->G, G->E, F->G, and G->F.) From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 23 20:34:32 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:34:32 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D13B258.1020103@satx.rr.com> On 12/23/2010 1:26 PM, spike wrote: >> >...I recall a sci-fi story where intelligent life was discovered on a > neutron star... > > Hi Adrian, the neutron star part sounds like a flaw in an otherwise cool > premise. I need to check the calculations on this, but I think it is > impossible for anything other than neutrons to exist on a neutron star long > term. This could be Stephen Baxter's FLUX (which I haven't read). Baxter knows a thing or two about science. Damien Broderick From atymes at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 20:56:21 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 12:56:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <4D13B258.1020103@satx.rr.com> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <4D13B258.1020103@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: >>> >...I recall a sci-fi story where intelligent life was discovered on a >> neutron star... > > This could be Stephen Baxter's FLUX (which I haven't read). Baxter knows a > thing or two about science. No - it was Dragon's Egg and Starquake, by Robert Forward, and it did indeed involve a neutron star. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Egg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starquake_%28book%29 From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 22:20:37 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 22:20:37 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: References: <619903.87600.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4D10902E.6040509@aleph.se> <004d01cba12f$0b1a7810$214f6830$@att.net> <002001cba24c$cb5ff9b0$621fed10$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > I have long wondered why it is so common in automated translations, > that a common word (such as "of") can be translated one way, but > that translation is missing from the reverse. ?(Granted, in this case it > was a loop translation, but that's a common enough word that its > equivalent should have been in all six of E->F, F->E, E->G, G->E, > F->G, and G->F.) > I think it is because some languages structure sentences in a different word order to English. The old joke about the UN translators -- When the French representative started speaking, the translators all followed immediately, jabbering away in their own languages. When the German representative started speaking a deathly hush fell over the translators for long minutes. They were waiting for the verb to appear. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 22:33:38 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 22:33:38 +0000 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Why so? ?Why ever seek an end? ?Unless you mean, blinking out > of what the outside can perceive. > > Sure it can. ?Spit out output that might take the outside a thousand > years to read in its entirety - but the outside can immediately grasp > that there is output. > > Think about it. You have uploads living at a speed many many times faster than humans. So much so that every lifetime (virtual 100 years) if the uploaded mind bothers to look out at the real world, the human standing there hasn't moved. You can't communicate with a statue. So you go your own way and leave the statues alone. The uploads are manipulating a virtual reality (of some form). The wait to manipulate the real world would be too long. So in their virtual world they can do whatever takes their fancy. Fight dragons, explore designed worlds, talk to invented aliens, etc. After a thousand lifetimes, who knows what they will be like or what they will be interested in. My speculation was that after a thousand lifetimes they might run out of interesting things to do and just switch off. If they did, then that would appear to happen very quickly to the statues outside. BillK From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 23 22:39:00 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:39:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> Message-ID: <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:26 AM, spike wrote: > ... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > ... >>>...I recall a sci-fi story where intelligent life was discovered on a neutron star... > >> Hi Adrian, the neutron star part sounds like a flaw in an otherwise cool premise... >I could be wrong about the type of star. I mainly remember that it was fast-lived, fast-generation life forms that evolved to live on a certain type of star. Oh OK cool. One could have lifeforms on a post main-sequence cooling star, extracting high entropy energy off the warm surface and radiating even higher entropy energy into the cold cosmos. That lifeform postdates even theoretical MBrains, and could even be thought of as the inevitable endgame of every MBrain. As the star cools, the MBrain nodes crowd in ever closer to the energy source, like cosmic campers crowding closer to the dying embers of a stellar campfire on a sparkling and frosty late evening. The nodes would perhaps eventually realize they must give up their orbitty ways, settle on down to the surface and take on a new phase of life. One can have a low mass star which eventually goes thru all the stages of the main sequence, eventually forming iron at its core. The iron core grows as the star continues to cool and shrink. Once iron is formed, if the star is too small to form neutronium, there are no more possible nuclear reactions, since that is the element at the very bottom of the energy well: iron is completely stable nuclearly. Yes I know nuclearly isn't a legitimate word, but I like it anyway. So eventually all the smaller stars form an iron ball with concentric shells of lighter stuff, carbon, silicon, then oxygen and hydrogen, forever radiating less and less, forever cooling into deep eternity until heat death of the universe. Adrian thanks man, that was is very insightful. It never occurred to me there was a stage of life that is post-MBrain. What could we call it? A crust brain? Is astronomy cool or what? {8^D spike From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 23 22:55:10 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:55:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <4D13B258.1020103@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <006b01cba2f4$73e6da20$5bb48e60$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: >>> >...I recall a sci-fi story where intelligent life was discovered on >>> >a neutron star... > >> This could be Stephen Baxter's FLUX (which I haven't read). Baxter >> knows a thing or two about science. >No - it was Dragon's Egg and Starquake, by Robert Forward, and it did indeed involve a neutron star. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Egg >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starquake_%28book%29 Ah OK, now I get it. As it turns out I was privileged to meet Dr. Forward at a conference. Interesting character, very flamboyant, dresses funny (ascots), lots of interesting ideas. He used to be a Lockheed guy a long time ago, was in our "Big Ideas" group. He wrote a book proposing an earthbound zero-gravity chamber by creating a lump of neutronium and making a hole below it where the gravity from the superdense ball of neutronium would exactly counteract gravity. I did the calcs (about 25 yrs ago) which convinced me a ball of neutronium that size wouldn't be stable on earth. Any ball of neutrons large enough to hold itself together against neutron decay would continue to form more neutronium on its surface until the earth became a really hot 300 meter diameter ball of neutronium. The transition would be something like what happened to Jupiter in AC Clarke's second Odyssey 2010. Robert Forward is a super smart guy but I think he missed on this one. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 23:17:44 2010 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:17:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: <4D1291FD.3080706@satx.rr.com> References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> <4D113964.3000609@satx.rr.com> <003c01cba16c$14980c80$3dc82580$@att.net> <4D124228.4020408@satx.rr.com> <4D1291FD.3080706@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >>>> >> ?And most climate >>>> >> ?scientists will hem and haw when asked privately rather than >>>> >> honestly >>>> >> ?look you in the eye and say they know there is detectable >>>> >> ?anthropogenic carbon dioxide impact on current climate. > >>>> >> ?### Thanks to CO2 fertilization existing plant varieties are now >>>> >> able >>>> >> ?to function better under dry and hot conditions which explains the >>>> >> ?shrinking of deserts observed especially in the last 30 years. > >>> > ?I'm confused, Rafal. You mean the fertilization by the extra CO2 that >>> > ?doesn't exist? Or it does exist but can't possibly affect the climate? > >> ### Is there anything in what I wrote that would justify your >> questions? > > Obviously I thought so, or I wouldn't have asked. > >> Did you get the impression that I think CO2 concentration >> is stable or that it is not a greenhouse gas? > > Yes. If not, why do climate scientists avoid your eye and hem and haw when > you ask if CO2 is increasing and acting as a greenhouse gas by impacting > climate? ### I tend to be very precise in my statements on this subject but I notice people project a whole host of assumptions and new meanings into what they read. See what I wrote previously: "And most climate scientists will hem and haw when asked privately rather than honestly look you in the eye and say they know there is detectable anthropogenic carbon dioxide impact on current climate." Notice that I there is absolutely no claim, even an implication, that CO2 is stable (And in a post just a few minutes later I mention it did go up, so why ask?). Notice the qualifiers "detectable", "anthropogenic", and "current" in reference to the effect of CO2 on climate. Of course I know that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" (i.e. it absorbs some frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, transforming its energy into heat and thus generating a positive temperature forcing). No, you won't find anything directly to the contrary in what I wrote. As a side note, I know that in the geological past and also on other planets, large amounts of CO2 definitely did or do have a major impact on temperatures. The issue I specifically restrict myself to is whether the CO2 forcing from known change in CO2 levels in the last 100 years had a detectable and precisely known (as opposed to merely hypothesized about) effect on climate. I actually did talk to a couple of junior climate scientists and well, yes, they were hemming and hawing about that specific issue, once they noticed I wasn't as ignorant as 99% of laypersons they meet (the 99% includes most believers and many of the skeptics). The fact is that a forcing by itself, although it can be somewhat reasonably calculated from first principles, is completely insufficient to calculate a delta T caused by the forcing - you also need a feedback coefficient, or rather a whole matrix of coefficients, that are currently unknown. Anybody who claims otherwise is either a fool or a crook, and most climate scientists are neither, so in private if properly questioned they will admit there is no scientific basis for the global warming/climate change scare. Just to make myself technically clear - a forcing is measured in W/m2 (usually, at least for radiative forcings e.g. from the sun), and describes the extra heat energy delivered to an object due to a change of a physical factor in the system. If you deliver 1 W/m2 to the bottom of an atmosphere made of pure CO2 it will have a different effect on equilibrium temperature than the same forcing delivered to an atmosphere made of H2 or other gases, or delivered to a surface exposed to vacuum. Just imagine the temperature of a glass house versus a rammed earth house heated with the same furnace. A lot of factors - composition of atmosphere, albedo of surface, atmospheric pressure, composition of incident radiation, will modify the feedback between the forcing and the eventual delta T. We do not know the majority of the quantitative coefficients relevant to our atmosphere and CO2 - and that is not even talking about secondary effects (change in e.g. H20 concentration caused directly by delta T from forcing) and tertiary effects (change in surface albedo caused by a combination of H20, delta T and CO2 effect on plant growth). The nonlinear equations governing the relationships between these quantities are both indispensable for prediction of delta T and almost completely unknown. As a result, the actual CO2-delta T feedback could range from negative (i.e. CO2 causes cooling) to various positive values. Yes, the uncertainty is so extreme that even a mild cooling effect of CO2 under present conditions cannot be excluded, not even looking at paleoclimatological data. The only thing we know is that the feedback cannot be very high, since there is very poor correlation between recent CO2 change and recent global temperatures - the feedback is manifestly small enough that the effect is swamped by other factors, such as changes in albedo due to aerosols, or cyclic processes in the atmosphere. To summarize, you can't make assumptions about my statements based on a template of what you may think that a warming skeptic is supposed to believe in. Rafal From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 23:40:45 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:40:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Crowd Pong (was: simulation as an improvement over reality) In-Reply-To: <4D12F9CA.70906@gnolls.org> References: <4D12F9CA.70906@gnolls.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:27 AM, J. Stanton wrote: > Mike Dougherty wrote: >> immediate satisfaction. ?I imagine most would be enjoy the opportunity >> to positively defend their side and grief their opponent. ?As you >> mentioned, there is no reason why the game must be only 2 paddles in a >> rectangle - the number of paddles could be a function of the number of >> players and the room/board could be any N-gon [N > 2] > > Reality has beat you there by almost 20 years. ?Someone at Lucasarts (I > think Loren Carpenter) did this at Siggraph 1991, with each side of the > theater audience controlling a paddle. > http://stage.itp.nyu.edu/history/timeline/cinematrix.html awesome. There is still the opportunity to leverage the internet to network the players - a flashmob in a theatre is one kind of experience, a mob in a geographically distributed network using Flash is another. Also, the ability to change the rules quickly is not easily facilitated with the 20 year old technology you linked to. I don't consider that anyone "beat me" to this idea. It's encouraging that someone was more motivated than I and actually took steps to realize even an old-school version of it. I'd like to be spending my time implementing coolness, but I need my 50+ hour a week job just to keep what I have. :( From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Dec 23 23:58:48 2010 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:58:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: <4D130580.4040804@libero.it> References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <003601cba14b$88f77910$9ae66b30$@att.net> <4D130580.4040804@libero.it> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 3:17 AM, Mirco Romanato wrote: > Il 21/12/2010 21.13, spike ha scritto: > >>> ...The problem I see once again with the current European cold snap is that >> while the global climate may be warming, humans perceive weather...spike > >> On this, George Monbiot and I agree: >> "The cold has reason in a deathly grip." > > Reality have Reason in its cold grip. ### Reason means coolly coming to grips with reality (rather than expelling hot air in heated signaling contests). Rafal From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 00:01:08 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:01:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <000901cba153$6cbb68d0$46323a70$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > As someone who's written and tested games, I can tell you that wouldn't > be as awesome as that sounds. > > In the case of Pong, either there is a paddle in position to intercept or > there is not. ?A crowd-controlled paddle would rarely be in a given, small > range of position, if there is little time to get it into that position and any > question about what that position is, even ignoring deliberate griefing. As someone who's played and complained about games, I can agree with you. I think the original point was spike's suggestion that gaming will be the only real frontier after our physical world is well-in-hand. I was trying to suggest (by simple analogy to first-video game principles) that crowd-cooperative gaming would begin to approximate a literal hive-mind. Obviously the payoff from Pong is insufficient to drive the requisite brain chemistry for very long. I'm not really sure what keeps millions of Facebook users clicking on [pet|farm|etc]-ville games. My guess is that the herd mentality can be understood and exploited in a way that both the players and played both enjoy. If my Pong example was too basic, then suggest an environment/design where the gaming concept I was describing could work. Else perhaps I failed to convey my point at all. From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 00:46:11 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:46:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Climate change as a false problem Message-ID: To the extent climate change is affected by CO2, it is not the most significant issue, not by a long shot. The real problem is energy. Long term energy solutions have to be carbon neutral simply because there is a limited amount of fossil fuels. If we don't solve the energy problem, the most likely effect will be a substantial drop in the population of the earth due to the usual, wars, famines, etc. Fortunately there seem to be at least two ways to solve energy problems. Unfortunately neither one of them is getting much attention. Keith From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 04:55:02 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:55:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > I'm not really sure what keeps millions of Facebook users clicking on > [pet|farm|etc]-ville games. My guess is that the herd mentality can > be understood and exploited in a way that both the players and played > both enjoy. Well, one thing: in those games, the individual performance is immediately presented to the user based on the user's individual actions. If there is a hive effect at all, it is secondary, and does not interfere with this. In your Pong example, the collective effort is the only thing presented to each individual user. A better example might come from Team Fortress 2. The primary scoring mechanic is killing enemies and capturing control points - but there is are two player classes, Medic and Engineer, which rarely if ever do these directly. Instead, they are intended to heal and support others who do these things. How, then, do they score? They are rewarded when those they are presently supporting, score - and this feedback is directly given to said supporter. If those others do a poor job, the Medic or Engineer can simply choose to support someone (Medic) or something (Engineer) else instead. (To those who have played TF2 and are confused by my analogy, think of an Engineer's turret guns as things outside the Engineer proper, which the Engineer can heal like the Medic heals other players directly. Spies certainly think of turrets this way.) On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:33 PM, BillK wrote: > My speculation was that after a thousand lifetimes they might run out > of interesting things to do and just switch off. I don't see any basis for this speculation. It has been well demonstrated that, in our present human lives, anyone who is bored but has a keen enough mind can always find new things to ponder, new topics to explore, new fields to study and learn. History records that it has been this way since at least the days of the ancient Greeks, and the sum total knowledge available to mankind has only increased exponentially. One single being with a vastly accelerated lifespan might learn all that is presently known in a thousand lifetimes (though even that might not be enough) - but a community of them would likely come up with new things to keep pace with their lives, just as humans do today. Further, most of the major industries today did not exist when the oldest today were born, and that trend appears to be accelerating. It has been widely documented that a college student today has a good chance of working, 10 years hence, in a field that does not today exist - higher odds if they are in any sort of technical major. From pharos at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 10:26:11 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:26:11 +0000 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > I don't see any basis for this speculation. ?It has been well demonstrated > that, in our present human lives, anyone who is bored but has a keen > enough mind can always find new things to ponder, new topics to > explore, new fields to study and learn. ?History records that it has been > this way since at least the days of the ancient Greeks, and the sum > total knowledge available to mankind has only increased exponentially. > One single being with a vastly accelerated lifespan might learn all that is > presently known in a thousand lifetimes (though even that might not be > enough) - but a community of them would likely come up with new things > to keep pace with their lives, just as humans do today. > > But not the same humans. Every generation the torch is passed on to the next batch of 20 year olds to do all the exciting new stuff that the over 40s can't be bothered with. (For many reasons). I don't see how an entity that lives over 1000 years can be expected to behave like a 25 year old puppy, leaping around excitedly at every 'new' (to them) thing encountered. People don't stay the same as they age. And a 1000 year old definitely won't think the same as a 25 year old. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 24 11:23:15 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:23:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101224112315.GF16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:33:38PM +0000, BillK wrote: > Think about it. > You have uploads living at a speed many many times faster than humans. > So much so that every lifetime (virtual 100 years) if the uploaded Presumably, the lifetimes for each species will follow a power law. > mind bothers to look out at the real world, the human standing there > hasn't moved. You can't communicate with a statue. > So you go your own way and leave the statues alone. No, you most assuredly don't leave them alone. You're building at maximum speed the physical layer allows you. This is very slow by your standards, but very fast by outside standards. You're sharing the same physical layer. If it doesn't sound ominous, it should. > The uploads are manipulating a virtual reality (of some form). The You're manipulating a virtual reality (of some form). It's the model your brain builds of the environment. > wait to manipulate the real world would be too long. So in their Yeah, and we never left Africa. I mean, we're still roaming the savannas. > virtual world they can do whatever takes their fancy. Fight dragons, > explore designed worlds, talk to invented aliens, etc. After a Everyone seems to think everybody will be so very smart. Diversity works in all directions. > thousand lifetimes, who knows what they will be like or what they will > be interested in. > > My speculation was that after a thousand lifetimes they might run out > of interesting things to do and just switch off. If they did, then Right, every single species on Earth eventually commits suicide. Of terminal boredom. Happens everywhere, happens all the time. > that would appear to happen very quickly to the statues outside. They're dead, Jim. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 24 11:26:44 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:26:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:39:00PM -0800, spike wrote: > Adrian thanks man, that was is very insightful. It never occurred to me > there was a stage of life that is post-MBrain. What could we call it? A > crust brain? Spike, we *did* discuss strange matter life way back, including possibility of life near Planck scale. It seems our collective list memory has got a case of Alzheimer's... -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 24 13:30:16 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:30:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101224133016.GP16518@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 10:26:11AM +0000, BillK wrote: > I don't see how an entity that lives over 1000 years can be expected > to behave like a 25 year old puppy, leaping around excitedly at every > 'new' (to them) thing encountered. > > People don't stay the same as they age. And a 1000 year old definitely > won't think the same as a 25 year old. We're used to an anthropocentric view on how aging affects people. If everything is inspectable and malleable, there will be more and more deviations from that expected pattern in human-derived and human-inspired constructs. De novo constructs could be considerably alien even from the beginning, though of course they'll be soaking the same bootstrap context as us. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 13:56:52 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 13:56:52 +0000 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <20101224133016.GP16518@leitl.org> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <20101224133016.GP16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > We're used to an anthropocentric view on how aging affects > people. If everything is inspectable and malleable, there > will be more and more deviations from that expected pattern > in human-derived and human-inspired constructs. De novo > constructs could be considerably alien even from the beginning, > though of course they'll be soaking the same bootstrap > context as us. > > If everything becomes inspectable and malleable, then all bets are off. Anyone's guess is good. We're in science-fiction territory now. After the Singularity. But extrapolating from what we know now, and assuming no magic science where we gain super powers and become anything that we wish to be, then *old* entities will not think like 25 year olds. (If everything becomes malleable, then the bad guys will make plentiful use of it, that you can be sure of. Unless a benevolent government uses it first to ensure that anything they define as a 'bad' guy gets altered for the common good). BillK From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 14:46:46 2010 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 15:46:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> <4D113964.3000609@satx.rr.com> <003c01cba16c$14980c80$3dc82580$@att.net> <4D124228.4020408@satx.rr.com> <4D1291FD.3080706@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > As a result, the actual CO2-delta T feedback could range from negative > (i.e. CO2 causes cooling) to various positive values. Yes, the > uncertainty is so extreme that even a mild cooling effect of CO2 under > present conditions cannot be excluded, not even looking at > paleoclimatological data. The only thing we know is that the feedback > cannot be very high, since there is very poor correlation between > recent CO2 change and recent global temperatures - the feedback is > manifestly small enough that the effect is swamped by other factors, > such as changes in albedo due to aerosols, or cyclic processes in the > atmosphere. > How about some numbers: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-intermediate.htm Skepticalscience.com has this nice feature that you can switch between levels of analysis clicking on the "basic", "intermediate" and "advanced' tabs. For example: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm wIll give much more detailed information. It is true that small values of climate sensitivity cannot still be completely ruled out. But if you accept the remote possibility of a small value, you must also accept the possibility of a disastrously high value like 6C, which right now cannot be ruled out either - the two extremes have the same (small) probability of turning out correct. Focusing only on one of the two tails of the distribution reveals bias. > so in private if properly questioned they will >admit there is no scientific basis for the global warming/climate >change scare. I'm curious about the "proper questions" you asked those scientists, and what kind of answers you got :-) Alfio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 24 15:18:08 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 16:18:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <20101224133016.GP16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101224151808.GR16518@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 01:56:52PM +0000, BillK wrote: > If everything becomes inspectable and malleable, then all bets are off. But that's just the side effect of your most likely route to extreme life extension. You are declared dead today, are cryopreserved, scanned some 50 to 80 years hence and reinstantiated as a numerical construct in some system somewhere, along with a nice rendering engine for artificial reality and ability to control servos at the physical layer. As soon as you've turned into a bucket of bits evolving in discrete steps, your state evolution can be halted, inspected, changed. > Anyone's guess is good. We're in science-fiction territory now. > After the Singularity. Don't look right now, but you're soaking in it. > But extrapolating from what we know now, and assuming no magic science > where we gain super powers and become anything that we wish to be, We already have the "super powers" to tweak neural emulations to our heart's content. As soon as you're actually running simulations of behaving higher animals you better consider ethical implications of your experiments. > then *old* entities will not think like 25 year olds. You can think and behave exactly like an exhuberant 25 year old. If it's what you wish... > (If everything becomes malleable, then the bad guys will make > plentiful use of it, that you can be sure of. Unless a benevolent Technology is a capability amplifier. Any capability amplifier. > government uses it first to ensure that anything they define as a > 'bad' guy gets altered for the common good). Been there. Done that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy (I used to work near a stereotactic frame with a rather sordid history, as it was from the salvage of a prison hospital). From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Dec 24 15:35:43 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:35:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation Message-ID: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> It is my pleasure to announce that Max is the new CEO of Alcor! http://www.alcor.org/blog/?p=1473 Best, Natasha Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agrimes at speakeasy.net Fri Dec 24 15:22:02 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:22:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <20101224112315.GF16518@leitl.org> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <20101224112315.GF16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4D14BA9A.9070107@speakeasy.net> > No, you most assuredly don't leave them alone. You're building > at maximum speed the physical layer allows you. This is very slow > by your standards, but very fast by outside standards. > You're sharing the same physical layer. If it doesn't sound ominous, > it should. =| That is precisely why I'm so energetic about being ant-total conversion. I want nothing that uploading offers. That's why I say that if you want to upload FINE, You can have that planet/moon/star-cluster over there, just permit me the chance to evolve in a different direction. To which the answer from the community booms down "NO". To which I respond "Why?" To which the community has repeatedly responded "but it will be a **PERFECT** _copy_ of you, isn't that just as good as you?" To which I respond "You entirely missed my point. I do not want **ANYTHING** uploading offers, let me evolve in a different direction." To which the community responds "But your _copy_ will run a thousand times faster and live forever". To which I respond: "Please someone give me a new transhumanist community". BTW, have a blissful Newtonmass. =P -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 24 15:56:52 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:56:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <4D14C2C4.2090502@satx.rr.com> On 12/24/2010 9:35 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > It is my pleasure to announce that Max is the new CEO of Alcor! Wow! You-all moving to Arizona? Damien Broderick From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 15:57:56 2010 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:57:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> <4D113964.3000609@satx.rr.com> <003c01cba16c$14980c80$3dc82580$@att.net> <4D124228.4020408@satx.rr.com> <4D1291FD.3080706@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > How about some numbers: > http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-intermediate.htm > Skepticalscience.com has this nice feature that you can switch between > levels of analysis clicking on the "basic", "intermediate" and "advanced' > tabs. For example: > http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm > wIll give much more detailed information. > It is true that small values of climate sensitivity cannot still be > completely ruled out. But if you accept the remote possibility of a small > value, you must also accept the possibility of a disastrously high value > like 6C, which right now cannot be ruled out either - the two extremes have > the same (small) probability of turning out correct. Focusing only on one of > the two tails of the distribution reveals bias. ### The disastrously high sensitivities are already excluded by the lack of significant correlation between CO2 and temperature in the last 100 years. There was a 40% increase in CO2 levels and no essentially no significant global warming over the period. The only values not excluded by direct recent observations are the negative and mildly positive ones (which I personally think to be the case). BTW, the "skeptical" site you link to is incorrect in claiming that climate sensitivity to CO2 is explained by radiative forcing alone - there are additional effects of CO2 on plant life that put the calculations off-whack (of course, none of the "numerous studies" which deny "unrealistic ultralow sensitivities" takes this into account). ------------------- > I'm curious about the "proper questions" you asked those scientists, and > what kind of answers you got :-) ### Answers - pretty much what I wrote - we don't really know much about climate sensitivity to CO2 but it's unlikely to be very high. We know little. We need more grant money. Rafal From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 24 15:56:29 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 07:56:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <002701cba383$2102dc70$63089550$@att.net> Behalf Of Eugen Leitl Subject: Re: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:39:00PM -0800, spike wrote: >> Adrian thanks man, that was is very insightful. It never occurred to >> me there was a stage of life that is post-MBrain. What could we call >> it? A crust brain? >Spike, we *did* discuss strange matter life way back, including possibility of life near Planck scale. This is different methinks. This is an MBrain that eventually decides to take up residence on the surface of a dead star after having been an MBrain for billions of years. Were I a patents officer, I would award this notion a fresh patent. I will grant at the same time that the US Patent office seems to have severe Alzheimers, but in this case, this presents a new variation. spike From giulio at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 16:05:48 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 17:05:48 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: Congratulations Max! 2010/12/24 Natasha Vita-More : > It is my pleasure to announce that Max is the new CEO of Alcor! > > http://www.alcor.org/blog/?p=1473 > > Best, > Natasha > Natasha Vita-More > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From lubkin at unreasonable.com Fri Dec 24 16:05:30 2010 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:05:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <201012241629.oBOGT0iP012299@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Natasha wrote: >It is my pleasure to announce that Max is the new CEO of Alcor! > >http://www.alcor.org/blog/?p=1473 I'm not sure whether to offer congratulations or condolences, but it's a great Newtonmas present for the rest of us. -- David. From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Dec 24 16:38:14 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:38:14 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Kurzweil AI News - CEO of Alcor Max More Message-ID: <0440B510DE22460CB4DD7AE20F9E7BB5@DFC68LF1> http://www.kurzweilai.net/alcor-life-extension-foundation-names-max-more-phd -as-chief-executive-officer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Dec 24 16:39:14 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:39:14 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: <201012241629.oBOGT0iP012299@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <201012241629.oBOGT0iP012299@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Congratulations of course! Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 10:06 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation Natasha wrote: >It is my pleasure to announce that Max is the new CEO of Alcor! > >http://www.alcor.org/blog/?p=1473 I'm not sure whether to offer congratulations or condolences, but it's a great Newtonmas present for the rest of us. -- David. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 24 16:55:01 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 17:55:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <201012241629.oBOGT0iP012299@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20101224165501.GT16518@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 10:39:14AM -0600, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Congratulations of course! Congratulations! And condolences. It will be one hell of a tough job. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 24 17:27:45 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:27:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <000c01cba38f$e0bee9d0$a23cbd70$@att.net> Woohoo! Congrats to Max. {8-] May we still call him Max, or must we call him Chief? spike From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 7:36 AM To: 'ExI chat list'; 'Humanity+ Discussion List'; singularity at listbox.com; extrobritannia at yahoogroups.com Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation It is my pleasure to announce that Max is the new CEO of Alcor! http://www.alcor.org/blog/?p=1473 Best, Natasha Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 17:41:50 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:41:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: <20101224165501.GT16518@leitl.org> References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <201012241629.oBOGT0iP012299@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20101224165501.GT16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: Natasha Vita-More wrote: >It is my pleasure to announce that Max is the new CEO of Alcor! CONGRATULATIONS!!! Max can apply his knowledge of cryonics, business and transhumanism to the most challenging job he may ever have on this side of the hopeful ice... John : ) On 12/24/10, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 10:39:14AM -0600, Natasha Vita-More wrote: >> Congratulations of course! > > Congratulations! And condolences. It will be one hell of > a tough job. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 17:48:27 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:48:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 2:26 AM, BillK wrote: > I don't see how an entity that lives over 1000 years can be expected > to behave like a 25 year old puppy, leaping around excitedly at every > 'new' (to them) thing encountered. It has been demonstrated, in humans, that one of the keys to staying fit mentally - which has strong correlation, and is likely a cause of, staying fit physically - in older years is to behave like a 75 year old puppy, instead of settling down and doing not much. We might not be able to predict exactly how a 1000 year old upload would think, but to the extent that is true, there is no basis for speculation about anything. To the extent that we can infer from what we know today, "get bored" seems like it might be poison to such an entity (cause for suicide aside), a thing to be actively avoided. There's certainly enough that we know of already, to keep such a being mentally active for at least tens or hundreds of thousands of years (in whatever time frame it experiences them in), not counting any new discoveries or fields it may open up. Therefore, speculation that a 1000, or even 10,000 or 100,000, year old entity would inevitably, or even probably, get bored and shut itself off seems to be entirely baseless. More to the point, it seems counterproductive - similar to, but a lesser degree than, speculating that anonymous members of [insert non-self ethnic/social group here] are going to rise up tomorrow and torture/maim/kill [insert own ethnic/social group here] for the fun of it, as a reason to execute or imprison all members of [insert non-self ethnic/social group here] before that can happen. From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 18:12:33 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:12:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: <20101224165501.GT16518@leitl.org> References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <201012241629.oBOGT0iP012299@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20101224165501.GT16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 10:39:14AM -0600, Natasha Vita-More wrote: >> Congratulations of course! > > Congratulations! And condolences. It will be one hell of > a tough job. Quite. Tough as ice. ;) From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 17:44:23 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:44:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <201012241629.oBOGT0iP012299@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20101224165501.GT16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: Spike asked: >May we still call him Max, or must we call him Chief? I think due to Max's British roots, we must now address him as "Lord Commander of Cryonics..." John ; ) On 12/24/10, John Grigg wrote: > Natasha Vita-More wrote: >>It is my pleasure to announce that Max is the new CEO of Alcor! > > CONGRATULATIONS!!! Max can apply his knowledge of cryonics, business > and transhumanism to the most challenging job he may ever have on this > side of the hopeful ice... > > John : ) > > On 12/24/10, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 10:39:14AM -0600, Natasha Vita-More wrote: >>> Congratulations of course! >> >> Congratulations! And condolences. It will be one hell of >> a tough job. >> >> -- >> Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org >> ______________________________________________________________ >> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org >> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 24 18:17:07 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:17:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] patents was RE: simulation as an improvement over reality Message-ID: <001d01cba396$c622ea70$5268bf50$@att.net> ... I will grant at the same time that the US Patent office seems to have severe Alzheimers...spike Good story for you guys that involves extropians and patents: a few years ago we got an invitation to a party at the home of Doug Englebart, the Xerox PARC guy who invented the mouse and a bunch of other computer stuff. So we went up there and there were about thirty or so extropian types, the cryonics crowd, sci-fi fans, the usual suspects that show up at these sorts of events, but no Doug. So I started asking around, who organized this and where's Doug etc, and no one knew so I was scouting around trying to figure out why we were having this big party at this guy's house and he isn't even home. I started to suspect it was all bogus. Perhaps someone knew he would be out for the evening, rigged a big gag by inviting a bunch of yahoos, then the cops show up and we all end up in jail for breaking and entering har har and so forth. We were there about a couple hours and still no host or home owner, and I was just feeling a bit uneasy about the whole thing and started to drift towards the door, when up shows Doug, assuring us it was all as planned but he had another engagement earlier that evening, couldn't be cancelled and yakkity yak and bla bla. Then he ended up chatting with my wife and me for about fifteen minutes right there in his own front entryway before even greeting the other guests, then took us on a tour through his house, showing us his computer inventions and so forth. Then he excused himself and went off to bed. Doug was about 80 at the time, so his being tired is certainly understandable, but to retire for the evening with about thirty geeks in his house was I thought extraordinary. To let us have a party in his house while he was gone, then leave us as long as we wanted to stay with no apparent person in charge. Trusting sort. {8-] And about the nicest guy you ever met. In any case: he was telling us about how much trouble he had in the late 60s in patenting the mouse. The Xerox PARC guys had an earlier version of the mouse which had two parallel wheels for which Doug did get a patent, but it wasn't a successful design. There was a better version which he made from inverting a trackball, writing the software to reverse the controls and arranging the ergonomics to fit the hand. Sound familiar? Are you using something like that right now? Or did back in the 80s and 90s? The trademark office refused to give him a patent for that! They argued that it was just an upside down trackball with clever software, but they didn't award trademarks or patents for software. {8^D Haaaahahahahahaaaaheeeheehehee. {8-] That is just too funny. They wouldn't give him a patent for an inverted track ball. Eventually he managed to get some rights to that, which he sold to another one of the locals (Steve Jobs) for a song, when the patent for the trackball was still active and expensive, which is why most PCs have a mouse instead of a trackball to this day. Doug commented that later someone was awarded a patent for painting eyeballs and whiskers on a computer mouse to make it look like a mouse. The patent office by that time not only awarded patents for software, but for painting a mouse to look like a mouse. Presumably if someone painted a mouse to look like a mole or a rat, they could get yet another fresh patent. Society's attitude toward intellectual property has experienced a remarkable revolution since Doug was a young inventor. spike From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Dec 24 22:23:56 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 15:23:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: 2010/12/24 Natasha Vita-More : > It is my pleasure to announce that Max is the new CEO of Alcor! Congratulations, Max. I have two suggestions. One of your goals should be greater acceptance of cryonics by the mainstream, leading eventually to its adoption as the end-of-life* standard of care in conventional medicine. To achieve this, embrace regulatory control. Do this by dragging Cryonics under conventional medicine's already robust regulatory regime. Professionalize all aspects of the practice. Declare it policy, and implement for cryonics "patients" the same rights and protections afforded conventional living patients. If you're really ambitious, create a more or less conventional HMO that includes cryonic suspension as an option. An option which, if selected, generates a reduction in the overall cost of care (reduction in premium, rebated upon suspension). The theory here is that end stage care is the most expensive part of a lifetime of health care costs. If a person opts out of the heroic and massively expensive, grueling, tortuous, and largely ineffective end stage care, and opts instead for cryonic suspension, the cost savings can be refunded to the patient. Secondly, and perhaps more important, is a shift of focus regarding "enrollment" efforts -- that is, getting more "sign-ups". So long as cryonics lies outside the sphere of social acceptance, marketing to the end user will be a formidable task. I suggest refocusing marketing efforts at "motivated" third parties, motivated by the desire to save the life of a loved one. Such an individual is, in my view, far more likely to respond courageously to the challenge of social disapproval, than someone considering cryonic suspension for him or herself. In my view, an appeal to heroism seems particularly promising because it affords the third party the two-fold satisfactions of saving the loved one, and being heroic in the fight to do so. * Obviously, I don't mean end of life, but it's the conventional term. Best of luck to you in your endeavors. Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 25 00:17:28 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 16:17:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <20101224112315.GF16518@leitl.org> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <20101224112315.GF16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <783749.19288.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Eugen Leitl > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Sent: Fri, December 24, 2010 3:23:15 AM > Subject: Re: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:33:38PM +0000, BillK wrote: > > > Think about it. > > You have uploads living at a speed many many times faster than humans. > > So much so that every lifetime (virtual 100 years) if the uploaded > > Presumably, the lifetimes for each species will follow a power law. So you readily admit that?after a few minute or hours of real time, the upload would not be recognizable as human --?let alone Eugen Leitl? Then why bother? > > > mind bothers to look out at the real world, the human standing there > > hasn't moved. You can't communicate with a statue. > > So you go your own way and leave the statues alone. > > No, you most assuredly don't leave them alone. You're building > at maximum speed the physical layer allows you. This is very slow > by your standards, but very fast by outside standards. > > You're sharing the same physical layer. If it doesn't sound ominous, > it should. Yes. That is ominous. But?those native to the physical layer would have an easier time manipulating the physical layer. Uploads would need an interface to do so?and interfaces can be manipulated. ? > > The uploads are manipulating a virtual reality (of some form). The > > You're manipulating a virtual reality (of some form). It's the model > your brain builds of the environment. > > > wait to manipulate the real world would be too long. So in their > > Yeah, and we never left Africa. I mean, we're still roaming the > savannas. > > > virtual world they can do whatever takes their fancy. Fight dragons, > > explore designed worlds, talk to invented aliens, etc. After a > Everyone seems to think everybody will be so very smart. > Diversity works in all directions. It's much worse than that.?Imagine being locked in a?(unix) box with John Malkovitch for a thousand subjective years. Could you guarantee that at the end of that time, you yourself would not be John Malkovitch??Then consider that this might?occur in?mere minutes of real time. Then ask yourself what would become of Malkovitch-you?after a million years of subjective time? The uploads would be subject to internal selective pressures, from other uploads or the virtual environment itself that would feedback on their configuration state at a much faster rate than would any changes in the physical layer. So after a while everybody would have adapted to John Malkovitch because he visits once a week, but nobody knows how to deal with thunder shower in the real world because one of them only occurs every few million years of?subjective time.? > > thousand lifetimes, who knows what they will be like or what they will > > be interested in. > > > > My speculation was that after a thousand lifetimes they might run out > > of interesting things to do and just switch off. If they did, then > > Right, every single species on Earth eventually commits suicide. > Of terminal boredom. Happens everywhere, happens all the time. > > > that would appear to happen very quickly to the statues outside. > > They're dead, Jim. So are all the "people" who uploaded. If similarity to the "original" person is an issue.?I do agree with you that not all the adaptation will be toward more sophistication and complexity. While some uploads might become M-Brains?other uploads?could revert to worms, busy beavers, or other stable algorithms. Stuart LaForge "There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Sat Dec 25 00:25:40 2010 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 17:25:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <4D153A04.4070009@canonizer.com> Wow Jeff, sounds like some great ideas here. As you may already know, we're working on a prioritized list of things extropians can do to make the world better here: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/120 We don't yet have a entry for getting cryonics more mainstream, and getting more people preserved, what everyone thinks are the best ways to do this, and so on. A cryonics to do item would be at the top of my list of most important things to do. What about everyone else? Would you care to formalize some of this a bit, and submit it as a starting draft for a new cryonics camp as something we should all or could all be supporting and working on and developing...? We can't expect Max to do it all, we've all got to work together, and find out what everyone thinks are the best things we should all be working on, and all work together on all such. Brent Allsop On 12/24/2010 3:23 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > 2010/12/24 Natasha Vita-More: >> It is my pleasure to announce that Max is the new CEO of Alcor! > Congratulations, Max. > > I have two suggestions. > > One of your goals should be greater acceptance of cryonics by the > mainstream, leading eventually to its adoption as the end-of-life* > standard of care in conventional medicine. To achieve this, embrace > regulatory control. Do this by dragging Cryonics under conventional > medicine's already robust regulatory regime. > > Professionalize all aspects of the practice. Declare it policy, and > implement for cryonics "patients" the same rights and protections > afforded conventional living patients. > > If you're really ambitious, create a more or less conventional HMO > that includes cryonic suspension as an option. An option which, if > selected, generates a reduction in the overall cost of care (reduction > in premium, rebated upon suspension). The theory here is that end > stage care is the most expensive part of a lifetime of health care > costs. If a person opts out of the heroic and massively expensive, > grueling, tortuous, and largely ineffective end stage care, and opts > instead for cryonic suspension, the cost savings can be refunded to > the patient. > > Secondly, and perhaps more important, is a shift of focus regarding > "enrollment" efforts -- that is, getting more "sign-ups". > > So long as cryonics lies outside the sphere of social acceptance, > marketing to the end user will be a formidable task. I suggest > refocusing marketing efforts at "motivated" third parties, motivated > by the desire to save the life of a loved one. Such an individual is, > in my view, far more likely to respond courageously to the challenge > of social disapproval, than someone considering cryonic suspension for > him or herself. In my view, an appeal to heroism seems particularly > promising because it affords the third party the two-fold > satisfactions of saving the loved one, and being heroic in the fight > to do so. > > * Obviously, I don't mean end of life, but it's the conventional term. > > Best of luck to you in your endeavors. > > Jeff Davis > > "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." > Ray Charles > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 25 10:56:05 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 11:56:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <783749.19288.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <20101224112315.GF16518@leitl.org> <783749.19288.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20101225105605.GY16518@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 04:17:28PM -0800, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Presumably, the lifetimes for each species will follow a power law. > > So you readily admit that?after a few minute or hours of real time, the upload > would not be recognizable as human --?let alone Eugen Leitl? Then why bother? You're no longer recognizable as a blastula stage embryo, yet you still bothered enough to be still around. http://www.aleph.se/Trans/ 'What is a human being, then?' 'A seed.' 'A... seed?' 'An acorn that is unafraid to destroy itself in growing into a tree' David Zindell, The Broken God > > You're sharing the same physical layer. If it doesn't sound ominous, > > it should. > > Yes. That is ominous. But?those native to the physical layer would have an > easier time manipulating the physical layer. Uploads would need an interface to There is no fundamental difference between postbiology and you. All cognition is embodied. Only, postbiology is a lot fitter than you. Far more adept at manipulating the physical layer. So we are the endangered species, for a change. It would be an act of cosmic irony, if the perpetrators of the Holocene extinction event themselves succumbed to habitat destruction and industrial pollution at the hands of their offspring. Mere indifference would be enough. > do so?and interfaces can be manipulated. What is your interface to reality? Why is it not being manipulated? So what should be different? ? > > Everyone seems to think everybody will be so very smart. > > Diversity works in all directions. > > It's much worse than that.?Imagine being locked in a?(unix) box with John Imagine suffering from locked-in syndrome. > Malkovitch for a thousand subjective years. Could you guarantee that at the end So don't do it, then. > of that time, you yourself would not be John Malkovitch??Then consider that this > might?occur in?mere minutes of real time. Then ask yourself what would become of > Malkovitch-you?after a million years of subjective time? Imagine you being waterboarded for the rest of your life. It's going to suck a lot, yes? How about solitary confinement, until your mind unravels completely? There are a billion of possible alternatives which all suck far more then the one you're in. Yet most people do not spend much time thinking about how their lives could suck more, and then actively striving to make them suck more. > The uploads would be subject to internal selective pressures, from other uploads You're also subject to selection pressures. Good old Darwin. > or the virtual environment itself that would feedback on their configuration The virtual environment does not differ from real environment in any other way than it can be more easily changed. Just because it can it doesn't mean it will, because you will need a consensus for continuing interactions with others. Extreme solipsism is incompatible with sustainable existance. You are an embodied intelligence. You occupy space. You need Joules and atoms, a metabolism to substitute those parts which are degraded. You compete for resources with other embodied intelligences. You co-operate with them, and you co-evolve with them. In other way, the more things change, the more they stay the same. > state at a much faster rate than would any changes in the physical layer. So > after a while everybody would have adapted to John Malkovitch because he visits How about Jesus? He seems to visit a lot of people often. > once a week, but nobody knows how to deal with thunder shower in the real world I don't think there will be thunder showers. Or atmosphere, for that matter. Unless somebody really cares. > because one of them only occurs every few million years of?subjective time.? If you're maladapted, you die. Better adapted remain. > > They're dead, Jim. > > So are all the "people" who uploaded. If similarity to the "original" person is If it has a metabolism and if it can eat you it ain't dead. > an issue.?I do agree with you that not all the adaptation will be toward more I'm not sure Lamarck would actually work. It would take a particular description, and abandoment of a genome->phenotype mapping. If at all possible, the result would be probably not compatible with Darwin operating in the same system. While Lamarckian systems still being in competition with Darwinian systems. May the best ones win? Something like that. > sophistication and complexity. While some uploads might become M-Brains?other > uploads?could revert to worms, busy beavers, or other stable algorithms. Exactly. Though we're pretty close to the complexity floor, so the reachable ceiling is ways off. But in terms of moles of circuitry, the simpler postbiomass will probably outweigh the gods by a fair fraction. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sat Dec 25 11:46:04 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 03:46:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <99853.6691.qm@web114405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> "spike" may or may not have asked: "There is no clear end to that line of reasoning, no point where still more transparency becomes cumulatively harmful. Or does it work like a transparency Laffer curve, where there is somewhere an ideal level of transparency? If so, we could have info-liberals who favor more transparency than we have now, and info-conservatives, who favor less, and info-libertarians who think all information wants to be free, and info totalitarians who think Wikileaks and the whole internet thing should be regulated or shut down, and info-hypocrites who want the other guy exposed while keeping her own secrets, and info-(?) who hide among a jungle of false information or intentionally create doubts about the veracity of their own history. What would that be called?" Info-spikeist. As in, spiking information with disinformation, as per Spike's suggestion. Ben Zaiboc From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sat Dec 25 11:56:07 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 03:56:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <146057.7718.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Alan Grimes wrote: > > > You're sharing the same physical layer. If it doesn't > sound ominous, > > it should. > > > =| > > That is precisely why I'm so energetic about being > ant-total conversion. > > I want nothing that uploading offers. > > That's why I say that if you want to upload FINE, You can > have that > planet/moon/star-cluster over there, just permit me the > chance to evolve > in a different direction. > > To which the answer from the community booms down "NO". > > To which I respond "Why?" > > To which the community has repeatedly responded "but it > will be a > **PERFECT** _copy_ of you, isn't that just as good as > you?" > > To which I respond "You entirely missed my point. I do not > want > **ANYTHING** uploading offers, let me evolve in a different > direction." > > To which the community responds "But your _copy_ will run a > thousand > times faster and live forever". > > To which I respond: "Please someone give me a new > transhumanist community". You have already been told that nobody is proposing to force anyone to upload. Your quotes above are misrepresentations, at least. The point is (and has been all along) that if a superintelligent being comes into power (something that some of us think is inevitable), we will all be at its mercy. Individual preferences re. uploading (or just about anything else) will be moot. The only defence against this, as far as I can see, will be to keep pace with it, to ensure no single entity dominates. Even then there is no guarantee. A 'new transhumanist community' can't change this. You're not up against other people's preferences, nobody wants to force you to do anything. What you're up against is logic. Rather than berate the people who are trying to point this out, it might be a better use of your time to try and think of ways to maximise the chances of people's preferences being relevant. Personally, I'd like to see the earth preserved as a kind of nature reserve, where people with luddite tendencies (or other anti-uploading attitudes) can live their short lives out as they wish, I just don't think it's very likely to happen. Ben Zaiboc From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Sat Dec 25 13:59:31 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 09:59:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Happy Newton's day Message-ID: Merry Christmas and/or Happy Newton's Day to all my Exi freinds. It was a special year for me in lots of ways, but meeting all of you and discovering and becoming a part of this wonderfully erudite, creative, talented and dedicated group of men and women remains a high point. Darren -- * "better lives have been lived in the margins, locked in the prisons and lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in palaces. " -Propagandhi* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sat Dec 25 15:51:35 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 10:51:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <146057.7718.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <146057.7718.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D161307.4070508@speakeasy.net> Ben Zaiboc wrote: >> To which I respond: "Please someone give me a new >> transhumanist community". > You have already been told that nobody is proposing to force anyone to upload. > Your quotes above are misrepresentations, at least. Of course not, Extropians operate by threat rather than force. Witness Eugene's maniacal rantings from the last few days. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat Dec 25 16:53:56 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 09:53:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: <4D153A04.4070009@canonizer.com> References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <4D153A04.4070009@canonizer.com> Message-ID: Thanks, On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Wow Jeff, sounds like some great ideas here. Thank you, Brent. > Would you care to formalize some of this a bit, and submit it as a starting > draft for a new cryonics camp as something we should all or could all be > supporting and working on and developing...? I'd be pleased to see another cryonics "camp" as you put it, adopting a "modernized" approach. A new organization might have greater flexibility to adopt a new approach.. At the same time a new organization could escape whatever legacy of bad publicity currently "burdens" Alcor and CI. Sort of a "change you can believe in" -- apologies for using this now-tainted slogan, but you get my point -- for cryonics. >?We can't expect Max to do it all, On the one hand, he's in a position to bring about change, on the other hand long-term stability and keeping cryonics patients safe is an overriding priority, so cryonics organizations are understandably cautious/conservative, particularly in a hostile social environment.. > we've all got to work together, and find out what everyone thinks are > the best things we should all be working on, and all work together on all > such. I agree, but from what I've seen, cryonics people though good folks, and smart, are even more fractious than your run-of-the-mill humanity. Frustrating, that. Regarding the HMO idea, you don't really have to provide the hospitals and doctors -- that could be sub-ed out. You could simply sell the medical insurance, but when you sub out the medical care, they have to be medical staff trained and willing to perform the suspensions. Patients would then be transferred to long-term patient care (ie cryonic storage) facilities. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Dec 25 17:41:51 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 12:41:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FD82967-68C8-4F9A-9F7C-F6F946618719@bellsouth.net> On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:32 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > > The best way I see is to come up with an energy source considerably > less expensive than fossil fuels. That would be a great way to cure global warming but unfortunately nobody has figured out how to make a cheap clean substitute for fossil fuels yet, nobody has figured out a cure for CO2 emissions (if that is indeed the cause of the problem) that is not worse than the disease. So until somebody dose figure that out and if the problem is really as catastrophic as the doomsayers say it is then we'd better have another idea; and Nathan Myhrvold, the former chief technical officer at Microsoft, may have one, build an artificial volcano. Mt Pinatubo in 1991 became the best studied large volcanic eruption in history, it put more sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere than any volcano since Krakatoa in 1883. There is no longer any dispute that stratospheric sulphur dioxide leads to more diffuse sunlight, a decrease in the ozone layer, and a general cooling of the planet. What was astonishing was how little stratospheric sulphur dioxide was needed. If you injected it in the arctic where it would be about 4 times more effective, about 100,000 tons a year would reverse global warming in the northern hemisphere. That works out to 34 gallons per minute, a bit more than what a standard garden hose could deliver but much less than a fire hose. We already spew out over 200,000,000 tons of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere each year, but all of that is in the lower troposphere where it has little or no cooling effect, the additional 100,000 tons is a drop in the bucket if you're looking at the tonnage, but it's in the stratosphere where its vastly more effective. Myhrvold wasn't suggesting anything as ambitious as a space elevator, just a light hose about 2 inches in diameter going up about 18 miles. In one design he burns sulfur to make sulphur dioxide, he then liquefies it and injects it into the stratosphere with a hose supported every 500 to 1000 feet with helium balloons. Myhrvold thinks this design would cost about 150 million dollars to build and about 100 million a year to operate. In another design that would probably be even cheaper he just slips a sleeve over the smokestack of any existing small to midsize coal power plant in the higher latitudes and uses the hot exhaust to fill hot air balloons to support the hose. If Myhrvold's cost estimate is correct that means it would take 50 million dollars less to cure global warming than it cost Al Gore to just advertise the evils of climate change. But even if Myhrvold's estimate is ten times or a hundred times too low it hardly matters, it's still chump change. In a report to the British government economist Nicholas Stern said that to reduce carbon emissions enough to stabilize global warming by the end of this century we would need to spend 1.5% of global GDP each year, that works out to 1.2 trillion (trillion with a t) dollars EACH YEAR. One great thing about Myhrvold's idea is that you're not doing anything irreparable, if for whatever reason you want to stop you just turn a valve on a hose and in about a year all the sulphur dioxide you injected will settle out of the atmosphere. And Myhrvold isn't the only fan of this idea, Paul Crutzen won a Nobel prize for his work on ozone depletion, in 2006 he said efforts to solve the problem by reducing greenhouse gases were doomed to be ?grossly unsuccessful? and that an injection of sulphur in the stratosphere ?is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises and counteract other climatic effects?. Crutzen acknowledged that it would reduce the ozone layer but the change would be small and the the benefit would be much greater than the harm. And by the way, diffuse sunlight, another of the allegedly dreadful things associated with sulphur dioxide high up in the atmosphere, well..., plant photosynthesis is more efficient under diffuse light. Plants grow better in air with lots of CO2 in it too, but that's another story. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Dec 25 18:31:28 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 13:31:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <20101224133016.GP16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <34F65B28-8E27-49E6-A5FF-7C446B4BE2C7@bellsouth.net> On Dec 24, 2010, at 8:56 AM, BillK wrote: > extrapolating from what we know now, and assuming no magic science > where we gain super powers and become anything that we wish to be, > then *old* entities will not think like 25 year olds. Making an old man think like a young man is simply a matter of rearranging atoms in the old brain, and precisely moving atoms around does not require magic science, just very very good technology. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 25 18:58:39 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 18:58:39 +0000 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <34F65B28-8E27-49E6-A5FF-7C446B4BE2C7@bellsouth.net> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <20101224133016.GP16518@leitl.org> <34F65B28-8E27-49E6-A5FF-7C446B4BE2C7@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/12/25 John Clark wrote: > > On Dec 24, 2010, at 8:56 AM, BillK wrote: >> extrapolating from what we know now, and assuming no magic science >> where we gain super powers and become anything that we wish to be, >> then *old* entities will not think like 25 year olds. > > Making an old man think like a young man is simply a matter of rearranging atoms in > the old brain, and precisely moving atoms around does not require?magic science, > just very very good technology. > > I agree. But for the purposes of speculation on how very old entities might behave that is a meaningless proposal. In effect you are saying that an ancient intelligence will have the ability to change their brain to think in an infinity of different ways. Which is probably quite likely, and presumably they will choose to think in the 'best' way possible. I suspect that this will not be like a 25 year old human. BillK From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Dec 25 18:46:30 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 13:46:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> On Dec 24, 2010, at 6:26 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Spike, we *did* discuss strange matter life way back, including > possibility of life near Planck scale. > It seems our collective list memory has got a case of Alzheimer's... I wrote this to the list on January 8 1996: I remember hearing speculation about femtomachines that operated at a scale of 10^-15m . The idea was to build things with strangelet quark structures. Unfortunately I don't see how this could work, objects would not be rigid, and you can't build machines with a liquid. There is little more I can say on that subject because unlike nanotechnology, building things on this scale would require a scientific breakthrough and they are inherently unpredictable. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Dec 25 19:15:28 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 11:15:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <34F65B28-8E27-49E6-A5FF-7C446B4BE2C7@bellsouth.net> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <20101224133016.GP16518@leitl.org> <34F65B28-8E27-49E6-A5FF-7C446B4BE2C7@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Dec 25, 2010, at 10:31 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Dec 24, 2010, at 8:56 AM, BillK wrote: > >> extrapolating from what we know now, and assuming no magic science >> where we gain super powers and become anything that we wish to be, >> then *old* entities will not think like 25 year olds. > > Making an old man think like a young man is simply a matter of rearranging atoms in the old brain, and precisely moving atoms around does not require magic science, just very very good technology. > What is "old" if all the deteriorations that come with mere years today are removed or never occur? Yes, someone in perfect health for hundreds of years will not think like a 25 year old. That is a very, very good thing! - s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 25 20:31:25 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 12:31:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2010 10:47 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality On Dec 24, 2010, at 6:26 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: >>>Spike, we *did* discuss strange matter life way back, including possibility of life near Planck scale. It seems our collective list memory has got a case of Alzheimer's... >I wrote this to the list on January 8 1996: >I remember hearing speculation about femtomachines that operated at a scale of 10^-15m . The idea was to build things with strangelet quark structures. Unfortunately I don't see how this could work, objects would not be rigid, and you can't build machines with a liquid. There is little more I can say on that subject because unlike nanotechnology, building things on this scale would require a scientific breakthrough and they are inherently unpredictable. >John K Clark Sure but this did not exhaust the notion of a post MBrain life form that eventually needs to drop down to the solid surface to live as a crust on an extinct star. That life form need not exist on a Planck scale, but it might. 1996 predated any mature version of Robert Bradbury's MBrain, which I think was first proposed about a couple years later. We were working out the details of the orbit mechanics before Extro5, but after Extro4, which is where I first met RB in the flesh. Isn't that where he shouted "THAT'S NOT TRUE!" in the middle of someone's presentation? {8^D So the MBrain notion would have been in about 2000 or 2001 range. That was the time K. Eric Drexler saved my life by transporting me in his Detroit through a Berkeley neighborhood to my motorcycle. I don't think this notion is about life on a Planck scale in any case. It is far easier for me to imagine an intelligent life form where the nodes are many orders of magnitude larger than Planck scale but still individually microscopic, analogous to a smart version of a blue-green algal mat. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sat Dec 25 20:51:26 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 21:51:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] moral issues Message-ID: <20101225205126.GD16518@leitl.org> Hate to cite xkcd, but http://xkcd.com/164/ From spike66 at att.net Sat Dec 25 21:07:08 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 13:07:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> Someone made a comment a few days ago to which I didn't reply but that has been rattling around in my brain like a golf ball in a 55 gallon drum. I think it was under this subject line, and the meme went something like this: when or if we figure out how to upload and simulations replace actual exploration of nature and interaction with the material world, that event in a sense is analogous to collective meme-death, since we would then cease to take in new information externally, replaced by processing information already contained in the simulated universe. Who wrote that? Intriguing notion. Do step up and claim that meme, for it didn't get much well-deserved discussion at the time. I can find an analogy of sorts. In our current world we know exactly where all the useful cosmological notions arise: the big universities which have cosmology departments and lots of physics PhDs, places like Haaahvard and CalTech and the research centers such as CERN. We don't go into the Australian outback looking around for someone who has fresh and relevant ideas on cosmology. So the CERN people and CalTech people become a closed system. They don't care what you and I have to say or what the Australian aborigines have to say about cosmology. In a weakly analogous way, we can imagine a post-uploading MBrain which stops seeking wisdom from outside, and stop broadcasting their memes abroad, assuming it a useless activity. If that transmitted wisdom disagrees with the notions of the receiving civilization it is heresy, if it agrees, redundant. A major puzzle in my own life has been why the cosmos are not buzzing with signals. Why is it so quiet out there? I estimate one in ten star systems has life forms, one in a thousand multicellular with perhaps one in a hundred thousand with tech-capable life forms. That makes for a buuunch of tech life forms in this galaxy alone. If technologically advanced life forms typically upload and turn inward, it offers a good explanation for why it is so quiet out there. They aren't listening to us and don't care to talk, for they are busy. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat Dec 25 22:13:52 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 15:13:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] moral issues In-Reply-To: <20101225205126.GD16518@leitl.org> References: <20101225205126.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Hate to cite xkcd, but > > http://xkcd.com/164/ The fellow in the cartoon seems to find himself ethically conflicted, but I don't get it, and I don't buy it either. He says: "...As terrible as it sounds, the state of the world isn't really my responsibility. I'm just thrilled to get to watch. ..." It ISN'T his responsibility -- or any of ours -- and it only sounds terrible if you worry your peers will think badly of you if you don't embrace their (guilt imposing) ideology with the same full-throated hysteria. I believe anthropogenic global warming is real, but not at all dire, and that the hysteria, and the cultural polarization is entirely political. The sky is not falling. For example, the map of the world that accompanied Gore's Inconvenient Truth, with sea levels up 20-30 ft or whatever, seemed text book nonsense to me. If the "Oh my God, we're all doomed!" sea level rise takes a hundred years, then -- Sheeeesh! -- you build levies. It's not rocket science. I find the Wikileaks political drama -- technically-driven cultural evolution --far more exciting than the back and forth silliness of the politically engaged but technically clueless global warming partisans. Anyway, you're the one person on the list, now that Eliezer, Bradbury, and others have moved on, that I consider smarter than me, so make your case. Merry Christmas. Best, Jeff Davis "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sat Dec 25 23:32:25 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 18:32:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D167F09.6070901@speakeasy.net> > A major puzzle in my own life has been why the cosmos are not buzzing > with signals. Why is it so quiet out there? I estimate one in ten star > systems has life forms, one in a thousand multicellular with perhaps one > in a hundred thousand with tech-capable life forms. That makes for a > buuunch of tech life forms in this galaxy alone. > If technologically advanced life forms typically upload and turn inward, > it offers a good explanation for why it is so quiet out there. They > aren?t listening to us and don?t care to talk, for they are busy. I find it doubtful that a civilization of computronium fetishists would not have spare resources to build a radio or two, and some spare CPU time to listen to it on occasion. -- or slow down their expansion enough that it wouldn't show up on our radar... No, what's probably happening is that we are seeing the existential risk known as a shriek... That is a civilization that appears to be going asymptotic but then runs into a brick wall and ends up dead. ie, overflowing a 64 bit register somewhere and crashing the entire grid, or using up fuel without regards to long-term needs. Or, even more probable, having a continuous internal faggotry-race (sorry, no other words to communicate my point) (akin to an arms race only gay), within the VR simulations very quickly overwhelming the resources of the underlying computronium at which point it simply melts from logical contradictions. Ie, if you show up in the SecondLife sim for this list in a male avatar, people will be minimally polite to you. If you show up in a female av and people know you are cross-dressing, they are super-friendly to you. I have not figured out exactly what that means yet, I am not going to cross-play just for them. But then most of them are anyway. In any event, it is far far easier to explain the motivations of an uploader in terms of gay-ness than any other way. No part of this message is intended to be read as a comment about any homosexual, or the psychological condition in general, only the practice of publicly pandering to arbitrary special interest groups and demanding that other people pander to your arbitrary desires, also known as faggotry. Where as the charge of faggotry is easily avoided by either keeping it private or simply allowing other people to have (and express!) different opinions about things. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 00:17:08 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 00:17:08 +0000 Subject: [ExI] moral issues In-Reply-To: References: <20101225205126.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > Anyway, you're the one person on the list, now that Eliezer, Bradbury, > and others have moved on, that I consider smarter than me, so make > your case. > > That's done it! Now you've upset everyone on the list except Eugen. ;) Personally, what I find is that people are smart at different things. And some smart people are really dumb when they venture outside their field of expertise. If you are not an expert yourself it sometimes takes a while to learn when somebody really knows their subject or when they are just bullshitting (to use a phrase I heard somewhere). BillK From florent.berthet at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 00:50:37 2010 From: florent.berthet at gmail.com (Florent Berthet) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 01:50:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] moral issues In-Reply-To: References: <20101225205126.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: 2010/12/25 Jeff Davis > > > "...As terrible as it sounds, the state of the world isn't really my > responsibility. I'm just thrilled to get to watch. ..." > > It ISN'T his responsibility -- or any of ours -- and it only sounds > terrible if you worry your peers will think badly of you if you don't > embrace their (guilt imposing) ideology with the same full-throated > hysteria. > > What about the famous "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" ? I'm not debating global warming here, but the general point. Aren't extropians supposed to save the World, or something? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 02:13:50 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:13:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] moral issues In-Reply-To: References: <20101225205126.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 5:17 PM, BillK wrote: > On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Jeff Davis ?wrote: > >> Anyway, you're the one person on the list, now that Eliezer, Bradbury, >> and others have moved on, that I consider smarter than me, so make >> your case. >> >> > > > That's done it! ? Now you've upset everyone on the list except Eugen. ? ;) Oh my! Did I forget the smiley? Wink, wink. Also, take note of the phrasing, I left room for everyone else to imagine that they might be just as smart as I am. Work it. >> > Personally, what I find is that people are smart at different things. Agreed. > And some smart people are really dumb when they venture outside their field of expertise. "Yes", he said, agreeing and feigning modesty, but poorly. > > If you are not an expert yourself it sometimes takes a while to learn > when somebody really knows their subject or when they are just > bullshitting (to use a phrase I heard somewhere). Ahhhh, yes indeed! I envy those who learn that skill early in life. Best, Jeff Davis "We are every one an "idiot and moron" compared to what we seek to become." Samantha Atkins From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 02:16:09 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 21:16:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] moral issues In-Reply-To: References: <20101225205126.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: 2010/12/25 Florent Berthet : > What about the famous "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good > men to do nothing" ? > I'm not debating global warming here, but the general point. Aren't > extropians supposed to save the World, or something? Sure, I've got copies of messages in my inbox all the way back to when I subscribed (though I'm a noob by comparison) After the world ends (you know... in 2012), we'll digitally resurrect it from carefully chosen source material. :) From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 02:29:03 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 21:29:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> Message-ID: 2010/12/25 spike : > A major puzzle in my own life has been why the cosmos are not buzzing with > signals.? Why is it so quiet out there?? I estimate one in ten star systems > has life forms, one in a thousand multicellular with perhaps one in a > hundred thousand with tech-capable life forms.? That makes for a buuunch of > tech life forms in this galaxy alone. > > If technologically advanced life forms typically upload and turn inward, it > offers a good explanation for why it is so quiet out there. ?They aren?t > listening to us and don?t care to talk, for they are busy. Are we just not clever enough to understand the "noise" around us? If you've ever opened an image file in a text editor you get the sense of "broken/corrupted text file" but that's just because you're using the wrong tool to interpret the information. I'm not going to even speculate on the dimension(s) that right tool might have. From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 02:32:47 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 21:32:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <4D167F09.6070901@speakeasy.net> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <4D167F09.6070901@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Alan Grimes wrote: > faggotry. Where as the charge of faggotry is easily avoided by either > keeping it private or simply allowing other people to have (and > express!) different opinions about things. Are there any people you don't offend with your biased (bigoted) word choice? You wrote, "no other words to communicate my point" I read, "I am incapable of making my point without knowingly sounding like an ass, so here goes..." You continue to amaze; nice job. From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 02:41:05 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:41:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] moral issues In-Reply-To: References: <20101225205126.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: 2010/12/25 Florent Berthet : > > > 2010/12/25 Jeff Davis >> >> "...As terrible as it sounds, the state of the world isn't really my >> responsibility. ?I'm just thrilled to get to watch. ..." >> >> It ISN'T his responsibility -- or any of ours -- and it only sounds >> terrible if you worry your peers will think badly of you if you don't >> embrace their (guilt imposing) ideology with the same full-throated >> hysteria. >> > > What about the famous "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is > for good men to do nothing" ? What about the famous "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."? What about when you try to help someone and they fight you? What about minding one's own business? What about "They also serve who only stand and wait."? What about "Too many cooks spoil the broth."? What about, "This too shall pass."? Or the elegant yet pithy, "Keep your head down." Or the folksy, "Time to get outta Dodge."? Hmmmm. This is fun. > I'm not debating global warming here, but the general point. Aren't > extropians supposed to save the World, or something? A common misconception, though I would certainly encourage anyone with such grand ambition, to read Don Quixote, and then take a shot at it. Takes the pressure off of the rest of us. But the world is 6+ billion individuals, and if it is to be saved, let the saving start close to home with oneself and family and friends. Anyone who wants to check the Extropian principles for guidance is encouraged to do so. After that, the "World" is on its own. Been a pleasure, Florent. I look forward to "chatting" with you again. Have a great life. We live in an amazing time, no? Best, Jeff Davis "And I think to myself, what a wonderful world!" Louie Armstrong From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Sun Dec 26 03:18:33 2010 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 20:18:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] moral issues In-Reply-To: References: <20101225205126.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4D16B409.9030107@canonizer.com> Thanks Florent, Couldn't have said it better myself. And we should have a prioritized list of things everyone is working on, and everyone should be working on at least one, cooperating with everyone else that is interested in doing the same thing. http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/120 Brent Allsop On 12/25/2010 5:50 PM, Florent Berthet wrote: > > > 2010/12/25 Jeff Davis > > > > "...As terrible as it sounds, the state of the world isn't really my > responsibility. I'm just thrilled to get to watch. ..." > > It ISN'T his responsibility -- or any of ours -- and it only sounds > terrible if you worry your peers will think badly of you if you don't > embrace their (guilt imposing) ideology with the same full-throated > hysteria. > > > What about the famous "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is > for good men to do nothing" ? > I'm not debating global warming here, but the general point. Aren't > extropians supposed to save the World, or something? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 03:50:20 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 20:50:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 7:13 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:32 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> The best way I see is to come up with an energy source considerably >> less expensive than fossil fuels. > > That would be a great way to cure global warming but unfortunately nobody has figured out how to make a cheap clean substitute for fossil fuels yet, nobody has figured out a cure for CO2 emissions (if that is indeed the cause of the problem) that is not worse than the disease. You must not have read the rest of my post where I discussed how to do it. The *easy* part is making a clean cheap substitutes for fossil fuels. We know how to suck CO2 out of air at a cost of around 100 kWh/t (360 kWh per ton of carbon). We know how to make hydrogen either directly from heat (S I process) or by electrolysis. We, or rather Sasol, knows how to bulid a plant that will turn these two into synthetic fuel at a cost of around $10 per bbl. $1 B written off over ten years is $100 M/year. The plant makes 34,000 bbls of oil a day or about 12.5 M B of oil a year at a capital cost of $100 M per year. So the capital cost is around $8 per bbl plus maybe $2 per bbl maintenance and labor. It's using gas as the source of carbon and hydrogen, but it would be just as happy on carbon dioxide from the air and hydrogen from water. The hard part is getting energy cost down to where you can make inexpensive synthetic hydrocarbons. StratoSolar *might* do it. The engineering to cope with maximum wind is very hard. Power satellites could also do it if you can get the launch cost to GEO down to $100/kg. >So until somebody dose figure that out and if the problem is really as catastrophic as the doomsayers say it is then we'd better have another idea; and Nathan Myhrvold, the former chief technical officer at Microsoft, may have one, build an artificial volcano. > > Mt Pinatubo in 1991 became the best studied large volcanic eruption in history, it put more sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere than any volcano since Krakatoa in 1883. There is no longer any dispute that stratospheric sulphur dioxide leads to more diffuse sunlight, a decrease in the ozone layer, and a general cooling of the planet. What was astonishing was how little stratospheric sulphur dioxide was needed. If you injected it in the arctic where it would be about 4 times more effective, about 100,000 tons a year would reverse global warming in the northern hemisphere. That works out to 34 gallons per minute, a bit more than what a standard garden hose could deliver but much less than a fire hose. We already spew out over 200,000,000 tons of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere each year, but all of that is in the lower troposphere where it has little or no cooling effect, the additional 100,000 tons is a drop in the bucket if you're looking at the tonnage, but it's in the! > ?stratosphere where its vastly more effective. > > Myhrvold wasn't suggesting anything as ambitious as a space elevator, just a light hose about 2 inches in diameter going up about 18 miles. In one design he burns sulfur to make sulphur dioxide, he then liquefies it and injects it into the stratosphere with a hose supported every 500 to 1000 feet with helium balloons. Myhrvold thinks this design would cost about 150 million dollars to build and about 100 million a year to operate. In another design that would probably be even cheaper he just slips a sleeve over the smokestack of any existing small to midsize coal power plant in the higher latitudes and uses the hot exhaust to fill hot air balloons to support the hose. It's a lot harder than you might think. snip Keith From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 03:58:59 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 20:58:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <4D14BA9A.9070107@speakeasy.net> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <20101224112315.GF16518@leitl.org> <4D14BA9A.9070107@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: > I want nothing that uploading offers. > > ... if you want to upload FINE, ... ...just permit me the chance to evolve in a different direction. > > To which the answer from the community booms down "NO". I'm okay with this deal. it seems self-limiting to me. If you reject the choice to upload now, three other choices avail: natural death, extended life, or some form of storage. If you die -- a form of evolving in a different direction -- you end the conflict. If you enjoy an extended lifespan, then you continue to interact with the world as it continues to evolve. This means you will be presented with a unceasing stream of previously unavailable choices for your further evolution, from which you will pick one of four, (ie re-iterate from step zero): choose to change, choose to die, choose to carry on "maturing naturally" in an ever-changing environment, choose to be stored. This last choice, storage, simply puts off the other choices to a later date. Unless of course, you die in storage. Jeff Davis From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 04:13:50 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 00:13:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] moral issues In-Reply-To: References: <20101225205126.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: Jeff wrote >> Anyway, you're the one person on the list, now that Eliezer, Bradbury, >> and others have moved on, that I consider smarter than me, so make >> your case. >> >> Bill wrote: > That's done it! Now you've upset everyone on the list except Eugen. ;) I was assuming it was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but even it if hadn't been, I wouldna been bothered. I read recently that Nathan Leopold had an I.Q. of 210 and Voltaire of 190. One wrote Candide, the other got life-time imprisonment for reading Neitzche too literally. It ain't all in what you're dealt. Sometimes it comes down to how well you play. A side of seren dip: Prior to cracking this thread I came across this quote in a Johnathon Kellerman thriller this afternoon: "People who think or talk alot about being smart rarely accomplish anything." ;)<----- (wink-and-smile alert) d. On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 5:17 PM, BillK wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > > > > > > > > That's done it! Now you've upset everyone on the list except Eugen. > ;) > > Oh my! Did I forget the smiley? Wink, wink. > > Also, take note of the phrasing, I left room for everyone else to > imagine that they might be just as smart as I am. Work it. > > >> > > Personally, what I find is that people are smart at different things. > > Agreed. > > > And some smart people are really dumb when they venture outside their > field of expertise. > > "Yes", he said, agreeing and feigning modesty, but poorly. > > > > > If you are not an expert yourself it sometimes takes a while to learn > > when somebody really knows their subject or when they are just > > bullshitting (to use a phrase I heard somewhere). > > Ahhhh, yes indeed! I envy those who learn that skill early in life. > Best, Jeff Davis > > "We are every one an "idiot and moron" > compared to what we seek to become." > Samantha Atkins > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sun Dec 26 04:54:21 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 23:54:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <20101224112315.GF16518@leitl.org> <4D14BA9A.9070107@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4D16CA7D.7010009@speakeasy.net> Jeff Davis wrote: > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: >> I want nothing that uploading offers. >> ... if you want to upload FINE, ... ...just permit me the chance to evolve in a different direction. >> To which the answer from the community booms down "NO". > I'm okay with this deal. it seems self-limiting to me. > If you reject the choice to upload now, three other choices avail: > natural death, extended life, or some form of storage. If you die -- > a form of evolving in a different direction -- you end the conflict. > If you enjoy an extended lifespan, then you continue to interact with > the world as it continues to evolve. This means you will be presented > with a unceasing stream of previously unavailable choices for your > further evolution, from which you will pick one of four, (ie > re-iterate from step zero): choose to change, choose to die, choose to > carry on "maturing naturally" in an ever-changing environment, choose > to be stored. This last choice, storage, simply puts off the other > choices to a later date. Unless of course, you die in storage. Yeah, storage is pretty much a last resort. I'm feeling an increasing sense of urgency in releasing a book I haven't yet written about my ideas about transhumanism. I am preparing an on-line version that will be on an unspecified wiki in some unspecified time. (first very rough chapter already posted). Right now, I'm experiencing severe, unheard of technical difficulties with my primary workhorse desktop computer that I just spent over $2,000 on building. I will be struggling to resolve those until further notice. =( Namely, my arrow and navigation keys are completely malfunctioning, none work right, for example the down arrow has the effect of pressing down arrow and enter key, the other keys are so messed up that I don't even know what they're doing. Linux's stupid utilities aren't helping me resolve anything, The X11 keyboard stack is incomprehensibly complex. Speaking of which, only twm, the most primitive of window managers still available is the *ONLY* window manager that can even activate my left monitor right now. The keyboard is an antique IBM Soft Touch, date-stamped 1997, connected to the PS2 port. I have no idea what is wrong with that either. I had a problem booting this 3.2ghz, 6-core machine; it was taking 10 minutes but that was solved by cold booting the machine with total removal of power (A troubleshooting step that is impossible to an upload). The hardware is NEW, bought only this summer, it typically runs 45+ days at a stretch when everything is working. The machine HAD been working OK until Thanksgiving when I decided to reboot it after a 50-day stretch of perfect operation. Apparently an update or twenty broke it beyond recognition. At first I blamed gcc 4.5.1 which also broke apache on my company's server. I re-compiled everything with GCC 4.4.5 but problems did not subside. =( I've lived with it for about a month now, hoping that a further update would make the problem simply go away, as is the time-honored pattern with gentoo. Unfortunately, it appears that user intervention is necessary. Once again, I'm at square 1, trying to figure out where to look to get information that will get me any closer to returning my machine to normal operation. In other news, all glitchyness with my overclocked DOS machine (Pentium 166 overclocked to 150 mhz on a 75 mhz bus) was resolved by overvolting the processor by 0.1 volts. If I ever die, that machine will still be fully operational without a single defect. =| -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 26 04:55:59 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 20:55:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> Message-ID: <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty ... >Are we just not clever enough to understand the "noise" around us?... If an alien civilization were sending signals they intended for us to interpret, it would be easy to interpret. If they intend for us to not interpret, it would be impossible to interpret. If we are just missing a possibly-decodable signal, then they don't care if we interpret or not. The third case would be analogous to our leaked radio and TV signals. spike From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 26 04:58:35 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 20:58:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <4D167F09.6070901@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <001001cba4b9$8dd73f30$a985bd90$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Alan Grimes wrote: >> faggotry. Where as the charge of faggotry is easily avoided by either >Are there any people you don't offend with your biased (bigoted) word choice? ... >You continue to amaze; nice job. Alan, I agree with Mike, your word choice makes me squirm. I have confidence you could reword this in a less offensive way, please. spike From js_exi at gnolls.org Sun Dec 26 06:15:43 2010 From: js_exi at gnolls.org (J. Stanton) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 22:15:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Mechanisms of carbohydrate/sugar addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D16DD8F.5060407@gnolls.org> > From: Dave Sill >> > >> > http://www.gnolls.org/905/mechanisms-of-sugar-addiction-or-why-youre-addicted-to-bread/ >> > > Overall, I like it it. It presents a strong case pretty succinctly. A couple > minor quibbles: > > -you compare whole wheat bagels to Skittles. I don't see whole wheat bagels > in the GI table, and your photo shows a plain bagel. Plain bagel means "not > whole wheat". Good catch! I'm not up on my bagel terminology, not having consumed bagels for a long time. As far as GI content, I had to make an assumption: if white bread and whole wheat bread had appx. the same glycemic index, so should a white bagel and a whole wheat bagel. This is because I literally can't find a single source for glycemic index of a whole wheat bagel, even in the giant list of 7500+ results! Since a white bagel has the same GI as white bread, I figured this was reasonable. > -"In other words, we are told to graze?like cattle." Grazing refers to > eating grass, not chowing down on grains. I think you mean something like: > "In other words, we are told to load up on grains?like cattle being fattened > for slaughter." That's a good point, too. It turns out this is part I of a multi-part essay, which covers a lot of ground relating to glycemic index, macronutrient composition, diet, health, and human evolutionary history. I look forward to presenting the rest and hearing your feedback. JS http://www.gnolls.org From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sun Dec 26 07:49:50 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 02:49:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <001001cba4b9$8dd73f30$a985bd90$@att.net> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <4D167F09.6070901@speakeasy.net> <001001cba4b9$8dd73f30$a985bd90$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D16F39E.2050607@speakeasy.net> spike wrote: >> ... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty > On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Alan Grimes wrote: >>> faggotry. Where as the charge of faggotry is easily avoided by either >> Are there any people you don't offend with your biased (bigoted) word > choice? > ... >> You continue to amaze; nice job. > Alan, I agree with Mike, your word choice makes me squirm. I have > confidence you could reword this in a less offensive way, please. I'm shocked by how mature that response was. I really wasn't thinking when I sent that previous message. I had intended to recover by rim-shotting off the excessively angry responses I had expected, but it looks like I'm being presented with a different opportunity. I've been in a funk not just from all the candy I've been gorging on but also but also from learning that my 3 year younger sister is coming on her 5th wedding anniversary and I've never even been on a date. Furthermore, my only prospects have been offered by homosexual men! =\ But anyway, to answer your question, here is my reasoning. As exciting as transhumanism is, we find that a vanishingly tiny number of people seem capable of becoming interested in transhumanism. Whittling that number down further, we find a phenomenon that I call the "two weekers". A two-weeker is a person who learns about transhumanism while going through a manic period in their lives. As the mania subsides (as it always does), they disappear never to be heard from again. But there are active transhumanists who have been in the community for many years. Because humans tend to be couch patatoes, these long-term transhumanists must have achieved an emotional state that allows them to maintain a strong interest in transhumanism over many years. So, drawing from the brain's emotional circuitry, we must find a motivational circuit that produces strong, specific motivations over many years and in spite of other changes in the person's life. That shortens the list of possible neural circuits down to no more than a handful, probably only one. This is, of course, nothing more than a supposition. If you look at who shows up to the Saturday meetings in Extropia Core, there you find all the usually suspects, ranging from gender dysphoria disorder, to grown up abused chlidren. All the regulars can be found in DSM IV. I am not casting stones here, only trying to extrapolate predictions based on the future evolution of the minds around me. Indeed, I am in no position whatsoever to cast even a pebble. My own brain is host to two different fetishes, one of which is an extreme form of a fairly common one, and another which has no name. Indeed, these form the core of my interest in transhumanism. Now, what I find absolutely impossible to believe is that the sexuality of these people has nothing to do with their interest in transhumanism. No matter what lies they might choose to utter, the core of their motivations must be tied into their sexual drive somehow. (I simply tend to keep my mouth shut on the subject, as I suspect many others do). Alright, so what the hell does that mean? Well, we have a clue: Uploading. An impartial person who knows what Eugene knows about the future would be desperate to warn the public and try to steer events towards a situation where you could go down to the quickie mart and get yourself a neural interface and a pair of bionic biceps. That would be pretty much ideal on all fronts -- everyone walks out of the store happy, even if they just wanted a soda. No. We don't see that, now do we. Anyone who comes in with such a bright, shiny vision of the future will face a gauntlet of ridicule for being "backwards" and a "ludite". All proposals for any kind of conventional life extension will be soundly dismissed even before any technical details are aired because it is not based on uploading. What we see is people going out and evangelizing uploading in both fiction, nonfiction, and on the lecture circuit. All roads lead towards uploading and uploading is the only stated goal of transhumanism these days. Indeed, there is no second choice for an end-product to the transhumanist adventure listed anywhere. But that only deepens the mystery. We have a group of people who are powerfully motivated by some hot-wired version of their sexual impulses and the thing that they've agreed to pursue is destructive brain uploading. Why? The single feature that shouts loudest in my mind is not the ability to simulate your fantasies, it is the aspect of the *clean break* from your former life. The aspect of simulated fantasies is hardly ever raised, indeed most belabor the point that it will be "just like your formal life", or "completely indistinguishable unless you are told". The aspect of simulation is, however, much celebrated. What shouts loudest to me is the acceptance, or rather the enthuseasm towards converting the whole of the earth into computronium. -- An issue on which I alone man the watchtower. Here's my theory. Just as a person is attracted to what he desires, he is repulsed by what he doesn't. For the fantasy to be fully realized, to him, the reality must also be totally obliterated. That is the crux of the issue. Obviously, they are wrong to want to obliterate their old lives. Less obviously, they are wrong to think that uploading will solve anything whatsoever. It won't and it can't because if you are unwilling to accept what's behind you, you'll keep running and running until you run out of universe. Practically, what that means is that the current crop of leading transhumanists will probably end up sliding deeper and deeper into utter fantasy that they are unable, even if they are willing, to respond to problems and even emergencies in the real world, even though that is the only one that matters, and thus the system is ultimately doomed to extinction from its very inception. That is why all of my designs are centered around a hard-wired landline to base reality. (If this is not base reality, the design would be adjusted to whatever is). -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 26 08:48:34 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 00:48:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality Message-ID: <705517.78654.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Eugen Leitl > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Sent: Sat, December 25, 2010 2:56:05 AM > Subject: Re: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 04:17:28PM -0800, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > Presumably, the lifetimes for each species will follow a power law. > > > > So you readily admit that?after a few minute or hours of real time, the >upload > > > would not be recognizable as human --?let alone Eugen Leitl? Then why bother? > > You're no longer recognizable as a blastula stage embryo, yet > you still bothered enough to be still around. > > http://www.aleph.se/Trans/ > > 'What is a human being, then?' > 'A seed.' > 'A... seed?' > 'An acorn that is unafraid to destroy itself in growing into a tree' > > David Zindell, The Broken God But I am still genetically isomorphic to that embryo as is the acorn to the oak tree. While the morphological phenotypes may have changed, the genetic information has been fairly well conserved and if you look at the right genomic subsets, both the acorn and the embryo can be found described within. ? No such?conservation of either morphology or?information is?likely?for an upload. ? > > > > You're sharing the same physical layer. If it doesn't sound ominous, > > > it should. > > > > Yes. That is ominous. But?those native to the physical layer would have an > > easier time manipulating the physical layer. Uploads would need an interface >to? > There is no fundamental difference between postbiology and you. All > cognition is embodied.? What? Just the differences in the?matter substrate?*and* the volatility of?the information embodied thereby. Nothing fundamental to see here! Move along, citizen. ? > Only, postbiology is a lot fitter than you. What is your evidence for this assumption? Or is it an article of faith? Do you mean more fit than me in the vacuum of space or?in the jungle? In a virtual reality?or within ten feet of an active?Tesla coil? Fitness is relative to?your?environment, to the guy next to you, to any predators,?and to?the "microbes" beneath your contempt. And if postbiology is manufactured using modern practices, then?it would probably fail?once?its warranty period expired. ? BTW I dislike the term postbiology. Biology is?the study of life and would be just as applicable to machine-phase life?as to?wet-carbon life.?? > Far more adept at manipulating > the physical layer. Well we were originally talking about uploads and now we are talking about postbiology. Uploads would have to compete with other processor threads for access to?IO ports on their box. As long as we meat people don't make some?stupid mistakes, what is on the other end of that IO port is under our control. Independently evolved hive-minded nanospiders on the other hand?could pose?a serious problem.?? >?So we are the endangered species, for a change. > It would be an act of cosmic irony, if the perpetrators of the Holocene > extinction event themselves succumbed to habitat destruction and industrial > pollution at the hands of their offspring. Mere indifference would be enough. There is no irony in this and?H. sapiens?would not be the first species to have done this. The cyanobacteria did exactly this?when they?evolved chlorophyll and threated all life by unleashing?oxygen on the world.?? > > do so?and interfaces can be manipulated. > > What is your interface to reality? Why is it not being manipulated? > So what should be different? My senses and effector organs are my interface to reality. They are, every time I flip on a TV.The difference is that my?interface is more fundamental than my processor because it evolved first.?This?would likely be?the converse of the situation?faced by uploads where IO devices would be?ancillary to?core data processing and storage devices. Sure virtual eyes could see virtual skies but the ccd camera for peeping at?the "real?world"?may not even?be connected.? ?? > > > Everyone seems to think everybody will be so very smart. > > > Diversity works in all directions. > > > > It's much worse than that.?Imagine being locked in a?(unix) box with John > > Imagine suffering from locked-in syndrome. > > > Malkovitch for a thousand subjective years. Could you guarantee that at the >end > > > So don't do it, then. ?I just don't see the enlightened self-interest of uploading. You don't get to live forever. Instead?a bit-pattern that?very quickly diverges away from you gets?indefinite run time. That's not any closer to immortality than having kids or writing a?book.?Even if?one didn't upload onself, a simple?brute-force search of permutation space is liable to hit upon?any specific bit-pattern of your?evolution in finite time.?That means that given enough evolving bit patterns any bit pattern that represents?"you" at any instant of time would very likely?to be?converged upon?by another entity in the course of their own evolution.?So for example,?some other upload?could?assume?the same?bit pattern you?might have had at some stage of your evolution.? You and someone else could become?identical copies of one another?for?some duration?because of the birthday paradox. If identity becomes too malleable somewhere along the line, it?becomes?concomitantly meaningless. ? And if?one?contends that?identity is inherently meaningless, then what precisely are you "preserving"?with an upload???? ?> You're also subject to selection pressures. Good old Darwin. > > > or the virtual environment itself that would feedback on their configuration > > The virtual environment does not differ from real environment in any > other way than it can be more easily changed. Just because it can > it doesn't mean it will, because you will need a consensus for continuing > interactions with others. Extreme solipsism is incompatible with > sustainable existance. Virtual environments differ from reality another way too. I offer without proof that any simulation ought to be a reduced dimensionality subspace of reality. With reduced dimensionality comes fewer degrees of freedom and?loss of information.?Not to mention quantum effects whereby an enforced ignorance of certain aspects of reality is maintained. In other words??a physicist with decently?equipped lab should be able to?tell whether he is in a simulation or in?the reality wherein the set of physical laws that he?learned were formulated and apply. And yes solipsism?sucks but?I see uploading as a social form of solipsism.? ? > How about Jesus? He seems to visit a lot of people often. Maybe Jesus is their gardener. What does religion have to do with this? Stuart LaForge "There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 26 09:54:06 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 10:54:06 +0100 Subject: [ExI] moral issues In-Reply-To: References: <20101225205126.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101226095406.GF16518@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 03:13:52PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > Hate to cite xkcd, but > > > > http://xkcd.com/164/ > > > The fellow in the cartoon seems to find himself ethically conflicted, > but I don't get it, and I don't buy it either. He says: Just let the mouse cursor hover over the image. > "...As terrible as it sounds, the state of the world isn't really my > responsibility. I'm just thrilled to get to watch. ..." -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Dec 26 11:00:22 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 03:00:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <4D167F09.6070901@speakeasy.net> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <4D167F09.6070901@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <6CD8F516-800C-4D6D-803F-D5C2B4B1E9EA@mac.com> On Dec 25, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Alan Grimes wrote: >> A major puzzle in my own life has been why the cosmos are not buzzing >> with signals. Why is it so quiet out there? I estimate one in ten star >> systems has life forms, one in a thousand multicellular with perhaps one >> in a hundred thousand with tech-capable life forms. That makes for a >> buuunch of tech life forms in this galaxy alone. > >> If technologically advanced life forms typically upload and turn inward, >> it offers a good explanation for why it is so quiet out there. They >> aren?t listening to us and don?t care to talk, for they are busy. > > I find it doubtful that a civilization of computronium fetishists would > not have spare resources to build a radio or two, and some spare CPU > time to listen to it on occasion. -- or slow down their expansion enough > that it wouldn't show up on our radar... > > No, what's probably happening is that we are seeing the existential risk > known as a shriek... That is a civilization that appears to be going > asymptotic but then runs into a brick wall and ends up dead. ie, > overflowing a 64 bit register somewhere and crashing the entire grid, or > using up fuel without regards to long-term needs. > > Or, even more probable, having a continuous internal faggotry-race > (sorry, no other words to communicate my point) (akin to an arms race > only gay), within the VR simulations very quickly overwhelming the > resources of the underlying computronium at which point it simply melts > from logical contradictions. Ie, if you show up in the SecondLife sim > for this list in a male avatar, people will be minimally polite to you. > If you show up in a female av and people know you are cross-dressing, > they are super-friendly to you. I have not figured out exactly what that > means yet, I am not going to cross-play just for them. But then most of > them are anyway. In any event, it is far far easier to explain the > motivations of an uploader in terms of gay-ness than any other way. You have just shown yourself to be as deluded as you appeared to be so long ago when I first thought you were hopelessly hung up. In a spirit of generosity I have simply let it be and expected you to learn better over time. It seems you have not. > > No part of this message is intended to be read as a comment about any > homosexual, or the psychological condition in general, only the practice > of publicly pandering to arbitrary special interest groups and demanding > that other people pander to your arbitrary desires, also known as > faggotry. Where as the charge of faggotry is easily avoided by either > keeping it private or simply allowing other people to have (and > express!) different opinions about things. You have crossed the line of totally unacceptable behavior. Others can do whatever they wish with you but from this moment forward I will have nothing to do with you. I don't care about your opinions so much as I am fed up with your homophobia, with your continuous baiting of any who disagree with you on anything and your extremely juvenile hurling of "gay" around as if that somehow was all that need be said. I hope you grow up someday. Good bye. From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Dec 26 11:13:06 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 03:13:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99014EBE-C7D0-4B5B-A3F8-BDF463293C4E@mac.com> On Dec 25, 2010, at 7:50 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 7:13 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:32 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >>> >>> The best way I see is to come up with an energy source considerably >>> less expensive than fossil fuels. >> >> That would be a great way to cure global warming but unfortunately nobody has figured out how to make a cheap clean substitute for fossil fuels yet, nobody has figured out a cure for CO2 emissions (if that is indeed the cause of the problem) that is not worse than the disease. > > You must not have read the rest of my post where I discussed how to do it. > > The *easy* part is making a clean cheap substitutes for fossil fuels. > We know how to suck CO2 out of air at a cost of around 100 kWh/t (360 > kWh per ton of carbon). We know how to make hydrogen either directly > from heat (S I process) or by electrolysis. We, or rather Sasol, > knows how to bulid a plant that will turn these two into synthetic > fuel at a cost of around $10 per bbl.\ Hydrogen is a not a very efficient fuel. Why not hype thorium reactors? The better designs can produce electricity far cheaper than from the best grade of coal - which is currently the cheapest energy source we have. There are many paths to syngas and such, it is true. But not one of them produces energy that cheap. Much of the case for such today is made on the basis of how "green" they are. One case in particular that I know well gave up on more green sources for the gas, gave up on using concentrated solar to fire the original biomass and ended up burning natural gas in a process that doesn't produce a lot more than when into it and produces some nasty waste gases to boot. This is not at all a panacea in any form I have seen to date. > > $1 B written off over ten years is $100 M/year. The plant makes > 34,000 bbls of oil a day or about 12.5 M B of oil a year at a capital > cost of $100 M per year. So by your above figures it barely breaks even. You do know that 34K bbls is a barely registering drop in the proverbial bucket, right? > So the capital cost is around $8 per bbl > plus maybe $2 per bbl maintenance and labor. It's using gas as the > source of carbon and hydrogen, but it would be just as happy on carbon > dioxide from the air and hydrogen from water. Not really. Please do the math and show your work. I know several people working various variations of this and I don't believe this story. > > The hard part is getting energy cost down to where you can make > inexpensive synthetic hydrocarbons. StratoSolar *might* do it. The > engineering to cope with maximum wind is very hard. > What for? As a temporary until you can convert most transportation to electric? Perhaps. But electric is the way to go not far down the line. > Power satellites could also do it if you can get the launch cost to > GEO down to $100/kg.- That is step #1 - and it is a real doozie from here as you know. Step #2 which we don't have much of a clue about is how to assemble and maintain that large a solar field in GEO in perpetuity. We don't do space walks out there for some pretty good reason.s Without major space robotics advances I don't see it happening for at least a couple of decades. Fortunately we have better ways of resolving the energy crisis or looming crisis in the meantime. > >> So until somebody dose figure that out and if the problem is really as catastrophic as the doomsayers say it is then we'd better have another idea; and Nathan Myhrvold, the former chief technical officer at Microsoft, may have one, build an artificial volcano. Now that is Big Thinking. Incredibly stupid perhaps but BIG. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Dec 26 11:29:56 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 03:29:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <4D16F39E.2050607@speakeasy.net> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <4D167F09.6070901@speakeasy.net> <001001cba4b9$8dd73f30$a985bd90$@att.net> <4D16F39E.2050607@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <2A33F185-E1FE-49B4-BBCF-144200EF5EDD@mac.com> On Dec 25, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Alan Grimes wrote: > spike wrote: >>> ... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty > >> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Alan Grimes wrote: >>>> faggotry. Where as the charge of faggotry is easily avoided by either > >>> Are there any people you don't offend with your biased (bigoted) word >> choice? >> ... >>> You continue to amaze; nice job. > > >> Alan, I agree with Mike, your word choice makes me squirm. I have >> confidence you could reword this in a less offensive way, please. > > > I'm shocked by how mature that response was. > > I really wasn't thinking when I sent that previous message. I had > intended to recover by rim-shotting off the excessively angry responses > I had expected, but it looks like I'm being presented with a different > opportunity. > > I've been in a funk not just from all the candy I've been gorging on but > also but also from learning that my 3 year younger sister is coming on > her 5th wedding anniversary and I've never even been on a date. > Furthermore, my only prospects have been offered by homosexual men! =\ > > But anyway, to answer your question, here is my reasoning. > > As exciting as transhumanism is, we find that a vanishingly tiny number > of people seem capable of becoming interested in transhumanism. > Whittling that number down further, we find a phenomenon that I call the > "two weekers". A two-weeker is a person who learns about transhumanism > while going through a manic period in their lives. As the mania subsides > (as it always does), they disappear never to be heard from again. But > there are active transhumanists who have been in the community for many > years. > > Because humans tend to be couch patatoes, these long-term transhumanists > must have achieved an emotional state that allows them to maintain a > strong interest in transhumanism over many years. So, drawing from the > brain's emotional circuitry, we must find a motivational circuit that > produces strong, specific motivations over many years and in spite of > other changes in the person's life. That shortens the list of possible > neural circuits down to no more than a handful, probably only one. > > This is, of course, nothing more than a supposition. If you look at who > shows up to the Saturday meetings in Extropia Core, there you find all > the usually suspects, ranging from gender dysphoria disorder, to grown > up abused chlidren. All the regulars can be found in DSM IV. > Either this creature goes or I do. I run this meeting and have run it for nearly a year. I have worked hard to gather and present where we are and how we might move closer to our dreams in next decade or two. I have not sugar coated the challenges of where the world is. I have steered clear of both doom and gloom and complete optimistic faith. If you don't appreciated it, Alan / Alonzo, then go do whatever you find more important. Not once have you offered to contribute in any way to make this group or anything else one whit better. Instead you show up and mostly make irrelevant and offensive remarks, bounce about like an idiot, tell us how irrelevant and pathetic all things virtual are and grow enormous boobs to supposedly show us just how pointless it all is. Sometimes you seem to have a halfway functional intelligence so I had hoped you would eventually calm down and find yourself a bit. It appears I was much too generous and should have swatted you like the insect you have proven yourself to be long ago. As for gender dysphoria it is a well known fact that I was born dysphoric and fixed that two decades ago. I thought you learned your lesson about slinging crap about such things you obviously know nothing about when you did it a couple of years ago on the OCE list. But no, you have not. You are not welcome at my meetings or on any of my land again, ever. > I am not casting stones here, only trying to extrapolate predictions > based on the future evolution of the minds around me. You have just insulted people that have been incredibly patient with you, some of them because I asked them to give you space to grow up a bit. I am sorry that I did so. Lesson learned. - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 26 11:46:18 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 12:46:18 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <705517.78654.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <705517.78654.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20101226114618.GH16518@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 12:48:34AM -0800, The Avantguardian wrote: > But I am still genetically isomorphic to that embryo as is the acorn to the oak > tree. While the morphological phenotypes may have changed, the genetic > information has been fairly well conserved and if you look at the right genomic > subsets, both the acorn and the embryo can be found described within. Abortion is not murder, though. ? > No such?conservation of either morphology or?information is?likely?for an > upload. Initially, you're modeled 1:1 from first principles. There's a continuum from theah to heah. So it's pretty much the same thing. And if you don't like it, you don't have to do it. ? > > There is no fundamental difference between postbiology and you. All > > cognition is embodied.? > > What? Just the differences in the?matter substrate?*and* the volatility of?the Sure, they're made out of meat. > information embodied thereby. Nothing fundamental to see here! Move along, The information pattern between your ears is also pretty volatile. > citizen. > ? > > Only, postbiology is a lot fitter than you. > > What is your evidence for this assumption? Or is it an article of faith? Do you Functionality concentration per amount of volume. Repertoire of accessible structures. Operation temperature range. Facultative volatile use. Fully static design. Energy efficiency. Separation of fabrication and operation. Ability to metabolize the entire PSE. I could go on for pages, but you're probably seeing where I'm getting. Yes, they're way meaner and leaner than us. > mean more fit than me in the vacuum of space or?in the jungle? In a virtual Everywhere. And jungle is crunchy, and good with ketchup. > reality?or within ten feet of an active?Tesla coil? Fitness is relative You're in a virtual reality, rendered by a meat computer. > to?your?environment, to the guy next to you, to any predators,?and to?the > "microbes" beneath your contempt. And if postbiology is manufactured using Microbes are pretty cool. > modern practices, then?it would And if pigs would fly, we would have to carry umbrellas. > probably fail?once?its warranty period expired. The nice thing is that you can halt state, copy over, and resume. No such options for us. ? > BTW I dislike the term postbiology. Biology is?the study of life and would be > just as applicable to machine-phase life?as to?wet-carbon life.?? I use the term exactly because machine-phase is like biology, only more so, and is successor to current biology (both can't co-exist, due to fitness delta and incompatbility (they can eat you, you can't eat them)). > > Far more adept at manipulating > > the physical layer. > > Well we were originally talking about uploads and now we are talking about We're talking about exactly the same thing. > postbiology. Uploads would have to compete with other processor threads for > access to?IO Processor threads? IO? I see where your confusion lies. There's no such thing. That's the way people are building things. It's brittle, inefficient, slow, and dangerous. About to go the way of the dodo. > ports on their box. As long as we meat people don't make some?stupid mistakes, > what is on the other end of that IO port is under our control. Independently It is precisely because we don't have stuff we built under our own control it has to go extinct. And it will most likely turn around, and smack us right in the face with a broom handle. > evolved hive-minded nanospiders on the other hand?could pose?a serious > problem.?? Pretty much everything poses a serious problem. It's interesting that so many suffer a failure of imagination. The world is already stranger than we can imagine, and it's shortly going to get A Lot Worse. (Or, better, actually). > >?So we are the endangered species, for a change. > > It would be an act of cosmic irony, if the perpetrators of the Holocene > > extinction event themselves succumbed to habitat destruction and industrial > > pollution at the hands of their offspring. Mere indifference would be enough. > > There is no irony in this and?H. sapiens?would not be the first species to have Oh, but many will find it ironic indeed. "How could this happen to us? Kings of the world, etc." > done this. The cyanobacteria did exactly this?when they?evolved chlorophyll and Archaea are pretty low on irony department, I hear. Pretty square customers. > threated all life by unleashing?oxygen on the world.?? But they were not aware of what they're doing. We are, yet we're still doing it. > > > do so?and interfaces can be manipulated. > > > > What is your interface to reality? Why is it not being manipulated? > > So what should be different? > > My senses and effector organs are my interface to reality. They are, every time You're operating on a model of reality rendered in the dark, wet space between your ears. They do it, too, only their's is a dry, rigid crystal lattice. You myelin, they bucky. Etc. > I flip on a TV.The difference is > > that my?interface is more fundamental than my processor because it evolved > first.?This?would likely be?the converse of the situation?faced by uploads where > IO devices would be?ancillary to?core data processing and storage devices. Sure > virtual eyes could see virtual skies but the ccd camera for peeping at?the > > "real?world"?may not even?be connected.? That's a lot of heavy steampunk you're doing there. I'm glad you didn't mention ferrite cores, mercury delay lines and perforated dead tree. I'm sure these are even more handicapped. ?? > > So don't do it, then. > > ?I just don't see the enlightened self-interest of uploading. You don't get to Different strokes for different flocks. > live forever. Instead?a bit-pattern that?very quickly diverges away from you It's less about perks like living forever, it's more about transcending the limitations of being a bipedal primate. It tends to cramp your style a bit. > gets?indefinite run time. That's not any closer to immortality than having kids > or writing a?book.?Even if?one didn't upload onself, a simple?brute-force search Ah, you're a mystic. Didn't realize that before. > of permutation space is liable to hit upon?any specific bit-pattern of Each bit doubles the size. (Of the search space). > your?evolution in finite time.?That means that given enough evolving bit > patterns any bit pattern that represents?"you" at any instant of time would very > likely?to be?converged upon?by another entity in the course of their own Only if you believe in infinities. I don't. > evolution.?So for example,?some other upload?could?assume?the same?bit pattern > you?might have had at some stage of your evolution.? You and someone else could > become?identical copies of one another?for?some duration?because of the birthday > paradox. If identity becomes too malleable somewhere along the line, > it?becomes?concomitantly meaningless. Do the math. It doesn't check out. ? > And if?one?contends that?identity is inherently meaningless, then what precisely > are you "preserving"?with an upload???? "After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'" Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson > > The virtual environment does not differ from real environment in any > > other way than it can be more easily changed. Just because it can > > it doesn't mean it will, because you will need a consensus for continuing > > interactions with others. Extreme solipsism is incompatible with > > sustainable existance. > > Virtual environments differ from reality another way too. I offer without proof > that any simulation ought to be a reduced dimensionality subspace of reality. You can render as many dimensions as you like, it's just not efficient in a relativistic universe. Unless you mean something else, I can't quite tell. > With reduced dimensionality comes fewer degrees of freedom and?loss of I would like to see your proof, after all. > information.?Not to mention quantum effects whereby an enforced ignorance of > certain aspects of reality is maintained. In other words??a physicist with What of quantum effects? > decently?equipped lab should be able to?tell whether he is in a simulation or > in?the reality wherein the set of physical laws that he?learned were formulated > and apply. And yes solipsism?sucks but?I see uploading as a social form of > solipsism.? The nice thing about uploader solipsists that they self-select into nonvisibility, until a bunch of non-solipsists come upon the inert congregation, and recycle their atoms for lunch. ? > > > How about Jesus? He seems to visit a lot of people often. > > Maybe Jesus is their gardener. What does religion have to do with this? I was just offering a counter-nonsequitur. Don't mind the burning giraffe. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 26 12:01:11 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 13:01:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] moral issues In-Reply-To: References: <20101225205126.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101226120111.GK16518@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 03:13:52PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > I believe anthropogenic global warming is real, but not at all dire, > and that the hysteria, and the cultural polarization is entirely > political. The sky is not falling. Given the documented amplitude of spontaneous excursions in the paleoclimate record we know it can get nasty, even without anthropogenic forcing. We're definitely pushing a lot. Will the system get into a nonlinear excursion we're yet lacking muscle to stop? Quite possibly. We might not care that much, at first,but about two billions subsistence farmers faced with multiple crop failures in a row will look starvation right in the face. Many will die. Others will move away in desperation. Desperate people pushing in make a recipe for wars. Wars among states with nuclear weapons tend to get rather messy. Another issue that we're already up to our ears in problems, and we definitely do not need another. Like a global nuclear exchange, for instance. Tends to ruin your whole day. And let's face it, running a global civilisation on dead dinos, which have also peaked is not particularly smart. I mean, we'll burn them all of them we can get at, but just because we're lazy. And greedy. And stupid. From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sun Dec 26 14:30:38 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 06:30:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <679728.53407.qm@web114414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> The Avantguardian wrote: > ?I just don't see the enlightened self-interest of uploading. So don't do it, then. > You don't get to live forever. Instead a bit-pattern that very quickly diverges > away from you gets indefinite run time. > That's not any closer to immortality than having kids or writing a book. Hmm. What is 'you' then? You seem to assume that a bit-pattern is not sufficent to encompass all that 'you' are. Afaik, there are only two things that could possibly be 'you': atoms or information. We know it's not atoms, because that can be experimentally demonstrated. So it must be information. If you know of (or even suspect) a third possibility, please tell us. > Even if one didn't upload onself, a simple brute-force search of permutation space is liable to hit upon any specific bit-pattern of your evolution in finite time. That means that given enough evolving bit patterns any bit pattern that represents "you" at any instant of time would very likely to be converged upon by another entity in the course of their own evolution. Indeed. Interesting, isn't it? Counterintuitive, even. > So for example, some other upload could assume the same bit pattern you might have had at some stage of your evolution. You and someone else could become identical copies of one another for some duration because of the birthday paradox. I don't see what relevance the birthday paradox has here. You and someone else could indeed become the same person, at least theoretically. This is really no different to a standard 'mind copying' scenario, and introduces no new factors or problems. > If identity becomes too malleable somewhere along the line, it becomes concomitantly meaningless. Now you're making a conceptual jump that I don't see any justification for. What makes it 'meaningless'? We already know that identity is malleable. I'm a different person to what I was just a few years ago. I don't think my identity is 'meaningless' at all! > And if one contends that identity is inherently meaningless, then what precisely are you "preserving" with an upload???? Identity is not inherently meaningless, but even if it were, an upload would still preserve it. If it didn't, it wouldn't be an upload. > Virtual environments differ from reality another way too. I offer without proof... If you're going to offer things without proof, then anyone is justified in dismissing them without proof! Ben Zaiboc From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sun Dec 26 14:46:42 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 06:46:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <680810.76924.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Alan Grimes wrote a bunch of rather impolite and inflammatory things. OK, I'm not trying to be unkind here, although it may seem as if I am. I assume you see the absurdity of a celibate priest giving sex advice to married couples? There is an analogous absurdity in someone who claims to have 'never even been on a date' proclaiming on the sexual motivations of transhumanists. You know nothing about the mental states of the people who frequent Extropia Core, and I can say this with a good deal of confidence. "my only prospects have been offered by homosexual men! =\": I find that faintly offensive. Not that I blame you, and I acknowledge that the offense is my own responsibility. But I'm pointing out that it can cause offense (in case you didn't realise). Apart from anything else, some of those homosexual men could be your greatest allies. They know a lot of useful stuff. Do you have any gay friends, male or female? I'm betting not. Think about this: If you gain the confidence of a gay guy, you have a friend who is a guy, but girls treat him like another girl. They'll tell him things they'd never tell a straight guy. Things that could be very beneficial to a hot-blooded straight guy. Worth bearing in mind. Plus, a lot of gay people are very nice people. Sexuality is a basic part of human nature, and it will permeate just about any human interests, including transhumanism, but it's probably a good idea if you learn more about it (other peoples' not just yours) before sounding off about it in relation to anything. Get laid. That's a good first step. It's not difficult (really, it's not), you just have to realise that the biggest obstacle is *not* other people. And it doesn't matter how ugly or fat or skinny or limb-deficient or anything else you might be (including mysogynistic. It's a funny old world). Learn about body-language, eye-contact, being interested in other people and acting confident. Fake it all if you have to. Come on, you're an extropian (I presume). You know the drill. Find what works, use it. If it doesn't work for you, try something else. Rinse and repeat until success. Then raise the bar a step. And with something as universal and basic as sex, success is guaranteed! Everybody (almost everybody) wants sex. Especially with someone who's sympathetic (but not sycophantic), attentive (but not clingy) and understanding (but not obsessive). Come back when it's no longer a big deal, and *then* talk about the sexual motivations of transhumanists. I wish you the best of luck. Ben Zaiboc From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 15:16:19 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 15:16:19 +0000 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <680810.76924.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <680810.76924.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: >?Learn about body-language, eye-contact, being interested in other people and > acting confident. ?Fake it all if you have to. > > The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made. Jean Giraudoux (1882 - 1944) (also said by George Burns). BillK From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Dec 26 15:24:20 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 10:24:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <99014EBE-C7D0-4B5B-A3F8-BDF463293C4E@mac.com> References: <99014EBE-C7D0-4B5B-A3F8-BDF463293C4E@mac.com> Message-ID: <20032675-88FB-4F5F-8825-4CC94B1A27EE@bellsouth.net> On Dec 26, 2010, at 6:13 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Why not hype thorium reactors? That is a good question, a very good question indeed! I can't think of any reason not to. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 26 15:41:06 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 09:41:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <680810.76924.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <680810.76924.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D176212.7030007@satx.rr.com> On 12/26/2010 8:46 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Get laid. That's a good first step. It's not difficult (really, it's not), you just have to realise that the biggest obstacle is*not* other people. I think you might have missed his bit about "My own brain is host to two different fetishes, one of which is an extreme form of a fairly common one..." If this meant a sexual tropism that most people regard as disgusting, or is illegal, or doesn't involve other humans, "go and get laid" isn't helpful advice. From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 26 15:36:56 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:36:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <705517.78654.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <705517.78654.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001501cba512$bb062e90$31128bb0$@att.net> > On Behalf Of The Avantguardian ... ? >>... Only, postbiology is a lot fitter... >...BTW I dislike the term postbiology. Biology is?the study of life and would be just as applicable to machine-phase life?as to?wet-carbon life...Stuart LaForge Ja good point. Do propose an alternative. Extra points for words that are short and are suggestive of their meaning. For instance, carbio could be a good term for a carbon based life form, with carbiota meaning a collective of all existing carbios. spike From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Dec 26 15:59:36 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 09:59:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] moral issues In-Reply-To: References: <20101225205126.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: Jeff wrote: >Anyway, you're the one person on the list, now that Eliezer, Bradbury, and others have moved on, >that I consider smarter than me, so make your case. LOL ! (Except the part about 'gene.) Natasha From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 26 16:03:31 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 08:03:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <4D176212.7030007@satx.rr.com> References: <680810.76924.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4D176212.7030007@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001c01cba516$71403d10$53c0b730$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Damien Broderick... Subject: Re: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality On 12/26/2010 8:46 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: >> Get laid. That's a good first step. It's not difficult (really, it's not), you just have to realise that the biggest obstacle is*not* other people. >I think you might have missed his bit about "My own brain is host to two different fetishes, one of which is an extreme form of a fairly common one..." If this meant a sexual tropism that most people regard as disgusting, or is illegal, or doesn't involve other humans, "go and get laid" isn't helpful advice... Well, wait. Sure, but those whose brains host fetishes are extremely lucky to be born recently, so that they have the internet. This allows the unusual ones to find each other. There are likely fetishes so rare they don't even have a name, such as mine. I have an overpowering fetish, but I don't actually know what it is that turns me on. I call it enigmofetish. How rare is that? Fortunately I host a second fetish, the very most common one, the one we usually assume everyone has until we know different, so until or if I ever figure out what the other one is, I can fall back on the first one, the old standard. spike From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 26 16:44:19 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 08:44:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] end of the year cutting up, was RE: simulation as an improvement over reality Message-ID: <000001cba51c$24dece40$6e9c6ac0$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of spike ... >... There are likely fetishes so rare they don't even have a name, such as mine. I have an overpowering fetish, but I don't actually know what it is that turns me on. I call it enigmofetish...spike What if... they arranged a meat-world meeting for enigmosexuals? Imagine some of the comments: "I don't actually know what turns me on, but something is sure as hell doing it." The participants go around meeting and greeting each other "...isn't you, isn't you, not you or you, DEFINITELY not you..." Everyone eventually goes home alone and frustrated, turned on but not knowing why or by whom. Or the participants decide to experiment with those date rape drugs that cause amnesia about the previous day's events. Then the participants know by how they feel that they had a good time the day before, but still don't know what they did. Would that then be considered carnal lack of knowledge? What if they arranged a twelve step program, would people get up and say things like "My name is spike and I am an enigmaniac," which would be followed by a reassuring chorus of "We are too, we think..." spike From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sun Dec 26 16:49:19 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:49:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <2A33F185-E1FE-49B4-BBCF-144200EF5EDD@mac.com> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <4D167F09.6070901@speakeasy.net> <001001cba4b9$8dd73f30$a985bd90$@att.net> <4D16F39E.2050607@speakeasy.net> <2A33F185-E1FE-49B4-BBCF-144200EF5EDD@mac.com> Message-ID: <4D17720F.5060709@speakeasy.net> Samantha Atkins wrote: > Either this creature goes or I do. I run this meeting and have run it for nearly a year. > I have worked hard to gather and present where we are and how we might move closer to our dreams in next > decade or two. You've succeeded at that mission, fairly well. I fail to see how it actually advances the field, but then I'm a total idiot. Your presentations have the feel of the old show "Beyond 2000" which aired in the early '90s talking about gee-wiz gadgets and stuff. Does sitting and watching such a show advance the field? Unless your presentations impart some useful skill, they cannot be anything more than fun and interesting. > I have not sugar coated the challenges of where the world is. I have steered clear of > both doom and gloom and complete optimistic faith. If you don't appreciated it, Alan / Alonzo, then go > do whatever you find more important. If I didn't, I wouldn't show up. > Not once have you offered to contribute in any way to make this > group or anything else one whit better. I've never failed to put forth my best effort. =( Transhumanism happens where electrons meet atoms. Absolutely nothing will happen in transhumanism until two things happen. 1. We agree on some common sub-goals. (Nobody cares about your end-goals unless they involve reducing the earth to computronium.) 2. We pool information and resources towards that goal. I've been watching some videos from a recent AGI conference. I consider that very positive because it represents a pooling of information. Pooling resources is a bit more difficult in our economic system. The best example seems to be the new "hackerspace" movement. That seems to be the biggest step yet towards a pooling of resources that can eventually lead towards transhumanism. > Instead you show up and mostly make irrelevant and offensive > remarks, bounce about like an idiot, That is the only possible activity in VR. > tell us how irrelevant and pathetic all things virtual are and > grow enormous boobs to supposedly show us just how pointless it all is. Wrong. I was merely expressing my own sexuality in a way that is only currently available in VR. I have never lied, exaggerated, misrepresented, or misled anyone about what it is I fantasize about except through omission. No lie detector will make me say differently. If I am expected to accept you as a woman, then in the same way and for the same reason I expect you to respect that I like fantastically enormous boobs. There is no having it both ways. > Sometimes you seem to have a > halfway functional intelligence so I had hoped you would eventually calm down and find yourself a > bit. Sorry, I have no self to find. =\ > It appears I was much too generous and should have swatted you like the insect you have proven > yourself to be long ago. Pfft. If I am, you are. >> > I am not casting stones here, only trying to extrapolate predictions >> > based on the future evolution of the minds around me. > You have just insulted people that have been incredibly patient with you, some of them because I asked > them to give you space to grow up a bit. I am sorry that I did so. Lesson learned. What part of "I'm not casting stones" did you not understand? -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 26 15:47:35 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 09:47:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <20032675-88FB-4F5F-8825-4CC94B1A27EE@bellsouth.net> References: <99014EBE-C7D0-4B5B-A3F8-BDF463293C4E@mac.com> <20032675-88FB-4F5F-8825-4CC94B1A27EE@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4D176397.2030906@satx.rr.com> On 12/26/2010 9:24 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> Why not hype thorium reactors? > > That is a good question, a very good question indeed! I can't think of > any reason not to. Because it's nook-yuh-luh, and nook-yuh-luh is phobia-grade scary? Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 17:28:26 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 17:28:26 +0000 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <4D176397.2030906@satx.rr.com> References: <99014EBE-C7D0-4B5B-A3F8-BDF463293C4E@mac.com> <20032675-88FB-4F5F-8825-4CC94B1A27EE@bellsouth.net> <4D176397.2030906@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 12/26/2010 9:24 AM, John Clark wrote: >> >>> Why not hype thorium reactors? >> That is a good question, a very good question indeed! I can't think of >> any reason not to. > > Because it's nook-yuh-luh, and nook-yuh-luh is phobia-grade scary? > > I guess you'll have to learn to speak Chinese. As of 2010, the People's Republic of China (not including Taiwan) has 11 nuclear power reactors, plus 25 under construction and another 54 planned. BillK From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sun Dec 26 17:02:48 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 12:02:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <20101226114618.GH16518@leitl.org> References: <705517.78654.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101226114618.GH16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4D177538.3070103@speakeasy.net> Eugen Leitl wrote: >> postbiology. Uploads would have to compete with other processor threads for >> > access to IO > Processor threads? IO? I see where your confusion lies. There's no such > thing. That's the way people are building things. It's brittle, inefficient, > slow, and dangerous. About to go the way of the dodo. I consider myself a fairly advanced programmer who is comfortable twiddling bits and finding extra machine cycles. It sounds like you're talking about the abandonment of the Von Nemuan architecture. Has anyone even published a paper on the architecture you seem to be alluding to? -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 17:43:38 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 10:43:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Dec 25, 2010, at 7:50 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 7:13 PM, ?John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:32 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >>>> >>>> The best way I see is to come up with an energy source considerably >>>> less expensive than fossil fuels. >>> >>> That would be a great way to cure global warming but unfortunately nobody has figured out how to make a cheap clean substitute for fossil fuels yet, nobody has figured out a cure for CO2 emissions (if that is indeed the cause of the problem) that is not worse than the disease. >> >> You must not have read the rest of my post where I discussed how to do it. >> >> The *easy* part is making a clean cheap substitutes for fossil fuels. >> We know how to suck CO2 out of air at a cost of around 100 kWh/t (360 >> kWh per ton of carbon). ?We know how to make hydrogen either directly >> from heat (S I process) or by electrolysis. ?We, or rather Sasol, >> knows how to bulid a plant that will turn these two into synthetic >> fuel at a cost of around $10 per bbl.\ > > Hydrogen is a not a very efficient fuel. Unless you are fusing it in the sun, it isn't a fuel at all. It is a really bad way to move energy around unless you make it into hydrocarbons, then it become familiar hydrocarbons. > Why not hype thorium reactors? ?The better designs can produce electricity far cheaper than from the best grade of coal - which is currently the cheapest energy source we have. ? There are many paths to syngas and such, it is true. ?But not one of them produces energy that cheap. ? Much of the case for such today is made on the basis of how "green" they are. ?One case in particular that I know well gave up on more green sources for the gas, gave up on using concentrated solar to fire the original biomass and ended up burning natural gas in a process that doesn't produce a lot more than when into it and produces some nasty waste gases to boot. ? This is not at all a panacea in any form I have seen to date. It depends on how inexpensive the capital and energy costs are. Bio is a really poor source for energy, but if you have plenty of energy, it's not a bad place to source carbon for synthetic hydrocarbons. But if your carbon cost go over the cost of electric power to suck carbon out of the air and reduce the CO2 to hydrocarbons then you can just get the carbon from the air. >> >> $1 B written off over ten years is $100 M/year. ?The plant makes >> 34,000 bbls of oil a day or ?about 12.5 M B of oil a year at a capital >> cost of $100 M per year. > > So by your above figures it barely breaks even. It and similar plants run by Shell in Indonesia make a ton of money based on low cost "stranded" gas. But I wasn't analyzing profit, just capital cost. > You do know that 34K bbls is a barely registering drop in the proverbial bucket, right? Of course. Current US consumption is about 20 M bbls a day. It would take around 590 plants this size to feed our refineries. >> ?So the capital cost is around $8 per bbl >> plus maybe $2 per bbl maintenance and labor. ?It's using gas as the >> source of carbon and hydrogen, but it would be just as happy on carbon >> dioxide from the air and hydrogen from water. > > Not really. ?Please do the math and show your work. ?I know several people working various variations of this and I don't believe this story. I did the math above for the capital cost. Are you asking about the chemistry? Starting with CO2 instead of CO takes one extra molecule of hydrogen. It's the reverse water gas shift http://spot.colorado.edu/~meyertr/rwgs/rwgs.html. The excess of hydrogen in the mixed gas feed forces the reaction in the right direction to make CO and water. If that isn't what you are asking about, please clarify >> >> The hard part is getting energy cost down to where you can make >> inexpensive synthetic hydrocarbons. ?StratoSolar *might* do it. ?The >> engineering to cope with maximum wind is very hard. >> > What for? ?As a temporary until you can convert most transportation to electric? ?Perhaps. ?But electric is the way to go not far down the line. How do you intend to replace jet fuel? >> Power satellites could also do it if you can get the launch cost to >> GEO down to $100/kg.- > > That is step #1 - and it is a real doozie from here as you know. It's big, I agree, but it isn't conceptually hard now. Before high efficiency laser diodes, I don't think anyone had a good idea of how to do this at all.. > Step #2 which we don't have much of a clue about is how to assemble and maintain that large a solar field in GEO in perpetuity. ?We don't do space walks out there for some pretty good reasons. You are probably thinking about the Van Allen belts. No problem to drain them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Removal > Without major space robotics advances I don't see it happening for at least a couple of decades. Given only a modest improvement over WW II Liberty ship production rates (tons per hour) 1000 people could assemble 200 GW of power sats per year. Sold at only $1.6 B per GW (a small fraction of nuclear costs) that's a revenue stream of $320 B per year against a lift cost (the major factor) of $100 B. On the basis of a ten year return on capital, $1.6 B/GW is 2 cents per kWh. > Fortunately we have better ways of resolving the energy crisis or looming crisis in the meantime. Oh? Please explain. I spent 3 years on reducing the cost of power satellites and have worked the last year on StratoSolar. The fundamental problem with solar energy is that it is dilute and intermittent. Wind has the same problem. Both require huge capital costs that translate into high cost per kWh. >> >>> So until somebody dose figure that out and if the problem is really as catastrophic as the doomsayers say it is then we'd better have another idea; and Nathan Myhrvold, the former chief technical officer at Microsoft, may have one, build an artificial volcano. > > Now that is Big Thinking. ?Incredibly stupid perhaps but BIG. Having spent a lot of time working on the effects of wind on tethered buoyant structures, I have my doubts they have really analyzed the problem. Big structures such as StratoSolar take advantage of cube to area ratios. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 26 17:43:39 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:43:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] end of the year cutting up, In-Reply-To: <000001cba51c$24dece40$6e9c6ac0$@att.net> References: <000001cba51c$24dece40$6e9c6ac0$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D177ECB.3040402@satx.rr.com> On 12/26/2010 10:44 AM, spike wrote: > Or the participants decide to experiment with those date rape drugs that > cause amnesia about the previous day's events. Then the participants know > by how they feel that they had a good time the day before, but still don't > know what they did. Would that then be considered carnal lack of knowledge? "Cutting up" might not have been the happiest term to use in this context... From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sun Dec 26 17:50:01 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 12:50:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <001c01cba516$71403d10$53c0b730$@att.net> References: <680810.76924.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4D176212.7030007@satx.rr.com> <001c01cba516$71403d10$53c0b730$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D178049.402@speakeasy.net> spike wrote: > Well, wait. Sure, but those whose brains host fetishes are extremely lucky > to be born recently, so that they have the internet. This allows the > unusual ones to find each other. There are likely fetishes so rare they > don't even have a name, such as mine. I have an overpowering fetish, but I > don't actually know what it is that turns me on. I call it enigmofetish. > How rare is that? I don't know. I'd be happy to play quack psychologist on IRC or in SL. It is against my principles to criticize anyone over something like that. I genuinely want to help. The point is always to find a healthy outlet for what you feel and to not let it poison the rest of your mind. People don't cross me until they fail to accomplish the later. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 26 17:46:46 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 09:46:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] end of the year cutting up, maybe Message-ID: <000001cba524$de3dd130$9ab97390$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of spike Subject: [ExI] end of the year cutting up ... On Behalf Of spike ... >>... I call it enigmofetish...spike >... Would that then be considered carnal lack of knowledge? What if two enigmosexuals met online and arranged to meet, but neither knew what they were going to do? Perhaps they would play the 60s board game Mystery Date? Perhaps several enigmosexuals meet to have a drunken orgy, but it spontaneously broke into a game of strip twister? Evolution has created so many kludgey structures in living organisms, Rube Goldberg systems that exist only because they have stable intermediate protoforms but are terrible solutions to the original problem. Imagine alien life forms cruising the galaxy, noting the blue planet has an abundance of a non-ground state chemical, molecular oxygen, which suggests life, so they go down to check it out. Soon they see sexual intercourse and note how common it is in so many unrelated species. The aliens species would die laughing, if they have anything analogous to laughter. Of course we seldom contemplate it, because we are so accustomed to the notion from a lifetime of porno movies. But once one thinks about it in all its forms, copulation is just completely absurd. It is so weird it is just amazing it even exists. If it didn't feel so good, we would never do it at all. So very undignified! There are a hundred good reasons, perhaps a thousand, why it is really a bad answer for the need to exchange genetic material, expensive, awkward, often dangerous. But it is a bad solution that we like so very well. As Bob Marley's ghost said to Scrooge "Lighten up, mon! Eets Chreeestmaaaaahhss." spike From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sun Dec 26 17:41:34 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 12:41:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <680810.76924.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <680810.76924.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D177E4E.8090905@speakeasy.net> Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Alan Grimes wrote a bunch of rather impolite and inflammatory things. > There is an analogous absurdity in someone who claims to have 'never even been on a date' proclaiming > on the sexual motivations of transhumanists. You know nothing about the mental states of the people who > frequent Extropia Core, and I can say this with a good deal of confidence. They express themselves quite plainly. The ones that don't are merely being properly modest. > "my only prospects have been offered by homosexual men! =\": I find that faintly offensive. Not that I > blame you, and I acknowledge that the offense is my own responsibility. But I'm pointing out that it can > cause offense (in case you didn't realise). THAT?!?!??! IMPOSSIBLE!!! If me talking about my own sexual frustrations offends *ANYONE* then there must be something profoundly wrong with that person. > Apart from anything else, some of those homosexual men could > be your greatest allies. They know a lot of useful stuff. Do you have any gay friends, male or female? The only female who has chosen to be my on-line friend claims to be a kinky asexual... > Sexuality is a basic part of human nature, and it will permeate just about any human interests, > including transhumanism, but it's probably a good idea if you learn more about it (other peoples' not > just yours) before sounding off about it in relation to anything. Yes! > Get laid. That's a good first step. It's not difficult (really, it's not), you just have to realise > that the biggest obstacle is *not* other people. And it doesn't matter how ugly or fat or skinny or > limb-deficient or anything else you might be (including mysogynistic. It's a funny old world). Learn > about body-language, eye-contact, being interested in other people and acting confident. Fake it all/ > if you have to. I'm turning 33 next week... I have a house, a pile of gold and silver, no debt (even mortgage!), My physical appearance is actually rather good. But no, I couldn't get a date to save my life. I'm trying to talk a girl into being my first date on OKCupid, it's almost scary how well matched we are. We were talking about anime so I called us both Otaku, but she seems to have taken offense to that. =( If I can't get her to date me once, for even ten minutes, ending with a slap to my face, then it simply isn't going to happen in my lifetime. =( > Come on, you're an extropian (I presume). You know the drill. Find what works, use it. If it doesn't > work for you, try something else. I have a null feedback signal. There is no way to apply any kind of hill-climbing algorithm. It's still purely monte-carlo for me. =( > Rinse and repeat until success. Then raise the bar a step. And with > something as universal and basic as sex, success is guaranteed! Everybody (almost everybody) wants sex. > Especially with someone who's sympathetic (but not sycophantic), attentive (but not clingy) and > understanding (but not obsessive). Recently, I'd been harboring the hypothesis that women don't actually have sex drives at all. The only reason they bother with men at all is that they need to have someone strong around the house to open vacuum sealed bottles for them. > Come back when it's no longer a big deal, and *then* talk about the sexual motivations of > transhumanists. That is functionally equivalent to saying "don't come back". =( -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Dec 26 18:18:48 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 12:18:48 -0600 Subject: [ExI] end of the year cutting up, maybe In-Reply-To: <000001cba524$de3dd130$9ab97390$@att.net> References: <000001cba524$de3dd130$9ab97390$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D178708.3070302@satx.rr.com> On 12/26/2010 11:46 AM, spike wrote: > Of course we seldom contemplate it, because we are so accustomed to the > notion from a lifetime of porno movies. But once one thinks about it in all > its forms, copulation is just completely absurd. Lord Chesterfield famously commented: "the pleasure is momentary, the position ridiculous, and the expense damnable." From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Sun Dec 26 19:55:24 2010 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 12:55:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <4D153A04.4070009@canonizer.com> Message-ID: <4D179DAC.2040008@canonizer.com> Hi Jeff, I bet most of us here, would agree that doing anything to help Cryonics become more main stream is better, and most of us would put something like this near the tops of our things that Extropians should be doing list. But there are probably differences of opinion on how best to do this. I would sure like to survey for all of this. Some evidently even like to come up with faithless excuses like listing as many as possible saying like "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", What about "minding one's own business?" and on and on, as if their working hypothesis is that it is better to not even try. Regardless of what everyone thinks is the best way to go about promoting cryonics, the system is capable of surveying for all this concisely and quantitative, and finding out what all of us think, in sub camps to a 'promotion of cryonics' thing to do camp ( http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/120 ). It just takes a bit of collaborative work for us to achieve this. But I guess even something as simple as that is asking too much? Max has now been placed at the top of one hierarchy (congratulations Max!) and sure, he'll surely do much good for all of us in that position. I just always wonder how much more could we do, if more people were willing to do more to help, and work together on some of these things. You talked of your HMO idea, as if it would even be ambitions for someone like Max, in this new position. I can't seem to shake the idea, that if all of us extropians were willing to give of themselves just a bit (something like 1/10 the amount typical Mormons give of themselves), and if a few thousand of us were capable of agreeing on something enough for all of us to collaborate with such, grandiose change the world like things like a growing very functional Cryonics based HMO wold be child's play, and there would be no end to fantastic things like that we'd be doing. Just posting such an idea to get lost in the list archives surely isn't dong much, it seems to me. You mentioned: "from what I've seen, cryonics people though good folks, and smart, are even more fractious than your run-of-the-mill humanity." and I ask you, would you include yourself in this? Do you include everyone on this list in this? Are you, and everyone else, doing anything to try to help out and do more than just be 'fractious'? I think it's all in the types of organizations that are getting things done, as in 'organized religion'. I, myself, probably due to my Mormon heritage, love being a part of and supporting a large organization that is really having a large effect on the world. The only problem for me is, that organization tends to be leading us to things like sending our loved ones to hell or rotting them in the grave, or worse and other nearly as bad things. I think it is good for people to be fracturous and not support any kind of such 'organized religion' that is dragging us down, or at best holding us back, like that. What I believe, is we simply need a better way of managing and organizing things, than traditional primitive hierarchies and 'organized religions'. It should be managed from the bottom up, in a crowd sourced way, collaboratively emerging from what EVERYONE at the bottom wants do. Not something that repudiates what the people at the bottom want in favor of what some sole dirt bag at the top wants. I think it is all simply a matter of communication. We've got to find out, concisely and quantitatively, in an emergent crowd source way, what EVERYONE at the bottom wants and values, and sort all that acordingly, to figure out what we should be working on. And everyone that is willing to work on certain tasks, should be able to find one another, and work collaboratively. We're never going to accomplish anything significant in this world, like building an HMO, as a 'do it yourself' project. To me, that do it yourself attitude is very antisocial, selfish, fruitless - even immoral and evil. I believe that first and foremost, we've got to communicate, concisely and quantitatively, what do we all want, and where are there shared wants we can collaboratively develop, together, with all that are interested and motivated for such? I think once we get out of this I"m going to do it all myself attitude, or worse, it's not even worth trying, and start being willing to work together, then we will be able to finally do some much more significant things like creating HMOs. We'll be able to save the world. So, again, I ask everyone. What are you doing / working on / to help out? Are you willing to try to find others that share your interests, and work collaboratively with them, instead of doing it all yourself, or just finding longs lists of excuses for not even trying? Brent Allsop On 12/25/2010 9:53 AM, Jeff Davis wrote: > Thanks, > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Brent Allsop > wrote: >> Wow Jeff, sounds like some great ideas here. > Thank you, Brent. > > > >> Would you care to formalize some of this a bit, and submit it as a starting >> draft for a new cryonics camp as something we should all or could all be >> supporting and working on and developing...? > I'd be pleased to see another cryonics "camp" as you put it, adopting > a "modernized" approach. A new organization might have greater > flexibility to adopt a new approach.. At the same time a new > organization could escape whatever legacy of bad publicity currently > "burdens" Alcor and CI. Sort of a "change you can believe in" -- > apologies for using this now-tainted slogan, but you get my point -- > for cryonics. > >> We can't expect Max to do it all, > On the one hand, he's in a position to bring about change, on the > other hand long-term stability and keeping cryonics patients safe is > an overriding priority, so cryonics organizations are understandably > cautious/conservative, particularly in a hostile social environment.. > >> we've all got to work together, and find out what everyone thinks are >> the best things we should all be working on, and all work together on all >> such. > I agree, but from what I've seen, cryonics people though good folks, > and smart, are even more fractious than your run-of-the-mill humanity. > Frustrating, that. > > Regarding the HMO idea, you don't really have to provide the hospitals > and doctors -- that could be sub-ed out. You could simply sell the > medical insurance, but when you sub out the medical care, they have to > be medical staff trained and willing to perform the suspensions. > Patients would then be transferred to long-term patient care (ie > cryonic storage) facilities. > > Best, Jeff Davis > > "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." > Ray Charles > From spike66 at att.net Sun Dec 26 19:47:30 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 11:47:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] end of the year cutting up, maybe In-Reply-To: <000001cba524$de3dd130$9ab97390$@att.net> References: <000001cba524$de3dd130$9ab97390$@att.net> Message-ID: <000501cba535$bc1036a0$3430a3e0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of spike >..copulation is just completely absurd... Consider how much of our humor has something to do with copulation. Nearly all of it really. So much so that if one takes all the humor that has no references to sex, even subtle ones, it forms almost its own specialty subcategory that isn't all that big. Call it Readers Digest humor. But even that is an understatement, for much of even the tepid Readers Digest has subtle references to sex. It's hard to tell sexless jokes! Even if you do, it sounds like some geezer is telling it. Sex and humor are inextricably intertwined. Evolution has given us an enormous joke, a deep well of humor that is apparently inexhaustable. Thanks evolution! >...But it is a bad solution that we like so very well... spike Imagine a kind of kink that is the polar opposite to the usual turn on. For instance, less clothing is usually considered more sexy; examples are completely unnecessary to illustrate that obvious notion. But what if that somehow became reversed, turned thru pi radians, so that the more clothing one wore the sexier she would appear? That would create an obvious problem, for as the couple prepared for amorous activity, they would presumably need to remove at least some of the multiple overlayers, which would then be less sexy instead of more. The old strip tease wouldn't work at all. If that became a popular obsession, women would strut their stuff in those non-descript black bags that cover everything, like those seen in certain places in the middle east. spike From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 26 20:53:02 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 21:53:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <20032675-88FB-4F5F-8825-4CC94B1A27EE@bellsouth.net> References: <99014EBE-C7D0-4B5B-A3F8-BDF463293C4E@mac.com> <20032675-88FB-4F5F-8825-4CC94B1A27EE@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <20101226205302.GM16518@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:24:20AM -0500, John Clark wrote: > On Dec 26, 2010, at 6:13 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > Why not hype thorium reactors? > > That is a good question, a very good question indeed! I can't think of any reason not to. "I can't just order them from Areva" would be a pretty good reason. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 26 20:55:08 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 21:55:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <001501cba512$bb062e90$31128bb0$@att.net> References: <705517.78654.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <001501cba512$bb062e90$31128bb0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101226205508.GN16518@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 07:36:56AM -0800, spike wrote: > Ja good point. Do propose an alternative. Extra points for words that are > short and are suggestive of their meaning. For instance, carbio could be a > good term for a carbon based life form, with carbiota meaning a collective Graphene is pure carbon. So is diamond. What about sapphire? > of all existing carbios. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 26 21:11:18 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 22:11:18 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: <4D179DAC.2040008@canonizer.com> References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <4D153A04.4070009@canonizer.com> <4D179DAC.2040008@canonizer.com> Message-ID: <20101226211118.GP16518@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 12:55:24PM -0700, Brent Allsop wrote: > I bet most of us here, would agree that doing anything to help Cryonics > become more main stream is better, and most of us would put something There are some serious problems in cryonics which prevent it from going mainstream. See http://cryoeuro.eu:8080/download/attachments/425990/Cryonics_Failure_Analysis_Part_1_v3.0.pdf http://cryoeuro.eu:8080/download/attachments/425990/Cryonics_Failure_Analysis_Part_2v5.2.pdf http://cryoeuro.eu:8080/download/attachments/425990/Cryonics_Failure_Analysis_Part_3v5.4.pdf (caveat, obsolete snapshot of a work in progress, not done yet, check back in a couple months). Notice that this is just a preliminary failure analysis. Not a fix HOWTO. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Sun Dec 26 21:35:02 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 22:35:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:43:38AM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: > > Fortunately we have better ways of resolving the energy crisis or looming crisis in the meantime. > > Oh? Please explain. I spent 3 years on reducing the cost of power > satellites and have worked the last year on StratoSolar. The > fundamental problem with solar energy is that it is dilute and > intermittent. Wind has the same problem. Both require huge capital I don't think it's at all dilute. Solar flux upon outer residential building skin is enough to power it. In fact, Si PV rather likes it cooler, so you need backventilation to make it approach optimum. Many human activities are following diurnal cycles, and cheap nocturnal power is an artefact of large plant thermal inertia and dynamic market pricing. You can assume nocturnal demand will collapse if price was to double or triple. People need houses, these have outer building skins which need to be durable. Thin-film photovoltaics is an excellent way where construction material doubles up in function (in fact, CdTe has about an order magnitude more of energy supply equivalent than enrichened uranium in LWRs, not considering recycling). The prices are getting there, eventually. The hard part is making the growth match the demand gap, double and triple electrification, and build up electrosynthesis infrastructure for fuels and chemical feedstock. Work done there so far: nearly zero. I grant you this is hard, we're not doing nearly enough of that, and this is going to hurt. However, we do not have any other options. > costs that translate into high cost per kWh. I see lots of PV panels on farmer barns around here. Not exactly huge capital costs, and the kWh prices are a factor of about 2 removed from residential electricity prices. It looks like thin-film PV will become the cheapest electrical energy option for end consumers in less than a decade. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 22:04:09 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 22:04:09 +0000 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > I see lots of PV panels on farmer barns around here. Not exactly > huge capital costs, and the kWh prices are a factor of about 2 > removed from residential electricity prices. It looks like thin-film > PV will become the cheapest electrical energy option for end consumers > in less than a decade. > > Plus 'Passive house' and 'Zero energy house' designs. Quote: A Passive House is a very well-insulated, virtually air-tight building that is primarily heated by passive solar gain and by internal gains from people, electrical equipment, etc. Energy losses are minimized. Any remaining heat demand is provided by an extremely small source. Over the last 10 years more than 15,000 buildings in Europe - from single and multifamily residences, to schools, factories and office buildings - have been designed and built or remodeled to the passive house standard. ------------ BillK From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Dec 26 22:08:06 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 17:08:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5CFDC22B-E295-4DAE-8D1E-95A7406EDC15@bellsouth.net> On Dec 25, 2010, at 10:50 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > > The *easy* part is making a clean cheap substitutes for fossil fuels. > We know how to suck CO2 out of air at a cost of around 100 kWh/t (360 > kWh per ton of carbon). I'm much more interested (and much more skeptical) in a dollars per ton figure than energy per ton. And I'm not even certain CO2 is at the root of the problem, it certainly isn't the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor is, and water vapor is the very thing that current climate models handel so poorly. I just have a hard time getting all worked up over the rise in CO2, OK it has risen from 280 parts per million to 380 parts per million over the last century, but 80 million years ago it was well over 1000ppm and life got along just fine, plant did rather better that they do now in fact. Plants like CO2, that's why commercial greenhouses deliberately increase it to over 1400ppm. It's also interesting that over the history of the Earth most CO2 increases seem to come after a temperature rise and not before. > We know how to make hydrogen either directly from heat (S I process) Where does the heat come from? > or by electrolysis. Even if the electricity came from solar cells that might not be good news for global warming; solar cells are designed to capture sunlight and thus are black, but only about 12% of the light is converted to electricity, so 88% is converted directly into heat. >> In another design that would probably be even cheaper he just slips a sleeve over the smokestack of any existing small to midsize coal power plant in the higher latitudes and uses the hot exhaust to fill hot air balloons to support the hose. > > It's a lot harder than you might think. Myhrvold is saying that if you want to cure global warming in the northern hemisphere then pick any existing medium sized coal power plant that is not too far from the arctic circle and simply extend the smokestack from 1000 feet its at now to 18 miles. That's it. That sounds a lot easier than a space elevator, or power satellites, or scrubbing the atmosphere clean of CO2; and that last might not even cool the planet, but thanks to Pinatubo we know for sure that sulphur dioxide in the stratosphere will. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Dec 26 22:47:33 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:47:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <5CFDC22B-E295-4DAE-8D1E-95A7406EDC15@bellsouth.net> References: <5CFDC22B-E295-4DAE-8D1E-95A7406EDC15@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Dec 26, 2010, at 2:08 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Dec 25, 2010, at 10:50 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> The *easy* part is making a clean cheap substitutes for fossil fuels. >> We know how to suck CO2 out of air at a cost of around 100 kWh/t (360 >> kWh per ton of carbon). > > I'm much more interested (and much more skeptical) in a dollars per ton figure than energy per ton. And I'm not even certain CO2 is at the root of the problem, it certainly isn't the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor is, and water vapor is the very thing that current climate models handel so poorly. The bottom line is that there is no good evidence of a dangerous amount of warming or hardly any statistically significant warming at all if you check variation over say the last several centuries. OTOH we know for certain, or darn well should by now, that we are facing a major economic breakdown and pending energy crisis. So why don't we, as rational future minded folks, focus our attention on the real problems and opportunities? - s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Dec 26 22:49:28 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:49:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Dec 26, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:43:38AM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: >>> Fortunately we have better ways of resolving the energy crisis or looming crisis in the meantime. >> >> Oh? Please explain. I spent 3 years on reducing the cost of power >> satellites and have worked the last year on StratoSolar. The >> fundamental problem with solar energy is that it is dilute and >> intermittent. Wind has the same problem. Both require huge capital > > I don't think it's at all dilute. Solar flux upon outer residential > building skin is enough to power it. In fact, Si PV rather likes > it cooler, so you need backventilation to make it approach optimum. > Many human activities are following diurnal cycles, and cheap nocturnal > power is an artefact of large plant thermal inertia and dynamic market > pricing. You can assume nocturnal demand will collapse if price > was to double or triple. True, when we have cheap efficient enough thin film solar. However, we have no reason to expect this to occur within this next crucial decade. So on to the next solution for now. -s From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Dec 26 22:57:50 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:57:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <4D177E4E.8090905@speakeasy.net> References: <680810.76924.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4D177E4E.8090905@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <7CA2D095-F591-4424-9615-FF09F76BD3FC@mac.com> Why is this Alan Grimes creature still here? If you have chosen to keep him then I have no home here. If you think there is no problem then I have no home here. If you choose to ignore blatant attacks, homophobia, transphopbia and plain rude insistence on his own views no matter how patiently they are debunked over and over again then I have no home here. Choose. - samantha On Dec 26, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: > Ben Zaiboc wrote: >> Alan Grimes wrote a bunch of rather impolite and inflammatory things. > >> There is an analogous absurdity in someone who claims to have 'never even been on a date' proclaiming >> on the sexual motivations of transhumanists. You know nothing about > the mental states of the people who >> frequent Extropia Core, and I can say this with a good deal of confidence. > > They express themselves quite plainly. The ones that don't are merely > being properly modest. > >> "my only prospects have been offered by homosexual men! =\": I find that faintly offensive. Not that I >> blame you, and I acknowledge that the offense is my own > responsibility. But I'm pointing out that it can >> cause offense (in case you didn't realise). > > THAT?!?!??! IMPOSSIBLE!!! If me talking about my own sexual frustrations > offends *ANYONE* then there must be something profoundly wrong with that > person. > >> Apart from anything else, some of those homosexual men could >> be your greatest allies. They know a lot of useful stuff. Do you have > any gay friends, male or female? > > The only female who has chosen to be my on-line friend claims to be a > kinky asexual... > >> Sexuality is a basic part of human nature, and it will permeate just about any human interests, >> including transhumanism, but it's probably a good idea if you learn > more about it (other peoples' not >> just yours) before sounding off about it in relation to anything. > > Yes! > >> Get laid. That's a good first step. It's not difficult (really, it's not), you just have to realise >> that the biggest obstacle is *not* other people. And it doesn't > matter how ugly or fat or skinny or >> limb-deficient or anything else you might be (including mysogynistic. > It's a funny old world). Learn >> about body-language, eye-contact, being interested in other people and > acting confident. Fake it all/ >> if you have to. > > I'm turning 33 next week... I have a house, a pile of gold and silver, > no debt (even mortgage!), My physical appearance is actually rather > good. But no, I couldn't get a date to save my life. I'm trying to talk > a girl into being my first date on OKCupid, it's almost scary how well > matched we are. We were talking about anime so I called us both Otaku, > but she seems to have taken offense to that. =( If I can't get her to > date me once, for even ten minutes, ending with a slap to my face, then > it simply isn't going to happen in my lifetime. =( > >> Come on, you're an extropian (I presume). You know the drill. Find what works, use it. If it doesn't >> work for you, try something else. > > I have a null feedback signal. There is no way to apply any kind of > hill-climbing algorithm. It's still purely monte-carlo for me. =( > >> Rinse and repeat until success. Then raise the bar a step. And with >> something as universal and basic as sex, success is guaranteed! > Everybody (almost everybody) wants sex. >> Especially with someone who's sympathetic (but not sycophantic), > attentive (but not clingy) and >> understanding (but not obsessive). > > Recently, I'd been harboring the hypothesis that women don't actually > have sex drives at all. The only reason they bother with men at all is > that they need to have someone strong around the house to open vacuum > sealed bottles for them. > >> Come back when it's no longer a big deal, and *then* talk about the sexual motivations of >> transhumanists. > > That is functionally equivalent to saying "don't come back". =( > > -- > DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. > DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. > Powers are not rights. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From atymes at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 23:04:20 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 15:04:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: <20101226211118.GP16518@leitl.org> References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <4D153A04.4070009@canonizer.com> <4D179DAC.2040008@canonizer.com> <20101226211118.GP16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > There are some serious problems in cryonics which prevent it from > going mainstream. > > See > > http://cryoeuro.eu:8080/download/attachments/425990/Cryonics_Failure_Analysis_Part_1_v3.0.pdf > > http://cryoeuro.eu:8080/download/attachments/425990/Cryonics_Failure_Analysis_Part_2v5.2.pdf > > http://cryoeuro.eu:8080/download/attachments/425990/Cryonics_Failure_Analysis_Part_3v5.4.pdf TL,DR: "Waaah! Society hasn't accepted cyronics yet so it never will!" This analysis does not seem credible. Just to quote slide 31, it states that cyronics: * Mandates a complete change in reproduction Nope. No change in reproduction is necessarily linked. (Potential population increases can be dealt with in other ways, and that's a topic that exists even without cryo.) * Perturbs generational succession Not for a long time - until regenerative medicine has increased to the point where this perturbation is being dealt with anyway. * Requires Space Colonization Hardly. It's possible, with better - if "mundane" - agricultural and housing technology to dramatically increase the number of humans living on the Earth's land masses, and that's not even getting into aquatic colonization.. * Requires (and supports) profoundly disruptive technologies: cloning, regenerative medicine, nanotechnology, AI Only regenerative medicine is necessarily linked - though that might in turn support cloning. Nanotechnology is only linked through the fact that anything biotech is arguably "nanotechnology", but that's an abuse of the term. AI is not necessarily linked at all (save through uploading - which could happen with or without cryo). * Ends the Species: Enables Transhumanism Again, no. Regenerative medicine might enable it, but A might cause B might cause C is a tenuous chain. (A = cryo, B = reg. med., C = transhumanism) The rest of this - I stopped reading a bit under halfway through part 1, after seeing fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy. Perhaps Max should read this, though, as practice for the kind of arguments he's going to have to debunk repeatedly. From atymes at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 23:11:50 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 15:11:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > Given only a modest improvement over WW II Liberty ship production > rates (tons per hour) 1000 people could assemble 200 GW of power sats > per year. ?Sold at only $1.6 B per GW (a small fraction of nuclear > costs) that's a revenue stream of $320 B per year against a lift cost > (the major factor) of $100 B. ?On the basis of a ten year return on > capital, $1.6 B/GW is 2 cents per kWh. If you have that much capital floating around, why not just make an all-automated factory to do the assembly? Reduce the per-sat costs to not much more than raw materials & launch. From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Dec 26 23:48:51 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 16:48:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] moral issues In-Reply-To: References: <20101225205126.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: Thank you, Natasha. If I made you laugh, then it was a successful post Warmly, Jeff Davis Aspiring Transhuman / Delusional Ape (Take your pick) Nicq MacDonald On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Jeff wrote: > >>Anyway, you're the one person on the list, now that Eliezer, Bradbury, and > others have moved on, >>that I consider smarter than me, so make your case. > > LOL ! ? (Except the part about 'gene.) > > Natasha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From agrimes at speakeasy.net Mon Dec 27 00:18:29 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 19:18:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <7CA2D095-F591-4424-9615-FF09F76BD3FC@mac.com> References: <680810.76924.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4D177E4E.8090905@speakeasy.net> <7CA2D095-F591-4424-9615-FF09F76BD3FC@mac.com> Message-ID: <4D17DB55.3010407@speakeasy.net> Samantha Atkins wrote: > Why is this Alan Grimes creature still here? If I'm a 'creature', you are too. > If you have chosen to keep him then I have no home here. > If you think there is no problem then I have no home here. > If you choose to ignore blatant attacks, homophobia, transphopbia and plain rude > insistence on his own views no matter how patiently they are debunked over and over > again then I have no home here. Choose. I feel obliged to respond to this because I've been awed, in recent hours, by the display of raw power this person has demonstrated. When I logged into secondlife to try to figure out why streaming audio wasn't working, I found that I had been banned from not one, not two, but THREE transhumanist communities on SL. It is very important to try to explain what this implies. It costs linden dollars to start a group in secondlife, and, if it is not prosperous in an absurdly short period of time, it is deleted by the system. I know this because I've tried to do it myself. Therefore, there is a fixed, finite upper bound on the number of transhumanist communities it is possible to form in secondlife, because there is a small number of transhumanists and they are only willing/able to join a small number of communities. That this one person has the power to ban me from three of them at a stroke is an extremely worrying concentration of power that I think is extremely detrimental to the movement as a whole. As should be obvious to anyone who did anything more to my post than run it through a political correctness filter, I'm going through a fairly rough time in my life. My life strongly resembles solitary confinement at the moment. I feel bitter about many things and I'm realizing that it is setting up a positive feedback loop in my emotional makeup that will push me to being ever grouchier and grouchier. Because if I were stuck on a desert island with a woman, she would probably contemplate suicide before letting me share my coconuts with her. I got me a cat... It doesn't like me yet either, it is still in its terrified stiff stage where it is sulking around my unused master bedroom suite. =( This Samantha person would rather see me in my grave than be reminded, even once, that gender reassignment surgery, even the best latest procedures, don't really work. Maybe if enough money were thrown at the problem, it might be possible to re-encode the DNA and make all the skelital and soft tissue changes necessary to actually accomplish it, but not with today's stone knives and bear skins. So, the person throws the worst slurs [] can at me, "transphobic", and "homophobic". Are those even supposed to be insults? SHEESH!!! It is the cornerstone of human liberty to be either philic or phobic of absolutely anything whatsoever. I do not care what this person thinks of me, really, I don't. If it weren't for this person's power over my ability to participate in transhumanism, I wouldn't even bother to write this. Now the serious part of this is that people with _repressed_ sexual issues often use the power of government to inflict their inner conflicts on the public at large. In my state there is a sodomy law. I do not support this law because it is absolutely wrong for the government to say anything whatsoever about consensual sexual activities. But the thing is, it is far more likely that the law was passed by a repressed homosexual trying to prove that he's not one, than any straight man! In congress, many of the people who propose laws against homosexuals are later found out to be homosexual themselves. The problem is not the sexual orientation, it is the repression of it! In an uploaded environment, if this being had any administrator rights over to the hardware I was stuffed into, I would have been de-rez'd by now without a second thought. Thankfully, I own my own hardware, wet as it may be, and am not at this person's mercy outside of the communities which [] dominates. What I propose is that this Samantha person either follow through on []'s ultimatum, or not. I do not care. My mission here is to try to find and form alliances with the people who can help me accomplish the sub-tasks of my own transhumanist venture. Nothing else matters to me. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From bbenzai at yahoo.com Mon Dec 27 01:04:47 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 17:04:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Getting Laid (was: simulation as an improvement over reality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <223854.62123.qm@web114413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I've changed the subject line, as this has drifted quite a bit! Alan Grimes wrote: > I'm turning 33 next week... I have a house, a pile of gold > and silver, > no debt (even mortgage!), My physical appearance is > actually rather > good. But no, I couldn't get a date to save my life. I'm > trying to talk > a girl into being my first date on OKCupid, it's almost > scary how well > matched we are. We were talking about anime so I called us > both Otaku, > but she seems to have taken offense to that. =( If I can't > get her to > date me once, for even ten minutes, ending with a slap to > my face, then > it simply isn't going to happen in my lifetime. =( Rubbish. I have no real experience with on-line dating, so don't know if it's better or worse than meeting people IRL, but I suspect it's worse. Most guys are bad at this sort of thing. Always have been, always will be, but it doesn't matter. You only need someone to like one thing about you. As long as you don't have some kind of show-stopper, like terminal bad breath or a tendency to hit people at random (both fixable), that one thing will win the lady. Or a different one. Don't fixate too much on one person, get to know lots, and a mutual interest is bound to emerge somewhere or other. > > Come on, you're an extropian (I presume).? You > know the drill.? Find what works, use it. If it > doesn't > > work for you, try something else. > > I have a null feedback signal. There is no way to apply any > kind of > hill-climbing algorithm. It's still purely monte-carlo for > me. =( You're saying you can't tell whether you are pissing someone off or interesting them? Fine, use a different metric. If they touch you at less than the speed of sound, it's a good thing. If they leave without a word, it's bad. There's your feedback. > Recently, I'd been harboring the hypothesis that women > don't actually > have sex drives at all. LMAO. If you believe one thing I say, believe this: Women have sex drives *at least* as strong as men's. They are usually much better at hiding it, they may express it in different and subtler ways, but they definitely want someone to share their bed with. Why do you think so many religions are scared to death of women? Why do so many people in Africa mutilate their little girls' genitals? Female sexuality is a very real and very powerful thing, have no doubt. > > Come back when it's no longer a big deal, and *then* > talk about the sexual motivations of > > transhumanists. > > That is functionally equivalent to saying "don't come > back". =( Only if you're going to be defeatist about it. Extropians don't do defeatism. Probably the most useful thing I learned from NLP is that there is no such thing as failure. You learn ways to *not* achieve your goals, which narrows down the field until you *do* achieve them. Everyone knows how to do this, but most people forget. Did you ever hear of anyone who can't walk because when they were a baby they fell down once then gave up trying? Ben Zaiboc From max at maxmore.com Mon Dec 27 01:41:49 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 20:41:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <4D153A04.4070009@canonizer.com> <4D179DAC.2040008@canonizer.com> <20101226211118.GP16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101226204149.w5dlmnz5q80osc0o@webmail.maxmore.com> Thanks both for the pointer to this failure analysis, and for your comments Adrian. I'll definitely read it. Max From max at maxmore.com Mon Dec 27 01:34:35 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 19:34:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality Message-ID: <201012270201.oBR21NTW025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > >...BTW I dislike the term postbiology. Biology isthe study of life and >would be just as applicable to machine-phase lifeas towet-carbon >life...Stuart LaForge I like to use a neologism like "vitology" for the study of life-in-general, while reserving "biology" for the more or less familiar chemical forms of life. Postbiological life forms would indeed be living complex systems, but I wouldn't call them biological if they were based on entirely distinct physical platforms. Looking at terminology, "biology" is the study of living organisms, but it has always been about the living organisms that we've been familiar with up to now. It's not a crucial matter, but my preference is to reserve "biology" for the wide range of life forms we're already come across, but not stretch it to cover entirely different substrates and platforms. Max From agrimes at speakeasy.net Mon Dec 27 03:11:06 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 22:11:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Getting Laid In-Reply-To: <223854.62123.qm@web114413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <223854.62123.qm@web114413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D1803CA.6020404@speakeasy.net> Ben Zaiboc wrote: > I've changed the subject line, as this has drifted quite a bit! It's also way OT... I'll leave it to you keep it on list or take it off. > Alan Grimes wrote: > Rubbish. > I have no real experience with on-line dating, so don't know > if it's better or worse than meeting people IRL, but I suspect it's worse. I don't know how to meet people in real life at all. =( I don't know where to go. I've been to social situations but I never can seem to get into any conversations, I just tend to haunt the place for a while and then leave out of boredom and frustration. SL has the advantage that I know people are actually seeing the words I type until they ignore me. (if they're at their keyboards at all. > Most guys are bad at this sort of thing. Always have been, always will be, but it > doesn't matter. You only need someone to like one thing about you. As long as you > don't have some kind of show-stopper, like terminal bad breath or a tendency to hit > people at random (both fixable), that one thing will win the lady. Or a different one. > Don't fixate too much on one person, get to know lots, and a mutual interest is bound > to emerge somewhere or other. Yeah, I guess I'm a bit to eclectic, into vacuum tube audio, and electric cars. (I'm currently trying to mount an AC-50 motor in a Mazda MX-6). >> I have a null feedback signal. There is no way to apply any >> kind of >> hill-climbing algorithm. It's still purely monte-carlo for >> me. =( > You're saying you can't tell whether you are pissing someone off or interesting them? > Fine, use a different metric. If they touch you at less than the speed of sound, it's a good > thing. If they leave without a word, it's bad. There's your feedback. No, I'm saying that I don't meet any so therefore I get no feedback of any kind. =( >> That is functionally equivalent to saying "don't come >> back". =( > Only if you're going to be defeatist about it. I've wasted too much money on dating sites to feel otherwise. > Extropians don't do defeatism. It isn't like any technical problem. Technical problems can be addressed. Relationships, on the other hand, are notoriously illogical and do not yield to any reductionist approach. Actually, honestly, part of my problem is fear. I've been hesitant to really get involved myself because of the ph34r that she will hurt me if she can't accept the kinds of kinks I have. =\ Now that I've taken more of a "damn the torpedoes" attitude, I'm just frustrated. I'm really seeing the psychological toll a life of solitude is taking on me and I need to do something. It's just not the kind of problem I'm equipped to solve. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 27 03:37:01 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 19:37:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <4D177E4E.8090905@speakeasy.net> References: <680810.76924.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4D177E4E.8090905@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: On Dec 26, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: > Ben Zaiboc wrote: >> Alan Grimes wrote a bunch of rather impolite and inflammatory things. > >> There is an analogous absurdity in someone who claims to have 'never even been on a date' proclaiming >> on the sexual motivations of transhumanists. You know nothing about > the mental states of the people who >> frequent Extropia Core, and I can say this with a good deal of confidence. > > They express themselves quite plainly. The ones that don't are merely > being properly modest. > >> "my only prospects have been offered by homosexual men! =\": I find that faintly offensive. Not that I >> blame you, and I acknowledge that the offense is my own > responsibility. But I'm pointing out that it can >> cause offense (in case you didn't realise). > > THAT?!?!??! IMPOSSIBLE!!! If me talking about my own sexual frustrations > offends *ANYONE* then there must be something profoundly wrong with that > person. That was not all you did. You talked about other people's sexuality and gender and their expressions thereof in uncalled for highly derogatory terms. You demeaned their sexuality, gender and relationships and suggest they feel ashamed enough to hide it. You also totally bit the hand that has kept you from getting banned or rescinded some existing bans you were under in SL - mine. Not in the least acceptable, smart or giving any indication at all you are a sane being worth dealing with given a choice. Don't now pretend you were not grossly out of line. > > I'm turning 33 next week... I have a house, a pile of gold and silver, > no debt (even mortgage!), My physical appearance is actually rather > good. But no, I couldn't get a date to save my life. I'm trying to talk > a girl into being my first date on OKCupid, it's almost scary how well > matched we are. We were talking about anime so I called us both Otaku, > but she seems to have taken offense to that. =( If I can't get her to > date me once, for even ten minutes, ending with a slap to my face, then > it simply isn't going to happen in my lifetime. =( > Totalistic thinking leading to despair. Read "Feeling Good" and the romantic life follow on book. Sounds like you could use it. Don't call those books (or anything else) "gay" if you don't like, understand or feel comfortable with them. >> Come on, you're an extropian (I presume). You know the drill. Find what works, use it. If it doesn't >> work for you, try something else. > > I have a null feedback signal. There is no way to apply any kind of > hill-climbing algorithm. It's still purely monte-carlo for me. =( > It might, for your consideration, have something to do with your apparent lack of civility or impulse control to avoid doing or blurting out whatever is on your mind. Think on it. >> Rinse and repeat until success. Then raise the bar a step. And with >> something as universal and basic as sex, success is guaranteed! > Everybody (almost everybody) wants sex. >> Especially with someone who's sympathetic (but not sycophantic), > attentive (but not clingy) and >> understanding (but not obsessive). > > Recently, I'd been harboring the hypothesis that women don't actually > have sex drives at all. The only reason they bother with men at all is > that they need to have someone strong around the house to open vacuum > sealed bottles for them. Women have quite keen sex drives. So somehow you must be doing a mixture of: 1) not getting out where likely possibilities are; 2) self-programming it is never ever going to happen; 3) sending signals that women should avoid you by all means possible. > >> Come back when it's no longer a big deal, and *then* talk about the sexual motivations of >> transhumanists. > > That is functionally equivalent to saying "don't come back". =( > If the shoe fits then consider yourself kicked in the posterior with it. - samantha From ryanobjc at gmail.com Mon Dec 27 03:41:45 2010 From: ryanobjc at gmail.com (Ryan Rawson) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 19:41:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Getting Laid In-Reply-To: <4D1803CA.6020404@speakeasy.net> References: <223854.62123.qm@web114413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4D1803CA.6020404@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: That's thee nice thing about places like sf and nyc, everyone is weird :) Also, drugs are a good way to deal with social issues. Alcohol being the most commonly used. On Dec 26, 2010 9:37 PM, "Alan Grimes" wrote: > Ben Zaiboc wrote: >> I've changed the subject line, as this has drifted quite a bit! > > It's also way OT... I'll leave it to you keep it on list or take it off. > >> Alan Grimes wrote: > >> Rubbish. > >> I have no real experience with on-line dating, so don't know >> if it's better or worse than meeting people IRL, but I suspect it's worse. > > I don't know how to meet people in real life at all. =( I don't know > where to go. I've been to social situations but I never can seem to get > into any conversations, I just tend to haunt the place for a while and > then leave out of boredom and frustration. SL has the advantage that I > know people are actually seeing the words I type until they ignore me. > (if they're at their keyboards at all. > >> Most guys are bad at this sort of thing. Always have been, always will be, but it >> doesn't matter. You only need someone to like one thing about you. As > long as you >> don't have some kind of show-stopper, like terminal bad breath or a > tendency to hit >> people at random (both fixable), that one thing will win the lady. Or > a different one. >> Don't fixate too much on one person, get to know lots, and a mutual > interest is bound >> to emerge somewhere or other. > > Yeah, I guess I'm a bit to eclectic, into vacuum tube audio, and > electric cars. (I'm currently trying to mount an AC-50 motor in a Mazda > MX-6). > > >>> I have a null feedback signal. There is no way to apply any >>> kind of >>> hill-climbing algorithm. It's still purely monte-carlo for >>> me. =( > >> You're saying you can't tell whether you are pissing someone off or interesting them? >> Fine, use a different metric. If they touch you at less than the > speed of sound, it's a good >> thing. If they leave without a word, it's bad. There's your feedback. > > No, I'm saying that I don't meet any so therefore I get no feedback of > any kind. =( > >>> That is functionally equivalent to saying "don't come >>> back". =( > >> Only if you're going to be defeatist about it. > > I've wasted too much money on dating sites to feel otherwise. > >> Extropians don't do defeatism. > > It isn't like any technical problem. Technical problems can be > addressed. Relationships, on the other hand, are notoriously illogical > and do not yield to any reductionist approach. > > Actually, honestly, part of my problem is fear. I've been hesitant to > really get involved myself because of the ph34r that she will hurt me if > she can't accept the kinds of kinks I have. =\ Now that I've taken more > of a "damn the torpedoes" attitude, I'm just frustrated. I'm really > seeing the psychological toll a life of solitude is taking on me and I > need to do something. It's just not the kind of problem I'm equipped to > solve. > > > -- > DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. > DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. > Powers are not rights. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Dec 27 04:22:33 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 22:22:33 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Getting Laid In-Reply-To: <4D1803CA.6020404@speakeasy.net> References: <223854.62123.qm@web114413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4D1803CA.6020404@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4D181489.6040207@satx.rr.com> On 12/26/2010 9:11 PM, Alan Grimes wrote: > I'm currently trying to mount an AC-50 motor Wow, this is a *serious* fetish! :) But seriously, Alan, I sympathize with your situation. I've been sort of there at times; I suspect more than a few on this list are skewed away from the social norm sufficiently that it's really really hard to understand what all the rest of the herd animals find so intuitively easy and simple. My particular good fortune, about ten years ago, was to meet up with Barbara Lamar on this very list, which resulted in my moving a large part of the way around the planet so we could be together, a couple of very smart INTJ/Ps in a sea of... others. I was then in my fifties. (Granted, I'd had a fairly riotous time previously, on and off, but the off portions were bleak, at times unto despair.) But while you're questing about, go easy on the offensive epithets and toxic outbursts. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 27 04:23:12 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 20:23:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] kill thread Message-ID: <002001cba57d$c6a50670$53ef1350$@att.net> OK thanks everyone, please stop forthwith any commentary titled Getting Laid. I am killing that one, but posting this last one thru that was in the moderators box from Sockpuppet99 which looks to me like sound advice. It is OK to post stuff about dating and lonely hearts to some extent, but I urge you do use judgment and decorum, and feel free to avoid the topic for now thanks. For instance, if you have not had gender reassignment, refrain at every opportunity from making a running commentary on the topic. Reason: there are those here who know, and we know who they are, and if you haven't been there, the expert ain't you. In light of the fact that some offensive commentary has been posted recently, I suggest we veer off about a radian in a new direction, shall we? Of course offlist discussions on the topic are always fair game, and to be encouraged. Also it is often a good idea to filter some posters if they bug you, as opposed to answering everything, and especially answering anything in anger. Play ball! spike >From Sockpuppet99: Sent from my iPod On Dec 26, 2010, at 8:11 PM, Alan Grimes wrote: > > I don't know how to meet people in real life at all. =( I don't know > where to go. I've been to social situations but I never can seem to > get into any conversations, I just tend to haunt the place for a while > and then leave out of boredom and frustration. SL has the advantage > that I know people are actually seeing the words I type until they ignore me. > (if they're at their keyboards at all. > Relationships are a two-way street. If your only goal is to get laid, hire a prostitute. If you want to meet a woman, stow your sex life away for a while and get to know a woman first as a person. Take a community ed class. Help out with a community theater production. Go hiking with the Sierra Club. Put yourself into situations where conversation is easier because you're all doing something. If you hang out at bars and you are creepy or awkward nobody is going to want anything to do with you. I saw your picture online: don't know if it's recent but your haircut could be a lot better and your glasses are way too big. > Yeah, I guess I'm a bit to eclectic, into vacuum tube audio, and > electric cars. (I'm currently trying to mount an AC-50 motor in a > Mazda MX-6). You sound like an Aspie. That doesn't have to be a showstopper but you do need to slow down, try not to monologue about your interests, and really try to at least feign an interest in the other person's life. J From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Dec 27 06:57:01 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 01:57:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Catastrophic Climate Change In-Reply-To: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <020D8110-F5DC-43E2-8DE7-8629FB72927D@bellsouth.net> There is an article from Time magazine about catastrophic climate change at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html It says "In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year" and "record rains in parts of the U.S" and in Pakistan and Japan "the worst flooding in centuries" and it talks about bad weather devastating Canada's wheat belt, and it speaks of "the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland" and most interesting of all it says that "Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7? F." The Time magazine article is from Jun. 24, 1974 and is entitled "Another Ice Age?". There may be an explanation for the global cooling panic, early industrialization caused lots of atmospheric particulate pollution that dimmed the sun and may have cooled the planet, but since that article was published there has been a big crackdown over that sort of pollution resulting in fewer particles in the atmosphere; so global warming may be caused by too little pollution. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 27 10:43:16 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:43:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101227104315.GR16518@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 02:49:28PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > True, when we have cheap efficient enough thin film solar. However, > we have no reason to expect this to occur within this next crucial decade. Yes, we had 30-40 years, and we've blown these. Now there's no way to bridge the demand gap. > So on to the next solution for now. There is no single solution. Particularly when it comes to renewable synfuels and chemical feedstock, we're up fecal creek sans paddle. From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 27 10:48:08 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:48:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <4D153A04.4070009@canonizer.com> <4D179DAC.2040008@canonizer.com> <20101226211118.GP16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101227104808.GS16518@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 03:04:20PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > TL,DR: "Waaah! Society hasn't accepted cyronics yet so it never > will!" It doesn't sound like you've read it. > This analysis does not seem credible. Just to quote slide 31, it states Do you know who's the author? > that cyronics: Your comments would be a lot more credible if you'd know how to spell cryonics. > > * Mandates a complete change in reproduction > > Nope. No change in reproduction is necessarily linked. (Potential > population increases can be dealt with in other ways, and that's a > topic that exists even without cryo.) > > * Perturbs generational succession > > Not for a long time - until regenerative medicine has increased to > the point where this perturbation is being dealt with anyway. > > * Requires Space Colonization > > Hardly. It's possible, with better - if "mundane" - agricultural and > housing technology to dramatically increase the number of humans > living on the Earth's land masses, and that's not even getting into > aquatic colonization.. > > * Requires (and supports) profoundly disruptive technologies: > cloning, regenerative medicine, nanotechnology, AI > > Only regenerative medicine is necessarily linked - though that might > in turn support cloning. Nanotechnology is only linked through the > fact that anything biotech is arguably "nanotechnology", but that's > an abuse of the term. AI is not necessarily linked at all (save > through uploading - which could happen with or without cryo). > > * Ends the Species: Enables Transhumanism > > Again, no. Regenerative medicine might enable it, but A might > cause B might cause C is a tenuous chain. (A = cryo, B = reg. > med., C = transhumanism) > > The rest of this - I stopped reading a bit under halfway through > part 1, after seeing fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy. Perhaps Max So you made it halfway through part I, latched up some random comments, and then kindly offered a tl;dr. Wall, yeah, Mike didn't write that for stupid people. > should read this, though, as practice for the kind of arguments he's > going to have to debunk repeatedly. You're a part of the problem, then. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 27 11:02:37 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:02:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <201012270201.oBR21NTW025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201012270201.oBR21NTW025778@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20101227110236.GT16518@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 07:34:35PM -0600, Max More wrote: > I like to use a neologism like "vitology" for the study of > life-in-general, while reserving "biology" for the more or less familiar > chemical forms of life. Postbiological life forms would indeed be living > complex systems, but I wouldn't call them biological if they were based > on entirely distinct physical platforms. If you recall Artifical Life (later shortened to ALife), then there is at least one precedent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life > Looking at terminology, "biology" is the study of living organisms, but > it has always been about the living organisms that we've been familiar Not that Wikipedia is normative in any way, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3] In biology, the science of living organisms, life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter.[4] Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.[1][5] A diverse array of living organisms (life forms) can be found in the biosphere on Earth, and the properties common to these organisms?plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria?are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information. So the "biology" and "biota" parts are covered. "Post" denotes a succession, such as current life to prebiotic life, which is now extinct, at least on this planet. This *is* life, but not as we know it. > with up to now. It's not a crucial matter, but my preference is to > reserve "biology" for the wide range of life forms we're already come > across, but not stretch it to cover entirely different substrates and Well, there's also astrobiology. > platforms. We would also have to remove evolution from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm and genetic from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm and probably neologize neural networks, too, and such. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Dec 27 11:45:11 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:45:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: Congratulations! 2010/12/24 Natasha Vita-More : > It is my pleasure to announce that Max is the new CEO of Alcor! > > http://www.alcor.org/blog/?p=1473 > > Best, > Natasha > Natasha Vita-More > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Dec 27 11:57:36 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:57:36 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <4D153A04.4070009@canonizer.com> <4D179DAC.2040008@canonizer.com> <20101226211118.GP16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 27 December 2010 00:04, Adrian Tymes wrote: > * Ends the Species: Enables Transhumanism > Again, no. ?Regenerative medicine might enable it, but A might > cause B might cause C is a tenuous chain. ?(A = cryo, B = reg. > med., C = transhumanism) In fact, I do not think that cryo can or even should go "mainstream" as in "generally applicable by default to the entire population as an end-of-life and/or turistic procedure unless one opts out" nor that it necessary involves transhumanism (which is in fact a pity). But certainly is for so many reasons practically and philosophically linked to possible posthuman changes that it is easy to understand why it always raised such a keen interest in the H+ circles. In other terms, the real issues with cryo are IMHO i) research funding, ii) prohibitionist legal and cultural frameworks. I think I would be happy to see it become as banal as, say, cosmetic surgery or incineration. -- Stefano Vaj From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Dec 27 16:37:54 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 09:37:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: <20101226211118.GP16518@leitl.org> References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <4D153A04.4070009@canonizer.com> <4D179DAC.2040008@canonizer.com> <20101226211118.GP16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: Gene, I'm working my way through the links you've supplied below (and I noticed how you admonished Adrian for apparently only skimming through, so I'll endeavor to be a bit more thorough), so I'll address them in due course. Meanwhile, I notice the comment: > (caveat, obsolete snapshot of a work in progress, not done yet, > check back in a couple months). and I wonder, are these links Mike Darwin's work, or a collaborative effort of Mike, you, et al? Also, when you were working a while back with 21st Century Medicine to develop an ice blocker, did you work with Mssr. Darwin? I ask because I've never met him, but have read some of his technical writing and heard about him from several folks. I'm trying to take the measure of the man, but at a distance it's difficult. If you've worked with him, and as I respect your opinion, I'd like to hear your "assessment", in any form which satisfies your sense of propriety. Jeff Davis On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > http://cryoeuro.eu:8080/download/attachments/425990/Cryonics_Failure_Analysis_Part_1_v3.0.pdf > > http://cryoeuro.eu:8080/download/attachments/425990/Cryonics_Failure_Analysis_Part_2v5.2.pdf > > http://cryoeuro.eu:8080/download/attachments/425990/Cryonics_Failure_Analysis_Part_3v5.4.pdf > > (caveat, obsolete snapshot of a work in progress, not > done yet, check back in a couple months). From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 27 16:42:55 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 10:42:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Catastrophic Climate Change In-Reply-To: <020D8110-F5DC-43E2-8DE7-8629FB72927D@bellsouth.net> References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> <020D8110-F5DC-43E2-8DE7-8629FB72927D@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4D18C20F.1070105@satx.rr.com> On 12/27/2010 12:57 AM, John Clark wrote: > early industrialization caused lots of atmospheric particulate pollution > that dimmed the sun and may have cooled the planet, but since that > article was published there has been a big crackdown over that sort of > pollution resulting in fewer particles in the atmosphere; so global > warming may be caused by too little pollution. The contrarian, Prometheus Award-winning sf novel FALLEN ANGELS (1991) by Niven, Pournelle and Flynn dramatized that proposition. Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Dec 27 16:36:24 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:36:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <9069CABB-CCF7-48D5-B0D5-CC69FDB1B602@bellsouth.net> One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ Happy New Year all. I predict that a paper reporting positive psi results will NOT appear in Nature or Science in the next year. This may seem an outrageous prediction, after all psi is hardly a rare phenomena, millions of people with no training have managed to observe it, or claim they have. And I am sure the good people at Nature and Science would want to say something about this very important and obvious part of our natural world if they could, but I predict they will be unable to find anything interesting to say about it. You might think my prediction is crazy, like saying a waitress with an eight's grade education in Duluth Minnesota can regularly observe the Higgs boson with no difficulty but the highly trained Physicists at CERN in Switzerland cannot. Nevertheless I am confident my prediction is true because my ghostly spirit guide Mohammad Duntoldme spoke to me about it in a dream. PS: I am also confident I can make this very same prediction one year from today. John K Clark _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Dec 27 17:07:45 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 10:07:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Catastrophic Climate Change In-Reply-To: <020D8110-F5DC-43E2-8DE7-8629FB72927D@bellsouth.net> References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> <020D8110-F5DC-43E2-8DE7-8629FB72927D@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/12/26 John Clark : >... global warming may be > caused by too little pollution. > ??John K Clark Thanks, John, for providing the perfect example of the source of my own ambivalence. Set aside the politics and the pop-sci news story, give me some good facts and good analysis, and I'll wade in. Otherwise, I'm content to entertain myself with issues where there ARE good facts and good fact-checkers to play with. Besides, the issue is right in the center of humanity's radar screen. And considering the heightened interest in solar power, nuclear energy, electric cars, and the motivation generated by rising oil prices, and I see the problem as being addressed, and the solution in the works. I've moved on. Best, Jeff Davis I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts." Abraham Lincoln From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 27 17:08:44 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 09:08:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] doh! indian rocket explodes Message-ID: <000001cba5e8$b85e3ad0$291ab070$@att.net> Damn. {8-[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXUIFZjDMuc Note the orange color of the plume at the time of the explosion. Hmmmmm. they didn't get too yakky about what the payload was other than to say it was a communications satellite. So what's all the orange stuff, that looks a lot like. do let me stop here and study this some more. Entertaining aside in an otherwise tragic event: the value added by anyone posting about this or any spectacular event is now in finding the video with the shortest leading commercial. {8^D Most of the time you are forced to view 30 seconds of commercials for one exploding rocket. This one is about 10 seconds per explosion. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Dec 27 17:39:36 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 09:39:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <20101227104315.GR16518@leitl.org> References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> <20101227104315.GR16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <3D2C7E54-B53F-4888-B6C6-8C0BF6C40061@mac.com> On Dec 27, 2010, at 2:43 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 02:49:28PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> True, when we have cheap efficient enough thin film solar. However, >> we have no reason to expect this to occur within this next crucial decade. > > Yes, we had 30-40 years, and we've blown these. Now there's no > way to bridge the demand gap. Not so. Build Thorium molten salt reactors as fast as you can crank them out. Streamline the process where you can. This gives electricity cheaper than anything we can produce today. We have thousands of years of thorium. It produces extremely little radioactive waste. And it is nearly impossible to weaponize the tech (which is why it was shelved in the 60s). There is time. Just. > >> So on to the next solution for now. > > There is no single solution. Particularly when it comes > to renewable synfuels and chemical feedstock, we're up > fecal creek sans paddle. Nope. This one we can solve effectively. The huge economic mess on the other hand, I have no idea how to fix and am pretty sure it is now beyond hope of avoiding a full meltdown. - s From atymes at gmail.com Mon Dec 27 17:56:16 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 09:56:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: <20101227104808.GS16518@leitl.org> References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <4D153A04.4070009@canonizer.com> <4D179DAC.2040008@canonizer.com> <20101226211118.GP16518@leitl.org> <20101227104808.GS16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 03:04:20PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> TL,DR: "Waaah! ?Society hasn't accepted cyronics yet so it never >> will!" > > It doesn't sound like you've read it. No, I did. As I said, I stopped a bit before halfway through the first part, but I read as far as I did. >> This analysis does not seem credible. ?Just to quote slide 31, it states > > Do you know who's the author? Mike Darwin. Even the experts can get tired and frustrated and make mistakes. That's why argument from authority is a fallacy - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority As the author said, he was writing this one from an emotional perspective, rather than the typical logical one. That may be how he tripped up. Keeping a detached point of view, even on topics you care about a lot, lets you avoid making the kind of mistakes that turned me away from this paper. >> that cyronics: > > Your comments would be a lot more credible if you'd know > how to spell cryonics. Bah. Typos happen. > So you made it halfway through part I, latched up some random > comments, and then kindly offered a tl;dr. > > Wall, yeah, Mike didn't write that for stupid people. Yep. And I know when something's not worth my further time. I've seen these kinds of complaints before. And it might have gotten better past the point where I stopped reading. (Certainly, the subject lines in the rest of it - I skimmed once I stopped reading in detail - seemed promising. If Mike's problem was the emotions, that may well have petered out later on.) There was nothing further for me to do about it - but I did identify it as a useful resource for Max, either way. I look forward to seeing his review. >> should read this, though, as practice for the kind of arguments he's >> going to have to debunk repeatedly. > > You're a part of the problem, then. Other people speaking truth to power can be a problem for some of those in power, yes. I call things like I see them. From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 27 18:26:05 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 19:26:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <4D153A04.4070009@canonizer.com> <4D179DAC.2040008@canonizer.com> <20101226211118.GP16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101227182605.GX16518@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 09:37:54AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > Gene, > > I'm working my way through the links you've supplied below (and I > noticed how you admonished Adrian for apparently only skimming > through, so I'll endeavor to be a bit more thorough), so I'll address > them in due course. Meanwhile, I notice the comment: Thank you. > > (caveat, obsolete snapshot of a work in progress, not done yet, > > check back in a couple months). > > and I wonder, are these links Mike Darwin's work, or a collaborative These are all Mike's work. I'm just helping with the publishing. > effort of Mike, you, et al? Also, when you were working a while back > with 21st Century Medicine to develop an ice blocker, did you work > with Mssr. Darwin? I ask because I've never met him, but have read Yes, I've worked with Mike, Greg, Brian, and the rest of the team. > some of his technical writing and heard about him from several folks. > I'm trying to take the measure of the man, but at a distance it's > difficult. If you've worked with him, and as I respect your opinion, > I'd like to hear your "assessment", in any form which satisfies your > sense of propriety. I think the documents are spot-on, and key for any attempts to debug the current sorry state of cryonics. Notice that this is just a failure analysis, not yet done, and there is no HOWTO-fix-cryonics yet. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From mail at harveynewstrom.com Mon Dec 27 18:28:32 2010 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:28:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation Message-ID: <20101227112832.d32794d095cdfcc0018508d9c136b552.fe95cd8699.wbe@email09.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 27 18:56:44 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 19:56:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <3D2C7E54-B53F-4888-B6C6-8C0BF6C40061@mac.com> References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> <20101227104315.GR16518@leitl.org> <3D2C7E54-B53F-4888-B6C6-8C0BF6C40061@mac.com> Message-ID: <20101227185644.GZ16518@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 09:39:36AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Not so. Build Thorium molten salt reactors as fast as you can crank > them out. There have been thorium reactors (one molten salt, and several others, e.g. ball pile) in operation. All of them have been strictly experimental, and none of them a resounding success. Molten salt cores have interesting advantages, in theory. In practice, when rolling out reactors you build certified, commercial products. If one would want to start developing a molten salt thorium reactor, it would take somewhere in 15-20 year time scale to roll out first ones, and about as much (assuming the project is a success) to make a difference. We cannot wait half a century. > Streamline the process where you can. To be able to streamline requires a working process. > This gives electricity cheaper than anything we can produce today. This is not at all obvious, and we're talking about electricity half a century from now. A little bird tells me thin-film PV will blow away everything. > We have thousands of years of thorium. It produces extremely We have tens of billions of solar fusion. > little radioactive waste. And it is nearly impossible to Solar produces zero radioactive waste. > weaponize the tech (which is why it was shelved in the 60s). There is time. Just. Any preparative neutron source can be used to breed plutonium. Thorium molten-salt is definitely not proliferation-resistent. > >> So on to the next solution for now. > > > > There is no single solution. Particularly when it comes > > to renewable synfuels and chemical feedstock, we're up > > fecal creek sans paddle. > > Nope. This one we can solve effectively. The last (nonrenewable Fischer-Tropsch) synfuel plants were shut down in early 1980s. What we need is developing a mild CO2+H2 (electro)synthesis process and scaling it up to gigaton range overnight. Given that nobody is even working on it our chances to switch over to renewable gases and liquids are not good. > The huge economic mess on the other hand, I have no > idea how to fix and am pretty sure it is now beyond > hope of avoiding a full meltdown. It does of course make above far more difficult. As do other negative factors. Notice that the voters are completely oblivious to this extremely basic issues, so of course their representatives (about as much oblivous and/or ignorant) see no need to address them proactively. The result is quite predictable. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From FRANKMAC at RIPCO.COM Mon Dec 27 19:04:09 2010 From: FRANKMAC at RIPCO.COM (FRANK MCELLIGOTT) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:04:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] RANDOM THOUGHTS References: Message-ID: I would like to wish everyone on this list a happy new year, as all of you have again given me a great year of thinking out side of the box(I have a very small box:) Thank you Mr. Clark the book was a great read, a little expensive but still a great read. Is your Barbara any relationship to Heddy When they fire up that machine in switerland this spring, is there really any chance it will create a black hole If we can predict the star movements in the sky, why can we not predict the outcome of the world cup, was the fish smarter than all of Europe. Does anyone know if concussed is a word, or was is just made up by the sports community to explain the act of getting a concussion. And last of all, you all have been helpful to the 40 year old virgin, but I think he has been pulling your chain, and juding by your replies, he has been very effective in doing it. Have a great new year Frank From mail at harveynewstrom.com Mon Dec 27 18:41:52 2010 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (mail at harveynewstrom.com) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:41:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] doh! indian rocket explodes Message-ID: <20101227114152.d32794d095cdfcc0018508d9c136b552.61c3186bcc.wbe@email09.secureserver.net> "spike" wrote, > Note the orange color of the plume at the time of the explosion. > Hmmmmm? they didn?t get too yakky about what the payload was other > than to say it was a communications satellite. So what?s all the > orange stuff, that looks a lot like? Tragedy. A year's supply of Tang for the space station... lost! (Didn't they know how explosive that stuff is?) -- Harvey Newstrom, Principal Security Architect CISSP CISA CISM CGEIT CSSLP CRISC CIFI NSA-IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Dec 27 19:34:27 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 13:34:27 -0600 Subject: [ExI] RANDOM THOUGHTS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D18EA43.3060307@satx.rr.com> On 12/27/2010 1:04 PM, FRANK MCELLIGOTT wrote: > Is your Barbara any relationship to Heddy Her daughter. From bbenzai at yahoo.com Mon Dec 27 19:26:21 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:26:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] kill thread In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <992812.79666.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> "spike" wrote: > > OK thanks everyone, please stop forthwith any commentary > titled Getting > Laid.? I am killing that one, but posting this last > one thru that was in the > moderators box from Sockpuppet99 which looks to me like > sound advice. > > It is OK to post stuff about dating and lonely hearts to > some extent, but I > urge you do use judgment and decorum, and feel free to > avoid the topic for > now thanks.? For instance, if you have not had gender > reassignment, refrain > at every opportunity from making a running commentary on > the topic.? Reason: > there are those here who know, and we know who they are, > and if you haven't > been there, the expert ain't you.? In light of the > fact that some offensive > commentary has been posted recently, I suggest we veer off > about a radian in > a new direction, shall we? > > Of course offlist discussions on the topic are always fair > game, and to be > encouraged.? Also it is often a good idea to filter > some posters if they bug > you, as opposed to answering everything, and especially > answering anything > in anger. > > Play ball! Fair enough, you're the boss. Although I do hope this is killed because of the vitriol, not because of the actual topic (or my choice of subject line!). Alan mentioned that it may be off-topic for this list, but on reflection, I'd disagree. Extropianism is about achieving and extending our potentials, and this applies to relationships as well as anything else. I know that 'dating advice' and more generally, human relationships may seem a bit soft and fuzzy, a bit biological for many transhumanists. My take on it is that it's a valid extropian topic, as it's about our happiness and ambitions, just as much as life-extension or intelligence expansion is, just not as 'sexy' (cognitive dissonance intended), and even more so because it relates to the kind of personalities that often frequent this kind of list. I'd hazard a guess that there are a number of lurkers here that lie west of the mean on a social skills scale, and wondering how they can improve in that area. I'm happy to take this off-list now, which is where it probably needs to go anyway. I remember my ecology lecturer at college telling us that although populations of people can be described by the same kind of equations as populations of rabbits, it's not a good idea to tell them this. It's easy to predict that people will get narked if you show them how predictable they are! This kind of topic tends to get into that zone pretty quickly. Ben Zaiboc From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Dec 27 19:43:44 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:43:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:43:38AM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: >> > Fortunately we have better ways of resolving the energy crisis or looming crisis in the meantime. >> >> Oh? ?Please explain. ?I spent 3 years on reducing the cost of power >> satellites and have worked the last year on StratoSolar. ?The >> fundamental problem with solar energy is that it is dilute and >> intermittent. ?Wind has the same problem. ?Both require huge capital > > I don't think it's at all dilute. Over a year solar energy averages a few hundred watts per square meter. Then you take the efficiency loss in the PV cells of at least 75%. The inside of a power boiler is in the tens of MW, and the efficiency is around 45%. (60% for combined cycle.) > Solar flux upon outer residential > building skin is enough to power it. In fact, Si PV rather likes > it cooler, so you need backventilation to make it approach optimum. Powering houses is nowhere close to the whole energy problem. > Many human activities are following diurnal cycles, and cheap nocturnal > power is an artefact of large plant thermal inertia and dynamic market > pricing. You can assume nocturnal demand will collapse if price > was to double or triple. I thought the object was abundant low cost energy. > People need houses, these have outer building skins which need > to be durable. Thin-film photovoltaics is an excellent way where > construction material doubles up in function (in fact, CdTe > has about an order magnitude more of energy supply equivalent than > enrichened uranium in LWRs, not considering recycling). > > The prices are getting there, eventually. The hard part is making > the growth match the demand gap, double and triple electrification, > and build up electrosynthesis infrastructure for fuels and chemical > feedstock. Work done there so far: nearly zero. It's just chemistry, and well understood chemistry at that. > I grant you this is hard, we're not doing nearly enough of that, > and this is going to hurt. However, we do not have any other options. > >> costs that translate into high cost per kWh. > > I see lots of PV panels on farmer barns around here. You will see fewer of them as the subsidies are being phased out. > Not exactly > huge capital costs, and the kWh prices are a factor of about 2 > removed from residential electricity prices. It looks like thin-film > PV will become the cheapest electrical energy option for end consumers > in less than a decade. I really doubt it. BillK writes: > Plus 'Passive house' and 'Zero energy house' designs. > > Quote: > A Passive House is a very well-insulated, virtually air-tight building > that is primarily heated by passive solar gain and by internal gains > from people, electrical equipment, etc. Energy losses are minimized. > Any remaining heat demand is provided by an extremely small source. > > Over the last 10 years more than 15,000 buildings in Europe - from > single and multifamily residences, to schools, factories and office > buildings - have been designed and built or remodeled to the passive > house standard. What's the EU? 500 million people? 150 million houses? In ten years 1 in 10,000 houses, at that rate 100,000 years to get them all done. I think the energy crisis will be over by then. John Clark worte > > On Dec 25, 2010, at 10:50 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> The *easy* part is making a clean cheap substitutes for fossil fuels. >> We know how to suck CO2 out of air at a cost of around 100 kWh/t (360 >> kWh per ton of carbon). > > I'm much more interested (and much more skeptical) in a dollars per ton figure than energy per ton. It's the same thing with fuel. http://htyp.org/Dollar_a_gallon_gasoline#Carbon_neutral.3F And I'm not even certain CO2 is at the root of the problem, it certainly isn't the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor is, and water vapor is the very thing that current climate models handel so poorly. I just have a hard time getting all worked up over the rise in CO2, OK it has risen from 280 parts per million to 380 parts per million over the last century, but 80 million years ago it was well over 1000ppm and life got along just fine, plant did rather better that they do now in fact. Plants like CO2, that's why commercial greenhouses deliberately increase it to over 1400ppm. It's also interesting that over the history of the Earth most CO2 increases seem to come after a temperature rise and not before. My point is that global warming, even if true, isn't the problem that will kill billions. Energy is. >> We know how to make hydrogen either directly from heat (S I process) > > Where does the heat come from? If we can build StratoSolar, it is a source of heat. Or nuclear using pebble bed reactors. >> or by electrolysis. > > Even if the electricity came from solar cells that might not be good news for global warming; solar cells are designed to capture sunlight and thus are black, but only about 12% of the light is converted to electricity, so 88% is converted directly into heat. > >>> In another design that would probably be even cheaper he just slips a sleeve over the smokestack of any existing small to midsize coal power plant in the higher latitudes and uses the hot exhaust to fill hot air balloons to support the hose. >> >> It's a lot harder than you might think. > > Myhrvold is saying that if you want to cure global warming in the northern hemisphere then pick any existing medium sized coal power plant that is not too far from the arctic circle and simply extend the smokestack from 1000 feet its at now to 18 miles. That's it. That sounds a lot easier than a space elevator, or power satellites, or scrubbing the atmosphere clean of CO2; and that last might not even cool the planet, but thanks to Pinatubo we know for sure that sulphur dioxide in the stratosphere will. Having worked for a year on a similar problem, I can tell you it isn't that easy to keep a pipe up to 12.5 miles, much less 18. You have to deal with maximum wind. It can get up to 50 m/sec and the drag goes up as the square of the wind velocity. Samantha Atkins wrote: > The bottom line is that there is no good evidence of a dangerous amount of warming or hardly any statistically significant warming at all if you check variation over say the last several centuries. ?OTOH we know for certain, or darn well should by now, that we are facing a major economic breakdown and pending energy crisis. ?So why don't we, as rational future minded folks, focus our attention on the real problems and opportunities? and > True, when we have cheap efficient enough thin film solar. ?However, ?we have no reason to expect this to occur within this next crucial decade. ?So on to the next solution for now. Exactly. Keith From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 27 20:28:24 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:28:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] kill thread In-Reply-To: <992812.79666.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <992812.79666.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001801cba604$9cdd4d20$d697e760$@att.net> On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc Subject: Re: [ExI] kill thread "spike" wrote: > >> OK thanks everyone, please stop forthwith any commentary titled Getting Laid... >> It is OK to post stuff about dating and lonely hearts to some extent, but I urge you do use judgment and decorum... >> Play ball! >Fair enough, you're the boss... Oy vey. Only temporarily, as Max and Natasha are in the process of moving to Arizona. I take up this badge with much reluctance and with eagerness to relinquish authority at every opportunity. >Although I do hope this is killed because of the vitriol, not because of the actual topic (or my choice of subject line!)... It's quite all right Ben. The reason we had to kill it this time is that unpleasantness had broken out with inappropriate commentary as you likely noticed. Posting about sex is perfectly OK. There is so much potential for humor in that area. Caution is to be exercised if we see novices offering to lecture experts in their own area of expertise. >My take on it is that it's a valid extropian topic, as it's about our happiness and ambitions, just as much as life-extension or intelligence expansion is, just not as 'sexy' (cognitive dissonance intended), and even more so because it relates to the kind of personalities that often frequent this kind of list.. Ben Zaiboc Ja, all areas of sexuality are to be explored openly on ExI and all are accepted, up to and including those which are physically impossible to perform. This last category is especially welcome, for those of us less capable in these areas have a ready excuse for failing to participate. Not only accepted, but... noichaed. Never appropriate are insults to those who practice any particular brand of sexuality. Insults are never appropriate actually, for any category of practitioners. We like everyone, ja? Besides that, the stuff that is physically impossible may not always be so. Picture Seven of Nine in the holodeck. Then recognize that to have *any chance* at the holodeck with 7 you must make arrangements ahead of time. 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 Dec 27 20:40:26 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:40:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming. In-Reply-To: <20101227185644.GZ16518@leitl.org> References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> <20101227104315.GR16518@leitl.org> <3D2C7E54-B53F-4888-B6C6-8C0BF6C40061@mac.com> <20101227185644.GZ16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6DAA0C59-9E3B-4C5A-B34B-E5BDA64830D2@bellsouth.net> On Dec 27, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Any preparative neutron source can be used to breed plutonium. Thorium molten-salt is definitely > not proliferation-resistent. To hell with molten-salt, I'm talking about Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) where not just the neutron moderator and the coolant is in liquid form but the fuel is too. A LFTR reactor needs almost all its neutrons just to keep going, so if you try to steal them to irradiate U238 to make plutonium the LFTR reactor chain reaction will stop. I'm going to quote from part of a post I sent to the list about 6 months ago. Consider the advantages: *Thorium is much more common than Uranium, almost twice as common as Tin in fact. And Thorium is easier to extract from its ore than Uranium. *A Thorium reactor burns up all the Thorium in it so at current usage that element could supply our energy needs for many thousands, perhaps millions of years; A conventional light water reactor only burns .7% of the Uranium in it. * To burn the remaining 99.3% of Uranium you'd have to use a exotic fast neutron breeder reactor, Thorium reactors use slow neutrons and so are inherently more stable because you have much more time to react if something goes wrong. Also breeders produce massive amounts of Plutonium which is a bad thing if you're worried about people making bombs. Thorium produces an insignificant amount of Plutonium. * Thorium does produce Uranium 233 and theoretically you could make a bomb out of that, but it would be contaminated with Uranium 232 which is a powerful gamma ray emitter which would make it suicidal to work with unless extraordinary precautions were taken, and even then the unexploded bomb would be so radioactive it would give away its presents if you tried to hide it, destroy its electronic firing circuits and degrade its chemical explosives. For these reasons even after 65 years nobody has even tried to make bomb out of Uranium 233. *A Thorium reactor only produces about 1% as much waste as a conventional reactor and the stuff it does make is not as nasty, after about 5 years 87% of it would be safe and the remaining 13% in 300 years; a conventional reactor would take 100,000 years. *A Thorium reactor has an inherent safety feature, the fuel is in liquid form (Thorium dissolved in un-corrosive molten Fluoride salts) so if for whatever reason things get too hot the liquid expands and so the fuel gets less dense and the reaction slows down. *There is yet another fail safe device. At the bottom of the reactor is something called a "freeze plug", fans blow on it to freeze it solid, if things get too hot the plug melts and the liquid drains out into a holding tank and the reaction stops; also if all electronic controls die due to a loss of electrical power the fans will stop the plug will melt and the reaction will stop. *Thorium reactors work at much higher temperatures than conventional reactors so you have better energy efficiency; in fact they are so hot the waste heat could be used to desalinate sea water or generate hydrogen fuel from water. * Although the liquid Fluoride salt is very hot it is not under pressure so that makes the plumbing of the thing much easier, and even if you did get a leak it would not be the utter disaster it would be in a conventional reactor; that is also why the containment building in common light water reactors need to be so much larger than the reactor itself. With Thorium nothing is under pressure and there is no danger of a disastrous phase change so the expensive containment building can be made much more compact. If you're interested in this technology this might be a good place to start: http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/12/01/how-a-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor-lftr-works/ John K Clark _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 27 21:12:50 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:12:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming. In-Reply-To: <6DAA0C59-9E3B-4C5A-B34B-E5BDA64830D2@bellsouth.net> References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> <20101227104315.GR16518@leitl.org> <3D2C7E54-B53F-4888-B6C6-8C0BF6C40061@mac.com> <20101227185644.GZ16518@leitl.org> <6DAA0C59-9E3B-4C5A-B34B-E5BDA64830D2@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <20101227211250.GA16518@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 03:40:26PM -0500, John Clark wrote: > On Dec 27, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > Any preparative neutron source can be used to breed plutonium. Thorium molten-salt is definitely > > not proliferation-resistent. > > To hell with molten-salt, I'm talking about Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) > where not just the neutron moderator and the coolant is in liquid form but the fuel You're talking about molten-salt reactors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor > is too. A LFTR reactor needs almost all its neutrons just to keep going, so if you > try to steal them to irradiate U238 to make plutonium the LFTR reactor chain reaction will stop. No, the thorium fuel cycle being proliferation-resistant is a myth http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/thorium2009factsheet.pdf > I'm going to quote from part of a post I sent to the list about 6 months ago. ... > If you're interested in this technology this might be a good place to start: > > http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/12/01/how-a-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor-lftr-works/ Thanks for the pointer, but not all of thus have just climbed down from the trees. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Dec 27 21:09:43 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:09:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D5090CB-4F16-4847-8C12-3E067519503A@bellsouth.net> On Dec 27, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > I can tell you it isn't that easy to keep a pipe up to 12.5 miles, much less 18. Well, moored balloons have actually been built that have reached an altitude of 5 miles, and they were carrying heavy broadcasting or radar equipment not the garden hose I'm talking about, and they were dirt cheap. I'll tell you one thing, 18 miles sure would not cost several trillion dollars a year as some say we must pay to solve global warming. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 27 21:32:37 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:32:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20101227213236.GB16518@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:43:44PM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: > > I don't think it's at all dilute. > > Over a year solar energy averages a few hundred watts per square The solar constant is 1.366 kW/m^2. Many people, especially at higher latitudes, find that by itself a considerable challenge to handle. The amount of land area covered by buildings is well in excess of the total energy budget. We don't have the area problem. We have the scaling up of intercept (antenna) area problem. (And smart grid redistribution, sure). > meter. Then you take the efficiency loss in the PV cells of at least > 75%. Efficiency is irrelevant as existing conversion efficiencies are more than adequate, ROI and EROEI are the only relevant factors. > The inside of a power boiler is in the tens of MW, and the efficiency The inside of the power boiler requires steady influx of external fuel, so you better integrate over the entire fuel cycle. And of course coolant is already scarce during the summer months, so the power boilers have to be shut down, natch. And of course there's not much more fuel where that came from, so the question is academic. So learn how to stop worrying, and learn how to love your renewables. I have a deja vu of the 1970s. What is up with transhumanists being mired in decades old thinking that has proven not to work? > is around 45%. (60% for combined cycle.) Efficiency is still irrelevant. Today's solar PV efficiency ranges from few % to almost 50%, but it's the ROI and the EROEI that dominates. > > Solar flux upon outer residential > > building skin is enough to power it. In fact, Si PV rather likes > > it cooler, so you need backventilation to make it approach optimum. > > Powering houses is nowhere close to the whole energy problem. So double the budget, and you're in the green for industry as well. > > Many human activities are following diurnal cycles, and cheap nocturnal > > power is an artefact of large plant thermal inertia and dynamic market > > pricing. You can assume nocturnal demand will collapse if price > > was to double or triple. > > I thought the object was abundant low cost energy. Before you can walk you must first learn to fly. In order to do SPS you must first cover at least 10% of total electricity budget from terrestrial thin-film PV. > > People need houses, these have outer building skins which need > > to be durable. Thin-film photovoltaics is an excellent way where > > construction material doubles up in function (in fact, CdTe > > has about an order magnitude more of energy supply equivalent than > > enrichened uranium in LWRs, not considering recycling). > > > > The prices are getting there, eventually. The hard part is making > > the growth match the demand gap, double and triple electrification, > > and build up electrosynthesis infrastructure for fuels and chemical > > feedstock. Work done there so far: nearly zero. > > It's just chemistry, and well understood chemistry at that. Infrastructure is most assuredly not chemistry, these days "just chemistry" is anything but that, and RT renewable synfuels have several Nobels up their sleeves. Many things are cheap these days, but infrastructure and chemical R&D definitely not. > > I grant you this is hard, we're not doing nearly enough of that, > > and this is going to hurt. However, we do not have any other options. > > > >> costs that translate into high cost per kWh. > > > > I see lots of PV panels on farmer barns around here. > > You will see fewer of them as the subsidies are being phased out. I will see *more* of them, because the current crop is good for 30-40 years, and the prices have plummeted. > > Not exactly > > huge capital costs, and the kWh prices are a factor of about 2 > > removed from residential electricity prices. It looks like thin-film > > PV will become the cheapest electrical energy option for end consumers > > in less than a decade. > > I really doubt it. We can make a wager that 10 years hence (that be Jan 2022) thin-film PV will match dirty coal in most locations, but while we'll be probably here in 2022 nobody will remember. > What's the EU? 500 million people? 150 million houses? In ten years > 1 in 10,000 houses, at that rate 100,000 years to get them all done. > > I think the energy crisis will be over by then. So far renewable is on an exponential track but I agree it's probably not going to last. In order to scale up land area you need to allocate commensurate budgets. Our problem is that we've blown the money on trinkets in the last 30-40 years, so learn to enjoy austerity. And say good-bye to growth. Because, you get it, we've been stupid, lazy, and greedy. Now the bill is due, so open up your wallets. Open them up wide. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Dec 27 21:25:53 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:25:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming. In-Reply-To: <20101227211250.GA16518@leitl.org> References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> <20101227104315.GR16518@leitl.org> <3D2C7E54-B53F-4888-B6C6-8C0BF6C40061@mac.com> <20101227185644.GZ16518@leitl.org> <6DAA0C59-9E3B-4C5A-B34B-E5BDA64830D2@bellsouth.net> <20101227211250.GA16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <0616C3B7-8E14-4EF0-A156-B4D51D0B4B24@bellsouth.net> On Dec 27, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > No, the thorium fuel cycle being proliferation-resistant is a myth > http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/thorium2009factsheet.pdf I got as far as the fifth paragraph where I read this: "U?233 is as effective as plutonium?239 for making nuclear bombs." I stopped reading at that point because it is my policy to stop reading a book or article if I suspect I know more about the subject in question than the author. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 27 21:56:53 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:56:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming. In-Reply-To: <0616C3B7-8E14-4EF0-A156-B4D51D0B4B24@bellsouth.net> References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> <20101227104315.GR16518@leitl.org> <3D2C7E54-B53F-4888-B6C6-8C0BF6C40061@mac.com> <20101227185644.GZ16518@leitl.org> <6DAA0C59-9E3B-4C5A-B34B-E5BDA64830D2@bellsouth.net> <20101227211250.GA16518@leitl.org> <0616C3B7-8E14-4EF0-A156-B4D51D0B4B24@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <20101227215653.GC16518@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 04:25:53PM -0500, John Clark wrote: > On Dec 27, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > No, the thorium fuel cycle being proliferation-resistant is a myth > > http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/thorium2009factsheet.pdf > > I got as far as the fifth paragraph where I read this: > > "U?233 is as effective as plutonium?239 for making nuclear bombs." > > I stopped reading at that point because it is my policy to stop reading a book or article if I suspect I know more about the subject in question than the author. I really love when people propose breeders which are unable to breed, and deny that nuclear devices which have proven to work don't. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Teapot.html (This is almost as good as today's Wikipedia Keystone Kop deletion squad proposing that I may not continue editing an article, yet also that I am unable to revert it to pristine state prior to my meddling. Ha ha ha ha fucking ha!) -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From spike66 at att.net Mon Dec 27 22:08:11 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:08:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming. In-Reply-To: <20101227215653.GC16518@leitl.org> References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> <20101227104315.GR16518@leitl.org> <3D2C7E54-B53F-4888-B6C6-8C0BF6C40061@mac.com> <20101227185644.GZ16518@leitl.org> <6DAA0C59-9E3B-4C5A-B34B-E5BDA64830D2@bellsouth.net> <20101227211250.GA16518@leitl.org> <0616C3B7-8E14-4EF0-A156-B4D51D0B4B24@bellsouth.net> <20101227215653.GC16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <001401cba612$8d6500a0$a82f01e0$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl ... Subject: Re: [ExI] cure for global warming. >>>On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 04:25:53PM -0500, John Clark wrote: >> On Dec 27, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:... >John Clark wrote:... For today and the next couple, Eugen and John Clark have temporary immunity from the traditional posting limits. We are learning a lot here, and I want to see this critically important and worth-reading thread discussed without restriction. Anyone else who is schooled on this particular topic, post away on this thread without limit, thanks. Play ball, me lads! spike From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Mon Dec 27 23:08:52 2010 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:08:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming. In-Reply-To: <6DAA0C59-9E3B-4C5A-B34B-E5BDA64830D2@bellsouth.net> References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> <20101227104315.GR16518@leitl.org> <3D2C7E54-B53F-4888-B6C6-8C0BF6C40061@mac.com> <20101227185644.GZ16518@leitl.org> <6DAA0C59-9E3B-4C5A-B34B-E5BDA64830D2@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/12/27 John Clark > On Dec 27, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > Any preparative neutron source can be used to breed plutonium. Thorium > molten-salt is definitely > not proliferation-resistent. > > > To hell with molten-salt, I'm talking about Liquid Fluoride Thorium > Reactors (LFTR) > The wikipedia article on LFTR/molten salt reactors, after listing their advantages, contains some interesting statements: "There is no need for fuel fabrication. This reduces the MSR's fuel expenses. It poses a business challenge, because reactor manufacturers customarily get their long-term profits from fuel fabrication. Since it uses raw fuel, basically just a mixture of chemicals, current reactor vendors do not want to develop it" "To exploit the molten salt reactor's breeding potential to the fullest, the reactor must be co-located with a reprocessing facility. Nuclear reprocessing does not occur in the U.S. because no commercial provider is willing to undertake it. The regulatory risk and associated costs are very great because the regulatory regime has varied dramatically in different administrations. " It appears that The Market (TM), as currently set up, will not facilitate additional research and development. Wikipedia is authoritative, of course :-) Alfio > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Dec 27 23:15:58 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:15:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Linguistic shifts In-Reply-To: <952081.61159.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <511195.80326.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <952081.61159.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/12/20 Dan : > Languages change. Nothing's static here. It might just be that the pace of > change is faster today or more noticeable -- since we went through a period > of rapid standardization with the proliferation of printing and then of > nation states. Of course. The real issue in this respect are entropic trends. Thus, a conscious effort to resurrect languages simply as a matter of taste and identity and/or to put deliberately existing ones on diverging paths are quite much within the self-determination area. Or are we afraid of the "artificial" side of it? -- Stefano Vaj From pharos at gmail.com Mon Dec 27 23:26:08 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:26:08 +0000 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming. In-Reply-To: <001401cba612$8d6500a0$a82f01e0$@att.net> References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> <20101227104315.GR16518@leitl.org> <3D2C7E54-B53F-4888-B6C6-8C0BF6C40061@mac.com> <20101227185644.GZ16518@leitl.org> <6DAA0C59-9E3B-4C5A-B34B-E5BDA64830D2@bellsouth.net> <20101227211250.GA16518@leitl.org> <0616C3B7-8E14-4EF0-A156-B4D51D0B4B24@bellsouth.net> <20101227215653.GC16518@leitl.org> <001401cba612$8d6500a0$a82f01e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:08 PM, spike wrote: > For today and the next couple, Eugen and John Clark have temporary immunity > from the traditional posting limits. ?We are learning a lot here, and I want to see > this critically important and worth-reading thread discussed without restriction. > Anyone else who is schooled on this particular topic, post away on this thread > without limit, thanks. > > I think this is one of these cases where both John & Eugen are correct, depending on how you look at it. (Stands on one leg squinting to the right). U-233 can be used to make nuclear bombs, the US actually has made and tested them, and some references say U-233 is *better* than P-239 for making nuclear weapons. (That's Eugen's side). On the other side U-233 requires very careful processing and handling. It would be very difficult to get useable amounts out of a thorium reactor and you would probably have to stop the reaction while you tried. i.e. it would take government resources even to attempt this. So, not impossible, but very, very unlikely. (That's John's side). Now, carry on! BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Dec 27 23:43:48 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:43:48 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <003501cba2c6$d5a9cb10$80fd6130$@att.net> References: <005f01cb9c7a$7c22a6e0$7467f4a0$@att.net> <000001cba01b$02a7bea0$07f73be0$@att.net> <003501cba2c6$d5a9cb10$80fd6130$@att.net> Message-ID: 2010/12/23 spike : > So if some transparency is an overall positive, then > more of it is still better, ja? I *like* transparency and information, especially when I am not the one whose secrets are being disclosed. If somebody acts upon such information who would have not otherwise, OTOH, the one who acts must be blamed, or praised, not the information. -- Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 28 00:25:42 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:25:42 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: References: <005f01cb9c7a$7c22a6e0$7467f4a0$@att.net> <000001cba01b$02a7bea0$07f73be0$@att.net> <003501cba2c6$d5a9cb10$80fd6130$@att.net> Message-ID: <002101cba625$c3869910$4a93cb30$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj Subject: Re: [ExI] Who is safe? 2010/12/23 spike : >> So if some transparency is an overall positive, then more of it is still better, ja? > I *like* transparency and information, especially when I am not the one whose secrets are being disclosed.--Stefano Vaj Ja me too. I few years ago when I was more of a vocal advocate of greater openness, it occurred to me that I was a poor spokesman for the notion. I can easily hide, even if I don't want to. If one googles Eugen Leitl, one gets the right guy immediately, but if one googles on Spike Jones, the first several thousand hits are the band leader. When I was a teenager there were two others with my same first and last name in my home town. One was a little older, black, became a painter (houses not canvas), never met him. The other was a year younger, was also a skinny blonde kid and we even looked a little alike. We met once in high school, agreed we could pull off some good gags, never got it done because shortly after I graduated he perished in a traffic accident, not all that far from where I lived at the time. For some time, many thought that hapless lad was me. At my 30th high school reunion I ran into someone who thought I had perished way back then. For those of us who have common names, it would be difficult to reveal our own secrets accurately, for they would be mixed with others sharing a name. For most who want privacy, the best bet might be intentionally mixing one's own life story with that of others. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 02:17:24 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:17:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <4D16F39E.2050607@speakeasy.net> References: <891834.87882.qm@web114410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20101223132659.GN16518@leitl.org> <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <4D167F09.6070901@speakeasy.net> <001001cba4b9$8dd73f30$a985bd90$@att.net> <4D16F39E.2050607@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: > > I really wasn't thinking when I sent that previous message. I had > intended to recover by rim-shotting off the excessively angry responses > I had expected, but it looks like I'm being presented with a different > opportunity. > > I've been in a funk not just from all the candy I've been gorging on but > also but also from learning that my 3 year younger sister is coming on > her 5th wedding anniversary and I've never even been on a date. > Furthermore, my only prospects have been offered by homosexual men! =\ > > But anyway, to answer your question, here is my reasoning. [snip] thanks. It looks like you can be articulate when you want; that means we can hold you to these high standards. :) From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 02:52:31 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:52:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <99014EBE-C7D0-4B5B-A3F8-BDF463293C4E@mac.com> References: <99014EBE-C7D0-4B5B-A3F8-BDF463293C4E@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > What for? ?As a temporary until you can convert most transportation to electric? ?Perhaps. ?But electric is the way to go not far down the line. I'm not sure what you mean by this delightfully ambiguous line. Is electric soon to be the "way to go" or will it in some future be a way "to go not far" ? It made me smile while reading and thought some of the list's other word-nerds would appreciate that construction. From sparge at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 03:04:22 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:04:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Epigenetics and primal/paleo diets Message-ID: Max recommended Mark Sisson's blog re: primal/paleo diets, and I've been pending a lot of time there. One thing I haven't bought into in the notion that a primal diet can change your epigenetics, as asserted here: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/epigenetics/ I posted a comment asking for clarification on this, but I haven't gotten any. Here's my comment: ---- I understand the concept of epigenetics?barely. I?m not a biochemist. The Nova video makes it sound like expression is fixed. It doesn?t say anything about changing the fat mouse?s diet to turn it into a skinny one. Is there really any evidence that a primal diet will change one?s epigenetics? If so, where? I?m not saying that a primal diet won?t work, I?m just questioning the mechanism. Does it really take ?gene reprogramming? for a low-carb diet to cause a move away from an insulin-dominated metabolism? ---- Anyone know the answer? -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 28 03:31:53 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 19:31:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: References: <99014EBE-C7D0-4B5B-A3F8-BDF463293C4E@mac.com> Message-ID: <000f01cba63f$c5f2b840$51d828c0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty Subject: Re: [ExI] cure for global warming On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> What for? ?As a temporary until you can convert most transportation to electric? ?Perhaps. ?But electric is the way to go not far down the line. >... delightfully ambiguous line. Is electric soon to be the "way to go" or will it in some future be a way "to go not far" ? >It made me smile while reading and thought some of the list's other word-nerds would appreciate that construction. {8^D Ja, that is the problem with current electrics: they are the way to go not far. Range is a real problem. At the risk of sounding redundant, look from a mechanical engineering perspective at all the possibilities in ape-haulers if we just go ahead and accept lower acceleration potential, lower top speeds, inability to tolerate rough roads, inability to operate in very high winds. We have burned into our brains the notion that a single car must do it all: get us there quickly in complete comfort, haul four apes, carry groceries or other cargo, go in *any* weather and be safe in a collision with other Detroits. But if we give up one or more of these notions, we can imagine superlights which get crazy good fuel economy. But they really don't do it all. We can imagine an ape hauler that will keep us dry, even if not necessarily warm, doesn't require a helmet even if we are not necessarily safe, will get us there even if not with great alacrity. If we accept these conditions, good old internal combustion might not be such a bad deal at all, single cylinder, mature technology, very light (weighing in at less than a typical street motorcycle) arbitrarily long range using the existing gasoline distribution infrastructure. I am imagining three wheels, two forward, one aft, such as this rig, only smaller: http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/at-the-garage/custom-built/persu-mobility-thre e-wheeler/ spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 28 04:18:45 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:18:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming. In-Reply-To: <20101227215653.GC16518@leitl.org> References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> <20101227104315.GR16518@leitl.org> <3D2C7E54-B53F-4888-B6C6-8C0BF6C40061@mac.com> <20101227185644.GZ16518@leitl.org> <6DAA0C59-9E3B-4C5A-B34B-E5BDA64830D2@bellsouth.net> <20101227211250.GA16518@leitl.org> <0616C3B7-8E14-4EF0-A156-B4D51D0B4B24@bellsouth.net> <20101227215653.GC16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Dec 27, 2010, at 4:56 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > I really love when people propose breeders which are unable > to breed, and deny that nuclear devices which have proven > to work don't. Thorium reactors don't breed much fissionable material, well they do but they need most of it just to continue to operate, so if you try to siphon it away for sinister purposes the chain reaction will stop the reactor will grow cold and the theft will become obvious. As for using that stolen U233 to actually build a bomb, if you had in reality read the post you were responding to that I had sent 37 minutes previously you would have seen that I said: "Thorium does produce Uranium 233 and theoretically you could make a bomb out of that, but it would be contaminated with Uranium 232 which is a powerful gamma ray emitter which would make it suicidal to work with unless extraordinary precautions were taken, and even then the unexploded bomb would be so radioactive it would give away its presents if you tried to hide it, destroy its electronic firing circuits and degrade its chemical explosives. For these reasons even after 65 years nobody has even tried to make a bomb out of Uranium 233." John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 28 05:25:47 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:25:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming. In-Reply-To: References: <20101226213502.GQ16518@leitl.org> <20101227104315.GR16518@leitl.org> <3D2C7E54-B53F-4888-B6C6-8C0BF6C40061@mac.com> <20101227185644.GZ16518@leitl.org> <6DAA0C59-9E3B-4C5A-B34B-E5BDA64830D2@bellsouth.net> <20101227211250.GA16518@leitl.org> <0616C3B7-8E14-4EF0-A156-B4D51D0B4B24@bellsouth.net> <20101227215653.GC16518@leitl.org> <001401cba612$8d6500a0$a82f01e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <7BDAC8EC-B6FC-43CD-87AD-CAE0E604C429@bellsouth.net> On Dec 27, 2010, at 6:26 PM, BillK wrote: > some references say U-233 is *better* than P-239 for making nuclear weapons. No U233 bomb has ever entered anybody's arsenal, but I admit I was playing a little fast and loose with the facts when I said none had ever been made. A U-233 bomb has been made and it worked, but not very well; it was expected to produce 35 kilotons but only produced 20. I don't know what you mean when you say "U-233 is *better* than P-239 for making nuclear weapons", the critical mass for U233 is 16 kilograms, that is slightly smaller than the critical mass for U235 but for P239 its only 4.4 kilograms. And U233, if it were obtained from a LFTR reactor, would be a nightmare to work with because about 1% of it would be contaminated with U232; in one second your unexploded fission core would produce more gamma rays than a plutonium core would in 26 hours. All those gamma rays would play hell with the bomb's electronics and decompose its chemical explosive, not to mention causing a bit of bother to the poor terrorists rushing around to finish building the damn thing before they dropped dead. And forget about trying to hide this behemoth, all those gamma rays are like a huge neon sign saying "NUCLEAR BOMB HERE". John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 06:35:50 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:35:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] kill thread In-Reply-To: <001801cba604$9cdd4d20$d697e760$@att.net> References: <992812.79666.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001801cba604$9cdd4d20$d697e760$@att.net> Message-ID: Spike, I think there is a need for a book titled "The Transhumanist's Guide to Picking Up Women!" And I believe Keith "Archimedes" Henson and Eugen "Big Pimpin" Leitl should be among the contributors... John ; ) On 12/27/10, spike wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc > Subject: Re: [ExI] kill thread > > "spike" wrote: >> >>> OK thanks everyone, please stop forthwith any commentary titled Getting > Laid... > >>> It is OK to post stuff about dating and lonely hearts to some extent, but > I urge you do use judgment and decorum... > >>> Play ball! > >>Fair enough, you're the boss... > > Oy vey. Only temporarily, as Max and Natasha are in the process of moving > to Arizona. I take up this badge with much reluctance and with eagerness to > relinquish authority at every opportunity. > >>Although I do hope this is killed because of the vitriol, not because of > the actual topic (or my choice of subject line!)... > > It's quite all right Ben. The reason we had to kill it this time is that > unpleasantness had broken out with inappropriate commentary as you likely > noticed. Posting about sex is perfectly OK. There is so much potential for > humor in that area. Caution is to be exercised if we see novices offering > to lecture experts in their own area of expertise. > >>My take on it is that it's a valid extropian topic, as it's about our > happiness and ambitions, just as much as life-extension or intelligence > expansion is, just not as 'sexy' (cognitive dissonance intended), and even > more so because it relates to the kind of personalities that often frequent > this kind of list.. Ben Zaiboc > > Ja, all areas of sexuality are to be explored openly on ExI and all are > accepted, up to and including those which are physically impossible to > perform. This last category is especially welcome, for those of us less > capable in these areas have a ready excuse for failing to participate. Not > only accepted, but... noichaed. Never appropriate are insults to those who > practice any particular brand of sexuality. Insults are never appropriate > actually, for any category of practitioners. We like everyone, ja? > > Besides that, the stuff that is physically impossible may not always be so. > Picture Seven of Nine in the holodeck. Then recognize that to have *any > chance* at the holodeck with 7 you must make arrangements ahead of time. > > spike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 28 08:48:44 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:48:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming. In-Reply-To: References: <20101227104315.GR16518@leitl.org> <3D2C7E54-B53F-4888-B6C6-8C0BF6C40061@mac.com> <20101227185644.GZ16518@leitl.org> <6DAA0C59-9E3B-4C5A-B34B-E5BDA64830D2@bellsouth.net> <20101227211250.GA16518@leitl.org> <0616C3B7-8E14-4EF0-A156-B4D51D0B4B24@bellsouth.net> <20101227215653.GC16518@leitl.org> <001401cba612$8d6500a0$a82f01e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101228084844.GD16518@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:26:08PM +0000, BillK wrote: > On the other side U-233 requires very careful processing and handling. The thorium fluoride molten salt reactor is not just a breeder, it is also a continuous fuel reprocessing plant (in fact, it must continuously process fuel in order to operate sustainably). It is also a preparative source of neutrons. Any preparative source of neutrons can be used to e.g. irradiate continuous flow of uranium salt melt or uranyl nitrate solution (jacketed with vacuum insulation) in case of MSR and continuously remove the bred Pu-239 from the solution or melt (either by liquid-liquid extraction or ion chromatography). > It would be very difficult to get useable amounts out of a thorium Not so. > reactor and you would probably have to stop the reaction while you Not so. > tried. i.e. it would take government resources even to attempt this. Groups who consider humans sacrificable servos have a distinct advantage to governments. > So, not impossible, but very, very unlikely. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 09:59:56 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:59:56 +0000 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <000f01cba63f$c5f2b840$51d828c0$@att.net> References: <99014EBE-C7D0-4B5B-A3F8-BDF463293C4E@mac.com> <000f01cba63f$c5f2b840$51d828c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:31 AM, spike wrote: > But if we give up one or more of these notions, we can imagine superlights > which get crazy good fuel economy. ?But they really don't do it all. ?We can > imagine an ape hauler that will keep us dry, even if not necessarily warm, > doesn't require a helmet even if we are not necessarily safe, will get us > there even if not with great alacrity. > > If we accept these conditions, good old internal combustion might not be > such a bad deal at all, single cylinder, mature technology, very light > (weighing in at less than a typical street motorcycle) arbitrarily long > range using the existing gasoline distribution infrastructure. ?I am > imagining three wheels, two forward, one aft, such as this rig, only > smaller: > > In Europe and Japan, car manufacturers are already producing city cars with three-cylinder engines in an attempt to get increased fuel economy without too much reduction in performance. Even though they are regarded as 'city ' cars, they all have top speeds around 90 -100 mph, so they are happy on the freeway as well. Of course, the motorway experience is a bit noisier than being in an V8 limousine. Some manufacturers are also trying adding turbo-charging to the smaller engines to see if they can get increased fuel economy *and* increased power, without running into reliability problems. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 28 13:00:01 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 14:00:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> References: <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 08:55:59PM -0800, spike wrote: > If an alien civilization were sending signals they intended for us to > interpret, it would be easy to interpret. If they intend for us to not But how do you supress your metabolism? Earth intercepts only about 2 kg/s of solar flux, while the Sun total output is about 4 MT/s. Those 2 kg/s are about 10^4 in excess of our current needs. But that's just our *current* needs, and of course we're already altering up to one half of photosynthetic net primary productivity. http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/hanpp.html It is quite obvious that once terrestrial photovoltaics deployment will run into high 10% there *will* be SPS constellations (built in situ from lunar material), and soon also telecommunication, computing, storage, quite literally becoming the cloud of nodes in Earth-Moon system (most of us should be able to see the beginning of this), and soon elsewhere. This would alter the albedo of Earth-Moon, and of course after a few 10 years of self-replication driven growth it will become observable over pretty large distances by dimming the Sun via a cloud of circumsolar nodes, and by shifting the spectrum into FIR, ultimatively turning the solar system into a few-AU sized ~300 K blackbody. Such systems are ordinarily not very visible, but we did look for them specifically, and we've found none (or put the lower bound pretty close to zero). Once you inoculate the universe the result is a runaway way of expansion. This is observable from across the universe. How do you hide your body warmth and your breath? You can't stop the signal. > interpret, it would be impossible to interpret. If we are just missing a > possibly-decodable signal, then they don't care if we interpret or not. The > third case would be analogous to our leaked radio and TV signals. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 15:43:08 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 08:43:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming Message-ID: Guys, I am not trying to shoot down the idea, in fact I heard an hour presentation on it a couple of years ago. But let's consider the physics of the proposal. On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:00 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Dec 27, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > >> I can tell you it isn't that easy to keep a pipe up to 12.5 miles, much less 18. > > Well, moored balloons have actually been built that have reached an altitude of 5 miles, and they were carrying heavy broadcasting or radar equipment not the garden hose I'm talking about, and they were dirt cheap. I'll tell you one thing, 18 miles sure would not cost several trillion dollars a year as some say we must pay to solve global warming. "Myhrvold wasn't suggesting anything as ambitious as a space elevator, just a light hose about 2 inches in diameter going up about 18 miles. In one design he burns sulfur to make sulphur dioxide, he then liquefies it and injects it into the stratosphere with a hose supported every 500 to 1000 feet with helium balloons. Myhrvold thinks this design would cost about 150 million dollars to build and about 100 million a year to operate. In another design that would probably be even cheaper he just slips a sleeve over the smokestack of any existing small to midsize coal power plant in the higher latitudes and uses the hot exhaust to fill hot air balloons to support the hose." 18 miles is close enough to 29 km. There is a good reason to send the SO2 up as a liquid, for the same velocity it would take a much larger pipe which generates more wind drag and takes more excess buoyancy to keep it close to vertical. So how much pressure does it take at the bottom to pump it up 18 miles? The sg is 1.46, so a cubic meter would mass 1460 kg. In one g, this takes a force of 14308 N to hold it up. One bar is 100,000 N/m^2 which is close enough to 7 meters per bar. 29,000 m / 7m/bar is 1443 bar or 60,000 psi. Some garden hose. :-) How much will the hose weigh? How much wind resistance? How much excess buoyancy? How much lift gas? It isn't simple. Eugen Leitl > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:43:44PM -0700, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> Over a year solar energy averages a few hundred watts per square > > The solar constant is 1.366 kW/m^2. Many people, especially > at higher latitudes, find that by itself a considerable > challenge to handle. The amount of land area covered by > buildings is well in excess of the total energy budget. > > We don't have the area problem. We have the scaling up of > intercept (antenna) area problem. (And smart grid redistribution, > sure). > >> meter. ?Then you take the efficiency loss in the PV cells of at least >> 75%. > > Efficiency is irrelevant as existing conversion efficiencies > are more than adequate, ROI and EROEI are the only relevant factors. 1/efficiency is a direct cost multiplier for ROI. Combined cycle plants are more expensive than gas turbine alone, but they are worth it because of the higher efficiency. >> The inside of a power boiler is in the tens of MW, and the efficiency > > The inside of the power boiler requires steady influx of > external fuel, so you better integrate over the entire > fuel cycle. And of course coolant is already scarce during > the summer months, so the power boilers have to be shut > down, natch. > > And of course there's not much more fuel where that > came from, so the question is academic. So learn how > to stop worrying, and learn how to love your renewables. > > I have a deja vu of the 1970s. What is up with transhumanists > being mired in decades old thinking that has proven not > to work? I have been working on solar for years. As a rule of thumb, an "no fuel" energy investment makes sense when you can get return of capital invested in ten years. For power you can produce 80,000 kWh in that time. So you can spend about $800 per penny a kWh you are charging. So for penny a kWh, you can't spend more than $800 per kW, or $800 M per GW. You can see that $8 B for a nuclear plant isn't going to make power cheap enough to convert it to liquid fuels at reasonable prices. >> is around 45%. ?(60% for combined cycle.) > > Efficiency is still irrelevant. Today's solar PV > efficiency ranges from few % to almost 50%, but it's > the ROI and the EROEI that dominates. > >> > Solar flux upon outer residential >> > building skin is enough to power it. In fact, Si PV rather likes >> > it cooler, so you need backventilation to make it approach optimum. >> >> Powering houses is nowhere close to the whole energy problem. > > So double the budget, and you're in the green for industry > as well. It's more like 5 times. There is a remarkable amount of energy in oil. >> > Many human activities are following diurnal cycles, and cheap nocturnal >> > power is an artefact of large plant thermal inertia and dynamic market >> > pricing. You can assume nocturnal demand will collapse if price >> > was to double or triple. >> >> I thought the object was abundant low cost energy. > > Before you can walk you must first learn to fly. In order to > do SPS you must first cover at least 10% of total electricity > budget from terrestrial thin-film PV. Why? It is not at all obvious that PV is the right answer for power satellites. With low temperature radiators stacked Rankine cycles or Brayton/Rankine will have 1/4 the area of a 15% PV system. snip >> >> It's just chemistry, and well understood chemistry at that. > > Infrastructure is most assuredly not chemistry, these days "just chemistry" > is anything but that, and RT renewable synfuels have several > Nobels up their sleeves. > > Many things are cheap these days, but infrastructure and chemical > R&D definitely not. As I pointed out, there is already in existence billion dollar plants that make synthetic fuels. All you need to run them on air and water inputs is oceans of energy (to make hydrogen and sort out CO2). snip Keith From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Dec 28 15:46:58 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:46:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Interview w/ Max More "Plugging into the epic , A rational poetry of the future" Message-ID: <9B6C84B33BFA40EA91A3EA6A14AF4742@DFC68LF1> Max wrote the high-spirited "Letter to Mother Nature" eleven years ago. This article recalls that essay in a heady interview with Max. http://spacecollective.org/Wildcat/6485/Plugging-into-the-epic-A-rational-po etry-of-the-future-An-essay-and-interview-with-Max-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 28 15:38:58 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:38:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming. In-Reply-To: <20101228084844.GD16518@leitl.org> References: <20101227104315.GR16518@leitl.org> <3D2C7E54-B53F-4888-B6C6-8C0BF6C40061@mac.com> <20101227185644.GZ16518@leitl.org> <6DAA0C59-9E3B-4C5A-B34B-E5BDA64830D2@bellsouth.net> <20101227211250.GA16518@leitl.org> <0616C3B7-8E14-4EF0-A156-B4D51D0B4B24@bellsouth.net> <20101227215653.GC16518@leitl.org> <001401cba612$8d6500a0$a82f01e0$@att.net> <20101228084844.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <2DBE44F3-98ED-45A9-B4AF-F6EA6B3B79DC@bellsouth.net> On Dec 28, 2010, at 3:48 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > The thorium fluoride molten salt reactor is not just a breeder, Yes LFTR is a breeder, a breeder that uses safe SLOW neutrons, not dangerous fast neutrons as in a conventional Uranium breeder. LFTR breeds fissionable U233 from cheap Thorium-232, something that is twice as common as tin. However it doesn't keep that U233 around for long, LFTR burns it up and it needs all that U233 to keep the reaction going; if you try to steal the U233 everybody will know because the reactor will stop. And its not just the U233 that gets used up, the great thing is that unlike conventional pressurized water reactors we use today most of the super-radioactive stuff like U232 gets burned up too, leaving only mildly nasty stuff and much less of it than in conventional reactors; and almost no Plutonium ever gets made in the first place. > it is also a continuous fuel reprocessing plant (in fact, it > must continuously process fuel in order to operate sustainably). What is your point? Even a coal powered steam engine must continuously process fuel in order to operate. > > It is also a preparative source of neutrons. Bullshit. Unlike a conventional reactor a LFTR needs almost all the neutrons it produces just to operate, it has almost none it can spare to irradiate U238 to produce Plutonium. And by the way, there are already thousands of tons of Plutonium in the world and you only need 4.4 kilograms to make a bomb. Some of that Plutonium was deliberately made but most of it was a unwelcome byproduct of conventional reactors, they make the damn stuff automatically whether you want to or not. LFTR doesn't have that problem. And with all that crap already around it's a little late in the day to be worrying about too much Plutonium on the planet, that ship has sailed. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Dec 28 15:58:52 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:58:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] kill thread In-Reply-To: References: <992812.79666.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><001801cba604$9cdd4d20$d697e760$@att.net> Message-ID: <4BDFE2818EF940ECAF9DFA731E286992@DFC68LF1> Lol! 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: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 12:36 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] kill thread Spike, I think there is a need for a book titled "The Transhumanist's Guide to Picking Up Women!" And I believe Keith "Archimedes" Henson and Eugen "Big Pimpin" Leitl should be among the contributors... John ; ) On 12/27/10, spike wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc > Subject: Re: [ExI] kill thread > > "spike" wrote: >> >>> OK thanks everyone, please stop forthwith any commentary titled >>> Getting > Laid... > >>> It is OK to post stuff about dating and lonely hearts to some >>> extent, but > I urge you do use judgment and decorum... > >>> Play ball! > >>Fair enough, you're the boss... > > Oy vey. Only temporarily, as Max and Natasha are in the process of > moving to Arizona. I take up this badge with much reluctance and with > eagerness to relinquish authority at every opportunity. > >>Although I do hope this is killed because of the vitriol, not because >>of > the actual topic (or my choice of subject line!)... > > It's quite all right Ben. The reason we had to kill it this time is > that unpleasantness had broken out with inappropriate commentary as > you likely noticed. Posting about sex is perfectly OK. There is so > much potential for humor in that area. Caution is to be exercised if > we see novices offering to lecture experts in their own area of expertise. > >>My take on it is that it's a valid extropian topic, as it's about our > happiness and ambitions, just as much as life-extension or > intelligence expansion is, just not as 'sexy' (cognitive dissonance > intended), and even more so because it relates to the kind of > personalities that often frequent this kind of list.. Ben Zaiboc > > Ja, all areas of sexuality are to be explored openly on ExI and all > are accepted, up to and including those which are physically > impossible to perform. This last category is especially welcome, for > those of us less capable in these areas have a ready excuse for > failing to participate. Not only accepted, but... noichaed. Never > appropriate are insults to those who practice any particular brand of > sexuality. Insults are never appropriate actually, for any category of practitioners. We like everyone, ja? > > Besides that, the stuff that is physically impossible may not always be so. > Picture Seven of Nine in the holodeck. Then recognize that to have > *any > chance* at the holodeck with 7 you must make arrangements ahead of time. > > spike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 kanzure at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 15:49:10 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:49:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Interview w/ Max More "Plugging into the epic , A rational poetry of the future" In-Reply-To: <9B6C84B33BFA40EA91A3EA6A14AF4742@DFC68LF1> References: <9B6C84B33BFA40EA91A3EA6A14AF4742@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: 2010/12/28 Natasha Vita-More > Max wrote the high-spirited "Letter to Mother Nature" eleven years ago. > This article recalls that essay in a heady interview with Max. > > > http://spacecollective.org/Wildcat/6485/Plugging-into-the-epic-A-rational-poetry-of-the-future-An-essay-and-interview-with-Max-More > """ ?Dear Mother Nature: *Sorry to disturb you, but we humans?your offspring?come to you with some things to say. (Perhaps you could pass this on to Father, since we never seem to see him around.) We want to thank you for the many wonderful qualities you have bestowed on us with your slow but massive, distributed intelligence. You have raised us from simple self-replicating chemicals to trillion-celled mammals. You have given us free rein of the planet. You have given us a life span longer than that of almost any other animal. You have endowed us with a complex brain giving us the capacity for language, reason, foresight, curiosity, and creativity. You have given us the capacity for self-understanding as well as empathy for others. Mother Nature, truly we are grateful for what you have made us. No doubt you did the best you could. However, with all due respect, we must say that you have in many ways done a poor job with the human constitution. You have made us vulnerable to disease and damage. You compel us to age and die?just as we?re beginning to attain wisdom. You were miserly in the extent to which you gave us awareness of our somatic, cognitive, and emotional processes. You held out on us by giving the sharpest senses to other animals. You made us functional only under narrow environmental conditions. You gave us limited memory, poor impulse control, and tribalistic, xenophobic urges. And, you forgot to give us the operating manual for ourselves! What you have made us is glorious, yet deeply flawed. You seem to have lost interest in our further evolution some 100,000 years ago. Or perhaps you have been biding your time, waiting for us to take the next step ourselves. Either way, we have reached our childhood?s end. We have decided that it is time to amend the human constitution. We do not do this lightly, carelessly, or disrespectfully, but cautiously, intelligently, and in pursuit of excellence. We intend to make you proud of us. Over the coming decades we will pursue a series of changes to our own constitution, initiated with the tools of biotechnology guided by critical and creative thinking.*? Continue reading A Letter to Mother Nature From Max More ,August 1999 Eleven years ago, Max More published the above letter to mother nature and I remember at the time thinking, what marvelous way to put in a concise manner the feelings that I imagined many humans must feel. But above all what Max More presents is a transhumanist thought that is clear constant, and though evolving across time, his kind of rationality is a brilliant example of how our futures need not be an either- or proposition. If we take Ray Kurzweilas the proponent of the exponential growth into mind and Aubrey de Greyas the chief exponent of Body, I think of Max More as the chief exponent of radical sense thought. Let me explain. Max is a modern thinker of remarkable intelligence and surprising depth, his capacity for the extended application of rationality into the actualization of futures that are neither obvious nor common, is fascinating. He may extol the virtues of radical enhancements in all their potential glory and yet that is not where we met. In the realm of ideas and the very real dinner table where we sat and had this most strange conversation, we met in the fuzzy phase space of balanced realism. Balanced realism is an interesting kind of perceptive envisioning; it balances the necessary motion into unpredictability with a proactionary principle, a principle that Max More defined as follows: *People?s freedom to innovate technologically is highly valuable, even critical, to humanity. This implies a range of responsibilities for those considering whether and how to develop, deploy, or restrict new technologies. Assess risks and opportunities using an objective, open, and comprehensive, yet simple decision process based on science rather than collective emotional reactions. Account for the costs of restrictions and lost opportunities as fully as direct effects. Favor measures that are proportionate to the probability and magnitude of impacts, and that have the highest payoff relative to their costs. Give a high priority to people?s freedom to learn, innovate, and advance.* The Proactionary principle What is so special about the proactionary principle is that contrary to the common manner of thought propagated by simple emotional reactions and backed by mass media, it is a view and perspective, a philosophical principle indeed, that rejects fear as the basis of reactivity to the unknown and unpredictable. Indeed when I asked Max about the importance of his Extropianthought his clear answer was: ?What was important for the Extropians was diversity and variety, in fact we rejected the concept of certainty, we always stressed the power of uncertainty, and questioning everything including our own thought processes.? And later on the same topic:? The fact that we have a technology does not mean that it will become widespread overnight.. Our culture is full of fear of the future, and so we came up with the proactionary idea- acts that can be done to allay risks instead of the precautionary principle.. it is my response that we need to balance risks and safety..? This was an interesting reply, for Max, having coined the term ?transhumanism? and thus admittedly one of the ?fathers? of the movement aims to improve our ability to anticipate, adapt to, and shape the future for the better. That is why I asked him about his understanding of the term ?better?. Reflecting silently for a few moments (in the very noisy ambience of the restaurant) he finally said that for him better means to carry a philosophy of extropy, as he originally conceived of it, a philosophy of liberation, a radical technological-humanistic urging to break out of the bonds that bind human nature. The funny thing that I realized during this delightful conversation was that Max is a very humble person, I say humble because truth to tell I expected someone with his credentials (see endnote) and kind of radical thinking to be, well, an arrogant libertarian. Not so, not at all, Max revealed himself to be a very gentle and thoughtful person, and though it is true that the original extropian publications pushed a very strong libertarian agenda, it is not so at present and has not been such for quite some time (though most articles fail to notice the change and evolution of the Extropian thought). Max proves to be a fiercely independent mind that does not shy of rejecting authority for its own sake, in fact one of the most impressive statements I have heard from him that evening was that:? .. *Everybody is far more certain than they have the right to be*.? In this respect Max More is an exponent of a brand of transhumanism that I admire deeply, a quest to unravel and in his terminology ?*unpack too strict definitions that are readily taken for granted and are much too limiting* ? Such was the case when I asked him about truth: W: Do you believe in truth? Max: No I believe in the mechanism of seeking for the truth.. Big difference. Max exposed himself to be a humorous and keen intellect, a person of integrity and dynamism, a mind that prefers the seeking of truth as a value in itself more than a desire to settle on conventional and accepted dogmas. To my eyes his original descriptions of the Extropian principles show this particular point of view clearly: "These Principles are not presented as absolute truths or universal values. The Principles codify and express those attitudes and approaches affirmed by those who describe themselves as "Extropian". Extropian thinking offers a basic framework for thinking about the human condition. This document deliberately does not specify particular beliefs, technologies, or conclusions. These Principles merely define an evolving framework for approaching life in a rational, effective manner unencumbered by dogmas that cannot survive scientific or philosophical criticism. Like humanists we affirm an empowering, rational view of life, yet seek to avoid dogmatic beliefs of any kind. The Extropian philosophy embodies an inspiring and uplifting view of life while remaining open to revision according to science, reason, and the boundless search for improvement. *1. Perpetual Progress* ? Seeking more intelligence, wisdom, and effectiveness, an indefinite lifespan, and the removal of political, cultural, biological, and psychological limits to self-actualization and self-realization. Perpetually overcoming constraints on our progress and possibilities. Expanding into the universe and advancing without end. *2. Self-Transformation* ? Affirming continual moral, intellectual, and physical self-improvement, through critical and creative thinking, personal responsibility, and experimentation. Seeking biological and neurological augmentation along with emotional and psychological refinement. *3. Practical Optimism* ? Fueling action with positive expectations. Adopting a rational, action-based optimism, in place of both blind faith and stagnant pessimism. *4. Intelligent Technology* ? Applying science and technology creatively to transcend "natural" limits imposed by our biological heritage, culture, and environment. Seeing technology not as an end in itself but as an effective means towards the improvement of life. *5. Open Society* ? Supporting social orders that foster freedom of speech, freedom of action, and experimentation. Opposing authoritarian social control and favoring the rule of law and decentralization of power. Preferring bargaining over battling, and exchange over compulsion. Openness to improvement rather than a static utopia. *6. Self-Direction* ? Seeking independent thinking, individual freedom, personal responsibility, self-direction, self-esteem, and respect for others. *7. Rational Thinking* ? Favoring reason over blind faith and questioning over dogma. Remaining open to challenges to our beliefs and practices in pursuit of perpetual improvement. Welcoming criticism of our existing beliefs while being open to new ideas. (It is highly recommended to read the full text of the Extropian Principles here ) Defying easy and common labels Max is a vigorous pioneer in more ways than one; his thoughts are to a certain extent a bit unpopular, so to say, especially with regard to the technological singularity, which he sees as a kind of black hole sucking in too much attention and distorting the thinking in the area (see Singularity and Surge scenarios). But his contributions to the transhumanist thought and clarity is probably the most salient and exhaustive you could find. Bold and calm, carrying an inner buoyancy barely perceptible, Max acknowledges gently his own vulnerability whilst allowing the strength of his convictions to pull him forward into an unknown future. *On a more personal note:* I wrote this short, certainly far from exhaustive, essay and interview in the hope of capturing some of the vision and maybe insights Max exemplifies, and I hope that for those unfamiliar with Max More?s thought, this will be an introduction of sorts. There is a great abundance of thoughts and perspectives in the Transhuman infocology, and yet to my eyes, few if any carry the temerity and maybe nerve as the one promoted by and easily accessible through the mind of Max More. The interest I found in this quite unusual human is twofold; Max embeds in his rationality a quest as old as human thought, the quest of infinite betterment, he does this with a flair for the poetic which I find both attractive and more importantly crucial to our co-involvement with the creation of our own futures and destinies. Concomitantly with his very thorough aesthetic rationality Max exhibits a natural affinity with a still non-existent future, as if to some extent his process of envisioning plays some highly sophisticated game of update and affirmation, pruning that which he believes does not belong anymore and creating in the process a pragmatic approach to what at times appears as sheer fiction (which is nothing less than an idea for mature beings). He is, it must be said, much more cautious than I am, a trait that in our communication has risen its head and provided some savory bites of conjoined laughter and sharp fun. As I saw him, Max has embarked years ago upon an adventure, desiring to plug himself deeply into the epic that is the future history of humanity, an epic that I believe he helps write, clarify and update. And though a deeply committed individual I met him as warrior poets convene, in utter conviviality and simplicity, in an open and critical discourse, both grand and trivial issues of self and humanity at large, interplaying seamlessly. Sheer fun. ? *Breaking news:* We wish to extend many warm congratulations to Max, following this announcement that just came in: *Alcor Life Extension Foundation Names Max More, PhD, as Chief Executive Officer* . I therefore asked Max to write a few words that will provide an overview of his views in relation to his taking the CEO position at Alcor, an appointment both important and interesting. MM: " As a transhumanist, I look forward to a future in which I, and everyone who wants to, has progressively overcome their nature-imposed limits on intelligence, emotional refinement, achievement, and enjoyment. All those future possibilities (and the difficult challenges that will accompany them) can only be realized if we stay alive. The lack of substantial progress in understanding and halting aging over the 30 or so years since I became deeply committed to radical life extension is disturbing. I've also seen several good friends die, some of them permanently and irreversibly. These factors are part of the reason I'm jumping back into cryonics. Rather than hoping that anti-aging research will pick up the pace sufficiently to save my life and the lives of those I love (as well as those I just tolerate!), it seems to me that cryopreservation is a vital back-up plan. In our loosely defined community of transhumanists, human augmentation advocations, and life extensionists, we strongly agree on the desirability of extending our life spans. Yet too many of us fail to take some of the measures that could make a significant difference to our prospects for future life. I've always tried to take care of my health, although I've often been far from perfect. Recently, that's led me to become an enthusiast for the "paleo diet " and exercise program. Starting over 24 years ago, it's also why I made arrangements for my cryopreservation, and why I co-founded Alcor-UK (as it came to be called) in 1986. As the new CEO of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, I am now officially asking fellow transhumanists: If you're not signed up for cryopreservation, *why not*? Yes, I know there are all kinds of reasons, often perfectly reasonable. But I'd like to challenge those who don't have this back-up plan in place to reconsider those reasons. I'll also be happy to talk with anyone interested in signing up but who sees obstacles in their way, whether it's financial, family opposition, doubts about the feasibility of cryopreservation, or distance from cryonics organizations. I'm honored to have been given the CEO position by Alcor's board of directors, and look forward to raising the organization to new heights, protecting our existing cryopreserved patients, while growing the organization and improving its practices and technology. A bit of history about my early involvement in cryonics: I first became interested in cryonics in the early 1980s, regularly reading Cryonics magazine. In 1986, I traveled from England to Southern California to spend six weeks immersed in cryonics training and practice, mainly from Mike Darwin and Jerry Leaf. Jerry took me to UCLA where he instructed me on cannulation in dogs. While in California, I became an Alcor member (the 67th member at the time), and remained one for many years. Returning to England, I led the founding of Alcor-UK (originally Mizar Limited), becoming its president, and began producing the organization's magazine/newsletter, Biostasis. I did many radio, television, and newspaper interviews to launch the organization, right up until the day I left the country to pursue graduate studies at the University of Southern California. * We wish Max a fruitful and successful leadership of this important foundation and believe it is a positive move both for him personally and the Alcor foundation and for those of us that are already or may yet join the ranks of cryo-extensionists. ? Endnotes: Max More has been featured widely in diverse media outlets For some extensive reading go to Max More dot com (his own website) Selected viewing and readings: Watch this Video: Max More - Singularity Summit at Stanford: Cognitive and Emotional Singularities: Will Superintelligence come with Superwisdom ? On Becoming Posthuman THE EXTROPIAN PRINCIPLES-Version 3.0 - A Transhumanist Declaration Essay: The Overhuman in the Transhuman ? This is the third in a series of interviews under the heading of a new project : Free Radicals- interviews with possibilities Free radicals are extraordinary humans that promote the emergent paradigm shift of post humanity. There is no claim of objectivity here but an unabashed bias towards a techno-optimistic, aesthetically pleasing future evolution of humanity. The humans I have chosen to interview reflect different perspectives of multidimentionality and multiversality as regards the change and transformation of human nature. """ -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Dec 28 16:07:07 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:07:07 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Interview w/ Max More "Plugging into the epic , A rational poetry of the future" In-Reply-To: <9B6C84B33BFA40EA91A3EA6A14AF4742@DFC68LF1> References: <9B6C84B33BFA40EA91A3EA6A14AF4742@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <4D1A0B2B.5030605@satx.rr.com> On 12/28/2010 9:46 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Max wrote the high-spirited "Letter to Mother Nature" eleven years ago. > This article recalls that essay in a heady interview with Max. Good piece. Is Wildcat French? From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 28 16:06:13 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 11:06:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B03B7C5-DA61-4FF5-BD52-83AE793B0B45@bellsouth.net> On Dec 28, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > There is a good reason to send the SO2 up as a liquid, for the same > velocity it would take a much larger pipe which generates more wind > drag and takes more excess buoyancy to keep it close to vertical. There is no pressing need that I know of to keep it close to vertical. > So how much pressure does it take at the bottom to pump it up 18 miles? Who cares? Myhrvold isn't a fool and he wasn't suggesting you do it that way, he said have pumps every thousand feet or so "each one less powerful than the one in my swimming pool". John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 28 16:43:10 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 08:43:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Interview w/ Max More "Plugging into the epic , A rational poetry of the future" In-Reply-To: <9B6C84B33BFA40EA91A3EA6A14AF4742@DFC68LF1> References: <9B6C84B33BFA40EA91A3EA6A14AF4742@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <003b01cba6ae$50a1c350$f1e549f0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More Subject: [ExI] Interview w/ Max More "Plugging into the epic , A rational poetry of the future" Max wrote the high-spirited "Letter to Mother Nature" eleven years ago. This article recalls that essay in a heady interview with Max. http://spacecollective.org/Wildcat/6485/Plugging-into-the-epic-A-rational-po etry-of-the-future-An-essay-and-interview-with-Max-More Thanks Natasha, excellent! Do let me commend the ExI-chat participants for the excellent signal to noise of the ExI list on the global energy and futurism discussions: much useful wisdom, actual equations and numbers (which are our friends in these areas), good references, lowish on the vitriol scale, thanks everyone. This is what the ExI-chat list should be methinks. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 28 17:03:47 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:03:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <4B03B7C5-DA61-4FF5-BD52-83AE793B0B45@bellsouth.net> References: <4B03B7C5-DA61-4FF5-BD52-83AE793B0B45@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <004c01cba6b1$317207d0$94561770$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] cure for global warming . >Who cares? Myhrvold isn't a fool and he wasn't suggesting you do it that way, he said have pumps every thousand feet or so "each one less powerful than the one in my swimming pool". John K Clark Hmmm, that notion is a big yellow flag: if a pump every thousand feet, clearly it requires SO2 in a gaseous form as opposed to a liquid, for smallish pumps don't make anything like 1000 ft of head with the throughput volumes needed for something like this. Typically the water pressure to one's house is a tenth that. If he meant turbopumps for gaseous SO2, those turbines would be heavy. Does it need to be exhausted at 18 miles? Would a pipe up the side of K2 or Mt Everest (ending on top) be high enough? What's that, nearly 6 miles up? If the stuff is superheated and pressurized at exhaust, wouldn't it loft way the hell up there? I could imagine it reaching equilibrium at perhaps 10 miles altitude. Another approach might be to freeze SO2 to a solid brick perhaps the size of a typical Detroit and hurl the thing aloft with an electromagnetic rail launcher from a high peak, with an explosive device within which explodes at the apex, so that the bits evaporate upon descent. Of course all this assumes one thinks it a good idea to dump SO2 in the upper atmosphere to counteract global warming (which I do not) but it isn't clear to me we need to hold aloft a pipe to do it. If we decide to solve all the engineering difficulties to erect an enormous pipe, Keith knows better uses for it than pumping SO2 into the sky. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 28 18:00:52 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:00:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> References: <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> On Dec 28, 2010, at 5:00 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 08:55:59PM -0800, spike wrote: > >> If an alien civilization were sending signals they intended for us to >> interpret, it would be easy to interpret. If they intend for us to not > > But how do you supress your metabolism? Earth intercepts > only about 2 kg/s of solar flux, while the Sun total output > is about 4 MT/s. Those 2 kg/s are about 10^4 in excess of > our current needs. But that's just our *current* needs, and of > course we're already altering up to one half of photosynthetic > net primary productivity. > > http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/hanpp.html > > It is quite obvious that once terrestrial photovoltaics > deployment will run into high 10% there *will* be SPS > constellations (built in situ from lunar material), > and soon also telecommunication, computing, > storage, quite literally becoming the cloud of nodes in > Earth-Moon system (most of us should be able to see > the beginning of this), and soon elsewhere. That is not at all obvious. The reason is that we don't have the robotics or huge (and expendable) human astronaut population to assemble and maintain such vast structures in space. > > This would alter the albedo of Earth-Moon, and > of course after a few 10 years of self-replication > driven growth it will become observable over > pretty large distances by dimming the Sun via > a cloud of circumsolar nodes, and by shifting > the spectrum into FIR, ultimatively turning > the solar system into a few-AU sized ~300 K > blackbody. Such systems are ordinarily not > very visible, but we did look for them > specifically, and we've found none (or put > the lower bound pretty close to zero). > Until and unless we have major space robotics this will not remotely happen. I am very concerned in my focus with how exactly we get from the nitty gritty "here" to any sort of of interesting and fun to fantasize about "there". Show me the path, especially how you are going to create the ability to mine, process, assemble and maintain all this infrastructure and in what steps. - samantha From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 28 17:52:29 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:52:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Who is safe? In-Reply-To: <002101cba625$c3869910$4a93cb30$@att.net> References: <005f01cb9c7a$7c22a6e0$7467f4a0$@att.net> <000001cba01b$02a7bea0$07f73be0$@att.net> <003501cba2c6$d5a9cb10$80fd6130$@att.net> <002101cba625$c3869910$4a93cb30$@att.net> Message-ID: <000c01cba6b7$ff7b7ca0$fe7275e0$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of spike ... >...For those of us who have common names, it would be difficult to reveal our own secrets accurately, for they would be mixed with others sharing a name... For most who want privacy, the best bet might be intentionally mixing one's own life story with that of others... spike Then there is the other side of the same coin: Indiana native Kathie Smith is on a nervousist watch list: 'The FBI also did not respond to an e-mail from FoxNews.com asking why Smith is not on the federal government's no-fly list. Smith, meanwhile, said she believes her name is on some kind of government "watch list."' http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/28/indiana-grandmother-muslim-convert-inve stigated-possible-terror-link/ Imagine how much mischief is created when a Kathie Smith or a Bill Jones decides to convert to Amishism and carry out mass unfriendliness. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Dec 28 18:06:06 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:06:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <4B03B7C5-DA61-4FF5-BD52-83AE793B0B45@bellsouth.net> References: <4B03B7C5-DA61-4FF5-BD52-83AE793B0B45@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <100C7486-6DE2-4839-9E0D-123311F068B0@mac.com> On Dec 28, 2010, at 8:06 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Dec 28, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> There is a good reason to send the SO2 up as a liquid, for the same >> velocity it would take a much larger pipe which generates more wind >> drag and takes more excess buoyancy to keep it close to vertical. > > There is no pressing need that I know of to keep it close to vertical. > >> So how much pressure does it take at the bottom to pump it up 18 miles? > > > Who cares? Myhrvold isn't a fool and he wasn't suggesting you do it that way, he said have pumps every thousand feet or so "each one less powerful than the one in my swimming pool". May I ask why we are wasting mental energy talking about something there is no demonstrable need for instead of deploying the same energy on things that are of great concern and/or need? How rational are we? How rational do we actually decide to be? - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 18:17:18 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:17:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] kill thread In-Reply-To: References: <992812.79666.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001801cba604$9cdd4d20$d697e760$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM, John Grigg wrote: > Spike, I think there is a need for a book titled "The Transhumanist's > Guide to Picking Up Women!" ?And I believe Keith "Archimedes" Henson > and Eugen "Big Pimpin" Leitl should be among the contributors... > > John ?; ) "...to Picking Up Dates". I suspect most of the advice applicable to the guys on this list who are having romantic trouble, would apply equally to the gals on this list who are having romantic trouble. ;) (At least, the kind of dates they'd want to pick up. There are well documented methods for picking up "a" gal or "a" guy, but those most readily acquired by said means are usually not the best long term partners.) From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 28 18:18:02 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:18:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <100C7486-6DE2-4839-9E0D-123311F068B0@mac.com> References: <4B03B7C5-DA61-4FF5-BD52-83AE793B0B45@bellsouth.net> <100C7486-6DE2-4839-9E0D-123311F068B0@mac.com> Message-ID: <001601cba6bb$90dda0d0$b298e270$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins . >May I ask why we are wasting mental energy talking about something there is no demonstrable need for instead of deploying the same energy on things that are of great concern and/or need? How rational are we? How rational do we actually decide to be? - Samantha Ja and another question that comes up repeatedly is: what if we do something to actively combat global warming, then the next winter there is a killing freeze somewhere, as there is always, every single winter and always has been. But now those doing the SO2 pumping, or any other *action* are liable for the damage, and all unintended consequences. But by historical precedent, passiveness ordinarily doesn't result in legal liability: if our failing to burn sufficient carbon fuels to create global warming results in a killing freeze somewhere, it isn't our fault. I can easily imagine that line of reasoning killing any and every attempt at any active solution to global warming. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 28 18:38:27 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:38:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] kill thread In-Reply-To: References: <992812.79666.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001801cba604$9cdd4d20$d697e760$@att.net> Message-ID: <001b01cba6be$6b3343f0$4199cbd0$@att.net> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes >> Spike, I think there is a need for a book titled "The Transhumanist's Guide to Picking Up Women!" ?... John ?; ) >"...to Picking Up Dates". I suspect most of the advice applicable to the guys on this list who are having romantic trouble, would apply equally to the gals on this list who are having romantic trouble. ;) Impossible sir. Dilbert has pointed out that all geek women or any women who will have anything to do with geeks are desirable from the time they learn unix until approximately an hour after they are declared clinically dead. Scott Adams is the *only* cartoonist I know who has gone many years and remains consistently funny: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-05/ >...(At least, the kind of dates they'd want to pick up. There are well documented methods for picking up "a" gal or "a" guy, but those most readily acquired by said means are usually not the best long term partners.)... Adrian Well there are these: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-07-19/ People who work 9 to 5s just relate to this kind of humor. Stuff like this tends to happen in offices everywhere, so it has the vague ring of truth: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2007-10-17/ From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 28 19:00:48 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 20:00:48 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> References: <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> Message-ID: <20101228190048.GI16518@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:00:52AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > It is quite obvious that once terrestrial photovoltaics > > deployment will run into high 10% there *will* be SPS > > constellations (built in situ from lunar material), > > and soon also telecommunication, computing, > > storage, quite literally becoming the cloud of nodes in > > Earth-Moon system (most of us should be able to see > > the beginning of this), and soon elsewhere. > > That is not at all obvious. If we don't do that, we won't amount to more than a footnote in universe's history. > The reason is that we don't have the robotics I don't think it's a hard problem these days. There have been a number of past bootstrap plans, see http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM.htm > or huge (and expendable) human astronaut population Space suits don't really work, so why not use teleoperation? Even NASA has wisened up meanwhile http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/default.asp And of course there's not much point in teleoperating the robot from nearby pressurized vessel, if you could leave the human at home. The Moon is close enough for teleoperation, and there's already the incentive to augment remote control with (faster) local reflexes. The degree of autonomy will only increase from there. > to assemble and maintain such vast structures in space. The nodes themselves aren't particularly big. About the biggest part is electromagnetic launchers, which are strictly modular. > Until and unless we have major space robotics Major space robotics starts with decent Earth-side robotics. We have had some really nice progress in the last couple decades. > this will not remotely happen. I am very concerned > in my focus with how exactly we get from the nitty > gritty "here" to any sort of of interesting and fun > to fantasize about "there". Show me the path, especially See http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM.htm and the NASA ISRU (in situ resource utilization) program. At this point, it's largely a question of budget. There's a second Moon race of sorts on, Japan, India and China (and Europe) being the main participants. > how you are going to create the ability to mine, > process, assemble and maintain all this infrastructure > and in what steps. The basic idea of ISRU is to reduce mass transfer. It's pretty obvious that you don't need to fabricate control logic locally, and for e.g. PV panel production the silicon (or other materials) can initially be transported from Earth. We know there's a lot of volatiles at the pole(s), which is incidentally one of the few places in the Solar system where ancient crater cryotraps sit right next to the peak of eternal sunlight. So that looks like the best place to start. The bootstrap won't be completely scripted, since there will be always surprises, improvisations and optimisations. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 19:08:05 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 15:08:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] kill thread In-Reply-To: References: <992812.79666.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001801cba604$9cdd4d20$d697e760$@att.net> Message-ID: John wrote: >Spike, I think there is a need for a book titled "The Transhumanist's Guide to Picking Up Women!" < Must I be a voice for gender and sexual orientation equality? Either it be The Transhumanist's Guide for Picking Up" with a section for men, one for women and one with same-sex advice in that area. Or three separate books. Tracts or pamphlets might do actually. Though in fact, regarding the last one, I don't know one other gay transhumanist, though there must be others. I know a few philosophical Post-humanists who are homosexual, but that movement is a bit different. Technology plays a role, but it is more about redefining consciousness and identify outside the renaissance-inspired humanist and pre-renaissance religious paradigms. Sexuality is for me a very big issue in a transhumanist context. When I joined this group I was uncertain how my sexual orientation would play out if I proclaimed it (which I invariably do, for I sometimes lay in wait for unsuspecting homophobes who have never really read or understood Leviticus.) Nor is intelligence a guard against homophobia, as I've discovered the hard way. Same with atheism or agnosticism: homophobic sentiment is not always brought about religious and moral intolerance. It sometimes, I suspect, comes, as an EP might put it, from some old evolutionary programming. Some very bright, non-superstitious and otherwise very progressive thinking straight men sometimes have difficulty stomaching it, for whatever reason. It may be that they have an evolutionary aversion to it in favor of propagation and genetic dominance--a kind of emotional alpha male knee-jerk reaction to the whole business. I'm not sure. A friend of mine believes it is because some visual thinkers may not be able to hear the words without picturing themselves in the act and viscerally responding to it, which may be the same thing. That being said, I'm happy to report that the response of Extropians has been laudable. It is as it should be -- not even an issue or ever discussed, unless I bring it up. If you do decide to write the tracts or books, I reserve the right to draft the gay section. ;) Last note: when I was twelve I read Clarke's SONGS OF DISTANT EARTH. Besides being one of my favorite SF novels (Silverberg's FACE OF THE WATERS and Robert Charles Wilson's SPIN being the others) individuals in the human colonies on that planet in Clarke's future were neither 100% homosexual or heterosexual. They may have strong tendencies one way or the other, and never act on their recessive tendencies, but, according to Clarke in his wonderful book with the sapient lobsters, to be 100% either way was pathological. I love the man for making that bold statement and influencing me so positively when I was young and struggling heavily with that issue. What I like most about it is that sexual orientation demagogues of either stripe -- militantly gay or straight -- find it deeply offensive. Which means it must have the stamp of truth. :) d. On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 2:35 AM, John Grigg wrote: > Spike, I think there is a need for a book titled "The Transhumanist's > Guide to Picking Up Women!" And I believe Keith "Archimedes" Henson > and Eugen "Big Pimpin" Leitl should be among the contributors... > > John ; ) > > On 12/27/10, spike wrote: > > > > > > On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc > > Subject: Re: [ExI] kill thread > > > > "spike" wrote: > >> > >>> OK thanks everyone, please stop forthwith any commentary titled Getting > > Laid... > > > >>> It is OK to post stuff about dating and lonely hearts to some extent, > but > > I urge you do use judgment and decorum... > > > >>> Play ball! > > > >>Fair enough, you're the boss... > > > > Oy vey. Only temporarily, as Max and Natasha are in the process of > moving > > to Arizona. I take up this badge with much reluctance and with eagerness > to > > relinquish authority at every opportunity. > > > >>Although I do hope this is killed because of the vitriol, not because of > > the actual topic (or my choice of subject line!)... > > > > It's quite all right Ben. The reason we had to kill it this time is that > > unpleasantness had broken out with inappropriate commentary as you likely > > noticed. Posting about sex is perfectly OK. There is so much potential > for > > humor in that area. Caution is to be exercised if we see novices > offering > > to lecture experts in their own area of expertise. > > > >>My take on it is that it's a valid extropian topic, as it's about our > > happiness and ambitions, just as much as life-extension or intelligence > > expansion is, just not as 'sexy' (cognitive dissonance intended), and > even > > more so because it relates to the kind of personalities that often > frequent > > this kind of list.. Ben Zaiboc > > > > Ja, all areas of sexuality are to be explored openly on ExI and all are > > accepted, up to and including those which are physically impossible to > > perform. This last category is especially welcome, for those of us less > > capable in these areas have a ready excuse for failing to participate. > Not > > only accepted, but... noichaed. Never appropriate are insults to those > who > > practice any particular brand of sexuality. Insults are never > appropriate > > actually, for any category of practitioners. We like everyone, ja? > > > > Besides that, the stuff that is physically impossible may not always be > so. > > Picture Seven of Nine in the holodeck. Then recognize that to have *any > > chance* at the holodeck with 7 you must make arrangements ahead of time. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 19:33:53 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 11:33:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> References: <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Show me the path, especially how you are going to create the ability to mine, process, assemble and maintain all this infrastructure and in what steps. This is why I've been examining a certain asteroid mining plan: 0) Come up with good estimates of the costs for steps 1-4, and obtain investment to cover them. 1) Find high-platinum-and-related-metals asteroid, massing several kilotons. (This is likely doable, at least to a good enough degree of certainty, with already-deployed telescopes. For all I know, someone may have done such a survey, but I've not been able to find the results if so.) 2) Move said asteroid into very high (possibly L4/L5) Earth orbit. (Gravity tug and solar sail would probably be the way to go for most of the trip, though you might want a backup engine - especially at the end, to make sure the asteroid stays parked where you want it.) 2a) Make sure to have a good PR campaign ready, because at this point, some people will protest that you'll inevitably make a dinosaur killer unless politicians Do Something to stop you. They'll lie, of course, and can not be reasoned with. (Among the likely fallacies: that throwing you in jail will somehow make the asteroid immediately revert to its previous orbit.) Marginalizing them with the truth may work well (lay out your intended plans for the public to see - keep as few technical secrets as possible in this regard), as might detailed but lowbrow-friendly videos explaining how you know that the asteroid will not hit the Earth. (Some may also protest that you're "claiming" property in space in violation of international treaties. This is a moot point: you're not selling it or putting financial interest in it until the material gets down to the ground, in step 4, and there is ample precedent for claiming meteorites as private property after they land.) 3) Launch processing equipment that can be teleoperated (with fairly low lag from being in very high orbit). If possible, have an ability to send a crew if (or, probably, when) needed. (Solar smelters and simple centrifuges at first, possibly with a few teleoperatable technician robots with tools and grippers as a first resort if - or, again, when - something goes wrong. Try to avoid complicated or heavy equipment for now: you won't get many shots to make it work before step 4, and the heavier your gear, the fewer chances you can afford.) 4) Harvest the platinum-and-related, and bring it down to Earth (essentially, meteorites on planned trajectories, with crews on site to recover them immediately after landing) for sale on Earth, to pay off the investment needed to pull off steps 2 and 3 (and possibly 1). Don't count on any "from space" price multiplier - but then, a metric kiloton of platinum by today's prices sells for over $60 billion. (The main cost here will probably be commission to the salespeople. If they can get an extra billion dollars per kiloton, they've earned extra millions per kiloton they sell. The experience and aptitude needed to do this well are significantly different than what's needed for the rest, so hiring expertise is the way to go here.) 5) Wind up with mostly-iron "slag" and processing equipment, in very high Earth orbit, and whatever proceeds from step 4 in excess of what was needed to pay off the investors. 5a) Cackle maniacally. Mandatory, if you believe Hollywood. ;) 6) Use said infrastructure to build other stuff, for instance the lunar mining and manufacturing infrastructure to spam SPS. Probably repeat steps 1 through 4 a few times for additional funding. 7) At some point, teleoperation just won't cut it, and you'll want to have an on-site crew. By that point, you can have created the life support necessary for such a thing. It will likely be akin to oil platforms at first - crews on station for a few weeks to a few months at a time - but eventually you can build up a mining-town-like infrastructure, and expand from there. From atymes at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 19:43:36 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 11:43:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <20101228190048.GI16518@leitl.org> References: <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> <20101228190048.GI16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:00:52AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> I am very concerned >> in my focus with how exactly we get from the nitty >> gritty "here" to any sort of of interesting and fun >> to fantasize about "there". ? Show me the path, especially > > See http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM.htm > and the NASA ISRU (in situ resource utilization) > program. The former is a proposal that has no funding behind it, and no ability to attract funding. It's going nowhere. (The related RepRap project, by means of comparison, has at least a little funding.) NASA's ISRU is one of its many programs that it trots out to appease the public and claim it's working on the problem, then quietly defunds and kills off before it could actually do anything that would threaten its contractors' ability to overcharge for making stuff on Earth. > At this point, it's largely a question of budget. > There's a second Moon race of sorts on, Japan, > India and China (and Europe) being the main participants. Getting to the Moon is one thing. Industrial-grade exploitation of the Moon is quite another. From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 28 19:48:36 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 11:48:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] revive thread with new and improved content, was: RE: kill thread Message-ID: <003301cba6c8$37a71d40$a6f557c0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Darren Greer Subject: Re: [ExI] kill thread John wrote: >>Spike, I think there is a need for a book titled "The Transhumanist's Guide to Picking Up Women!" < >Must I be a voice for gender and sexual orientation equality? The meat-world meetings of extropians and likeminded usual suspects has always had good representation of gay and transgender, as far as I can tell. I add this last because I am no expert in these areas. I haven't really seen anything I would identify as homophobic there as far as I know, and we don't allow homophobia here. That's an area which is carefully monitored, more so than any particular political viewpoint phobia. Darren I am surprised if you don't get some offlist empathetic commentary on gay. That being said, I'm happy to report that the response of Extropians has been laudable. Good, then it is working. Jeez you guys and gals have suffered quite enough, rather far too much, for far too long. Gay and all its many variations of human sexuality are welcome here. Last note: when I was twelve I read Clarke's SONGS OF DISTANT EARTH.d Me too, the first time. I didn't get what he meant by "feys" at the time. He had that one passage where a character was talking about feys and acting silly, which I thought was funny, but the passage seemed out of place and almost like a later insert that didn't really fit with the story. I interpreted it as a kind of femmy acting comedian, not knowing what gay and straight was in those days. I didn't find out that until age 23 (!) and even then only because there was a headline about AIDS. I went around at work (!) asking how a virus could tell if a person was a homosexual, since even people can't do it consistently. Oy. I had an idea using Second Life and all its derivatives. Looks like we could set up a VR in which one could arrange to copulate virtually with the visuals and perhaps sounds supplied by the computer. That's the easy part but this is where some good imaginative mechanical engineers come in: we work out mechanisms to interface with the genitals of either or all genders, then using something like the Wii, attach accelerometers to. what? The hips? Send the motion signals thru the wires so that a penile thrust in California can be felt in England for instance, and the resulting pleasing sound effects and motion reactions (whatever that might be) could be fed back. Alexander Bell would be delighted to learn what kinds of information most communication lines would eventually carry. I am not that particular type of mechanical engineer, but I have been thinking about this for years, and the rocket science biz is way too slow these days. I bet I could do the necessary instrumentation part of that loop, the pressure transducers and so forth. Oh my, if we could work out a way to allow people separated by continents to virtually copulate, would not this help save the environment by obviating so many plane trips, and help economies by encouraging less wasteful and more satisfying activity? Most importantly of course we make a cubic buttload of money. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Dec 28 20:04:05 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 21:04:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> <20101228190048.GI16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101228200405.GK16518@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:43:36AM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > See http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM.htm > > and the NASA ISRU (in situ resource utilization) > > program. > > The former is a proposal that has no funding behind it, and no It's not a proposal. It's a literature survey. A very good one and one people here should read thoroughly. > ability to attract funding. It's going nowhere. (The related Very few people do real things in space. NASA is one of them. I wouldn't diss NASA. It certaintly took harsh budget cuts to make them attempt serious projects in areas of robotics and in-situ resource utilization, but they're at least on the right path. > RepRap project, by means of comparison, has at least a little > funding.) You keep blowing my mind with these off-hand remarks of yours. > NASA's ISRU is one of its many programs that it trots out to > appease the public and claim it's working on the problem, > then quietly defunds and kills off before it could actually do > anything that would threaten its contractors' ability to > overcharge for making stuff on Earth. If you don't like NASA, just wait another decade or two. The budget gutting will continue until morale improves (or the patient expires). And the first guys in control of the Moon own the entire solar system. > > At this point, it's largely a question of budget. > > There's a second Moon race of sorts on, Japan, > > India and China (and Europe) being the main participants. > > Getting to the Moon is one thing. Industrial-grade exploitation Semi-soft landing of >100 kg parcels on Luna affordably is the most expensive and critical aspect of the venture. Scaling down robotics and moving towards self-replication closure is a much easier problem in comparison. One you could attempt at leasure in groundside labs, and lunar simulators. If people do it right it will be competitive, multi-team, and prize-based. > of the Moon is quite another. A journey of a megameter begins with a single step. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 20:27:42 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 16:27:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <680810.76924.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4D177E4E.8090905@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: >"my only prospects have been offered by homosexual men! =\": I find that faintly offensive.< I had actually missed that before posting my all-is-well-for-homosexuals-in-extropian-land missive, but it still doesn't change my opinion or my good humor. I did want to mention one curious characteristic of some some homophobic straight men that I've noticed and always get a kick out. They assume that all gay men they meet will immediately try to sleep with them. As if we, because we are gay, have utterly no personal preferences or specifically tailored desires. I was twenty when a sixty-year-old man said to me, "Don't hit on me, and I'm OK with with you." My reply was: "Don't insinuate that I'm automatically going to hit on someone three times my age and not at all to my taste or preference, and I'm OK with you too." The problems with discussions like these is that they invariably stray into highly emotive areas governed by the mid-brain. I'm not the most analytical of people. My emotions gets in the way a lot, but in this area I have to try really hard to be rational. Darren On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Dec 26, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: > > > Ben Zaiboc wrote: > >> Alan Grimes wrote a bunch of rather impolite > and inflammatory things. > > > >> There is an analogous absurdity in someone who claims to have 'never > even been on a date' proclaiming > >> on the sexual motivations of transhumanists. You know nothing about > > the mental states of the people who > >> frequent Extropia Core, and I can say this with a good deal of > confidence. > > > > They express themselves quite plainly. The ones that don't are merely > > being properly modest. > > > >> "my only prospects have been offered by homosexual men! =\": I find that > faintly offensive. Not that I > >> blame you, and I acknowledge that the offense is my own > > responsibility. But I'm pointing out that it can > >> cause offense (in case you didn't realise). > > > > THAT?!?!??! IMPOSSIBLE!!! If me talking about my own sexual frustrations > > offends *ANYONE* then there must be something profoundly wrong with that > > person. > > That was not all you did. You talked about other people's sexuality and > gender and their expressions thereof in uncalled for highly derogatory > terms. You demeaned their sexuality, gender and relationships and suggest > they feel ashamed enough to hide it. You also totally bit the hand that has > kept you from getting banned or rescinded some existing bans you were under > in SL - mine. Not in the least acceptable, smart or giving any indication > at all you are a sane being worth dealing with given a choice. Don't now > pretend you were not grossly out of line. > > > > > I'm turning 33 next week... I have a house, a pile of gold and silver, > > no debt (even mortgage!), My physical appearance is actually rather > > good. But no, I couldn't get a date to save my life. I'm trying to talk > > a girl into being my first date on OKCupid, it's almost scary how well > > matched we are. We were talking about anime so I called us both Otaku, > > but she seems to have taken offense to that. =( If I can't get her to > > date me once, for even ten minutes, ending with a slap to my face, then > > it simply isn't going to happen in my lifetime. =( > > > > Totalistic thinking leading to despair. Read "Feeling Good" and the > romantic life follow on book. Sounds like you could use it. Don't call > those books (or anything else) "gay" if you don't like, understand or feel > comfortable with them. > > > > >> Come on, you're an extropian (I presume). You know the drill. Find > what works, use it. If it doesn't > >> work for you, try something else. > > > > I have a null feedback signal. There is no way to apply any kind of > > hill-climbing algorithm. It's still purely monte-carlo for me. =( > > > > It might, for your consideration, have something to do with your apparent > lack of civility or impulse control to avoid doing or blurting out whatever > is on your mind. Think on it. > > > >> Rinse and repeat until success. Then raise the bar a step. And with > >> something as universal and basic as sex, success is guaranteed! > > Everybody (almost everybody) wants sex. > >> Especially with someone who's sympathetic (but not sycophantic), > > attentive (but not clingy) and > >> understanding (but not obsessive). > > > > Recently, I'd been harboring the hypothesis that women don't actually > > have sex drives at all. The only reason they bother with men at all is > > that they need to have someone strong around the house to open vacuum > > sealed bottles for them. > > > Women have quite keen sex drives. So somehow you must be doing a mixture > of: > 1) not getting out where likely possibilities are; > 2) self-programming it is never ever going to happen; > 3) sending signals that women should avoid you by all means possible. > > > > > >> Come back when it's no longer a big deal, and *then* talk about the > sexual motivations of > >> transhumanists. > > > > That is functionally equivalent to saying "don't come back". =( > > > > If the shoe fits then consider yourself kicked in the posterior with it. > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 20:35:44 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:35:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <20101228200405.GK16518@leitl.org> References: <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> <20101228190048.GI16518@leitl.org> <20101228200405.GK16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Very few people do real things in space. NASA is one of them. So, now, is SpaceX. I've got more faith in the potential for private foundations to develop space than I do in NASA, despite NASA's long history of space experience. >> RepRap project, by means of comparison, has at least a little >> funding.) > > You keep blowing my mind with these off-hand remarks of yours. I keep thinking everyone here knows about these sorts of things. http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page http://blog.reprap.org/2010/01/build-better-reprap-80000-prize.html I'm concerned that most on RepRap have been overly celebrating its ability to create a raw structure, and ignoring the fact that it can't create critical tool bits - electronic circuits, print heads, and so forth. From reading up on the terms of that prize, it seems I'm not the only one. Just to toss this out for discussion (and, if anyone responds on this, please change the subject line): what is the simplest set of tools - "simplest" as in "easiest for humans with presently available tools and technology" - that can be used to manufacture itself, excluding the null set and uncontrolled biological entities? (Null set excluded for obvious reasons. The biological exclusion applies to, e.g., other humans - who can be manufactured by two unskilled laborers, but are by no means designed or controllable in the way a hammer is designed and controllable.) > If you don't like NASA, just wait another decade or two. > The budget gutting will continue until morale improves > (or the patient expires). I don't think it'll be entirely defunded any time soon. It's too useful as a distraction for certain types - think "bread and circuses". > And the first guys in control > of the Moon own the entire solar system. Depends on what they do with the Moon. It is certainly possible to have an unbeatable winning strategy from that point, much like how in chess, you can get into a position where victory is guaranteed if you play perfectly. But frankly, I suspect that if any national government gets into that position within the next 30 years, they'll be playing as a rank amateur - perhaps waiting around, perhaps focusing on national pride instead of building up an infrastructure. Actually, a more relevant metaphor occurs to me, for anyone who's familiar with StarCraft (or real time strategy games in general). Take one player, as Terrans, who pushes up the tech chain and builds a battlecruiser. Said player cruises around, flaunting it while taunting - not getting close enough to engage, just trying to intimidate the other players into surrendering. Then someone zerg rushes said first player. (The winning strategy would have been, "build more battlecruisers, keeping them at home for defense until it's time to attack".) > Semi-soft landing of >100 kg parcels on Luna affordably is the > most expensive and critical aspect of the venture. Scaling down > robotics and moving towards self-replication closure is a much > easier problem in comparison. One you could attempt at leasure > in groundside labs, and lunar simulators. If people do it right > it will be competitive, multi-team, and prize-based. I disagree that robotics is much easier. Again, see RepRap and the problems they've encountered. Semi-soft landing, one can attempt on Earth - indeed, I've seen setups that were testing that very thing (albeit with under 100 kg, though the full-up systems can certainly be tested once smaller replicas prove out the concept). However, I do agree that getting stuff to Luna is more expensive. The majority of that, in turn, is simply the cost of launching stuff off of Earth. Intense R&D is being done today - again, see SpaceX. This is "easier" in that one simply needs to throw enough money at the people already working on this. From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 28 20:25:15 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:25:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> Message-ID: <004101cba6cd$57012370$05036a50$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes ... >...This is why I've been examining a certain asteroid mining plan: >...0) Come up with good estimates of the costs for steps 1-4, and obtain investment to cover them... ... Excellent thinking, thanks Adrian. >...5a) Cackle maniacally. Mandatory, if you believe Hollywood. ;)... There are two schools of thought on this. There is the old standard Muwaaa{ha}^5 crowd, and those who insist on the more guttural and evil sounding mirthful interjection starting with Buuwaa. >...7) At some point, teleoperation just won't cut it, and you'll want to have an on-site crew... Adrian I must disagree on this, or perhaps modify it thus: teleoperation will continue to work, ever improving in fact, but we may argue the whole point of the entire exercise is to move meat to the remote site. It isn't *necessary* so much as it is the *goal*, an end point, even if technically pointless, like sporting events and so much human activity. We just do it because... well, we don't know why, but we still do it anyway. spike From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 20:35:58 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 16:35:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <680810.76924.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4D177E4E.8090905@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: I think that might have somehow got posted in the wrong thread. And it was all messed up in terms of quoted and unquoted text as well. Sorry guys and gals. Not sure what happened. d. On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Darren Greer wrote: > >"my only prospects have been offered by homosexual men! =\": I find that > faintly offensive.< > > I had actually missed that before posting my > all-is-well-for-homosexuals-in-extropian-land missive, but it still doesn't > change my opinion or my good humor. I did want to mention one curious > characteristic of some some homophobic straight men that I've noticed and > always get a kick out. They assume that all gay men they meet will > immediately try to sleep with them. As if we, because we are gay, have > utterly no personal preferences or specifically tailored desires. I was > twenty when a sixty-year-old man said to me, "Don't hit on me, and I'm OK > with with you." > > My reply was: "Don't insinuate that I'm automatically going to hit on > someone three times my age and not at all to my taste or preference, and I'm > OK with you too." > > The problems with discussions like these is that they invariably stray into > highly emotive areas governed by the mid-brain. > > I'm not the most analytical of people. My emotions gets in the way a lot, > but in this area I have to try really hard to be rational. > > Darren > > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> >> On Dec 26, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: >> >> > Ben Zaiboc wrote: >> >> Alan Grimes wrote a bunch of rather impolite >> and inflammatory things. >> > >> >> There is an analogous absurdity in someone who claims to have 'never >> even been on a date' proclaiming >> >> on the sexual motivations of transhumanists. You know nothing about >> > the mental states of the people who >> >> frequent Extropia Core, and I can say this with a good deal of >> confidence. >> > >> > They express themselves quite plainly. The ones that don't are merely >> > being properly modest. >> > >> >> "my only prospects have been offered by homosexual men! =\": I find >> that faintly offensive. Not that I >> >> blame you, and I acknowledge that the offense is my own >> > responsibility. But I'm pointing out that it can >> >> cause offense (in case you didn't realise). >> > >> > THAT?!?!??! IMPOSSIBLE!!! If me talking about my own sexual frustrations >> > offends *ANYONE* then there must be something profoundly wrong with that >> > person. >> >> That was not all you did. You talked about other people's sexuality and >> gender and their expressions thereof in uncalled for highly derogatory >> terms. You demeaned their sexuality, gender and relationships and suggest >> they feel ashamed enough to hide it. You also totally bit the hand that has >> kept you from getting banned or rescinded some existing bans you were under >> in SL - mine. Not in the least acceptable, smart or giving any indication >> at all you are a sane being worth dealing with given a choice. Don't now >> pretend you were not grossly out of line. >> >> > >> > I'm turning 33 next week... I have a house, a pile of gold and silver, >> > no debt (even mortgage!), My physical appearance is actually rather >> > good. But no, I couldn't get a date to save my life. I'm trying to talk >> > a girl into being my first date on OKCupid, it's almost scary how well >> > matched we are. We were talking about anime so I called us both Otaku, >> > but she seems to have taken offense to that. =( If I can't get her to >> > date me once, for even ten minutes, ending with a slap to my face, then >> > it simply isn't going to happen in my lifetime. =( >> > >> >> Totalistic thinking leading to despair. Read "Feeling Good" and the >> romantic life follow on book. Sounds like you could use it. Don't call >> those books (or anything else) "gay" if you don't like, understand or feel >> comfortable with them. >> >> >> >> >> Come on, you're an extropian (I presume). You know the drill. Find >> what works, use it. If it doesn't >> >> work for you, try something else. >> > >> > I have a null feedback signal. There is no way to apply any kind of >> > hill-climbing algorithm. It's still purely monte-carlo for me. =( >> > >> >> It might, for your consideration, have something to do with your apparent >> lack of civility or impulse control to avoid doing or blurting out whatever >> is on your mind. Think on it. >> >> >> >> Rinse and repeat until success. Then raise the bar a step. And with >> >> something as universal and basic as sex, success is guaranteed! >> > Everybody (almost everybody) wants sex. >> >> Especially with someone who's sympathetic (but not sycophantic), >> > attentive (but not clingy) and >> >> understanding (but not obsessive). >> > >> > Recently, I'd been harboring the hypothesis that women don't actually >> > have sex drives at all. The only reason they bother with men at all is >> > that they need to have someone strong around the house to open vacuum >> > sealed bottles for them. >> >> >> Women have quite keen sex drives. So somehow you must be doing a mixture >> of: >> 1) not getting out where likely possibilities are; >> 2) self-programming it is never ever going to happen; >> 3) sending signals that women should avoid you by all means possible. >> >> >> > >> >> Come back when it's no longer a big deal, and *then* talk about the >> sexual motivations of >> >> transhumanists. >> > >> > That is functionally equivalent to saying "don't come back". =( >> > >> >> If the shoe fits then consider yourself kicked in the posterior with it. >> >> - samantha >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > > -- > *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." > * > > > -- *"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 20:44:37 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 13:44:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:17 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Dec 28, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> There is a good reason to send the SO2 up as a liquid, for the same >> velocity it would take a much larger pipe which generates more wind >> drag and takes more excess buoyancy to keep it close to vertical. > > There is no pressing need that I know of to keep it close to vertical. If you don't get the wind resistance down and the buoyancy a substantial multiple of the wind force, a high wind will put it on the ground. I have been working on this problem for the last year. If you want to see the spread sheets, ask >> So how much pressure does it take at the bottom to pump it up 18 miles? > > Who cares? Myhrvold isn't a fool and he wasn't suggesting you do it that way, he said have pumps every thousand feet or so "each one less powerful than the one in my swimming pool". 34 gpm and 1000 ft of stuff 1.5 times a dense as water indicates he has a hell of a swimming pool pump. The actual number (if this is correct reporting) is 300 feet. Water is a kg/liter, 34 gpm is about 2 l/sec or about 3 kg/sec. 3kg/sec x 91.4 m x g is close to 2.8 kW or 3.75 hp which is large for a home pool, but he was on the Fortune 400 list. "For anyone who loves cheap and simple solutions, things don?t get much better. Here?s how it would work. At a base station sulphur would be burnt into sulphur dioxide and then liquefied. The hose, stretching from the base station into the stratosphere, would be about 18 miles long but extremely light, its diameter just a couple of inches. "It would be suspended from a series of high-strength helium-filled balloons fastened to it at 100 to 300-yard intervals (a ?string of pearls?, IV calls it), ranging in diameter from 25ft near the ground to 100ft near the top. "The liquefied sulphur dioxide would be sent skyward by a series of pumps, fixed to the hose every 100 yards. These, too, would be relatively light, about 45lb each ? ?smaller than the pumps in my swimming pool?, Myhrvold says. "There are several advantages to using many small pumps rather than one monster pump at the base station: a big ground pump would create more pressure, which would require a far heavier hose; even if a few of the small pumps failed, the mission itself wouldn?t; and using small standardised units would keep costs down. "At the end of the hose, a cluster of nozzles would spritz the stratosphere with a fine mist of colourless liquid sulphur dioxide. Thanks to stratospheric winds that typically reach 100mph, the spritz would wrap around the Earth in roughly 10 days. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6879251.ece I hope they do more on it. The engineering problems are close to those we work on for StratoSolar. "spike" > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > >>Who cares? Myhrvold isn't a fool and he wasn't suggesting you do it that > way, he said have pumps every thousand feet or so "each one less powerful > than the one in my swimming pool". ?John K Clark > Hmmm, that notion is a big yellow flag: if a pump every thousand feet, > clearly it requires SO2 in a gaseous form as opposed to a liquid, for > smallish pumps don't make anything like 1000 ft of head with the throughput > volumes needed for something like this. ?Typically the water pressure to > one's house is a tenth that. ?If he meant turbopumps for gaseous SO2, those > turbines would be heavy. See above analysis. Sending it up as a gas might generate problems if it condensed on the sides of the pipe. But the pressure might be low enough you could pump it from the bottom only. Square root of 600 is around 25, so a 50 inch pipe would be enough, depending on the maximum practical velocity. > Does it need to be exhausted at 18 miles? ?Would a pipe up the side of K2 or > Mt Everest (ending on top) be high enough? ?What's that, nearly 6 miles up? > If the stuff is superheated and pressurized at exhaust, wouldn't it loft way > the hell up there? ?I could imagine it reaching equilibrium at perhaps 10 > miles altitude. ?Another approach might be to freeze SO2 to a solid brick > perhaps the size of a typical Detroit and hurl the thing aloft with an > electromagnetic rail launcher from a high peak, with an explosive device > within which explodes at the apex, so that the bits evaporate upon descent. > > Of course all this assumes one thinks it a good idea to dump SO2 in the > upper atmosphere to counteract global warming (which I do not) but it isn't > clear to me we need to hold aloft a pipe to do it. ?If we decide to solve > all the engineering difficulties to erect an enormous pipe, Keith knows > better uses for it than pumping SO2 into the sky. > Perhaps. Keith From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 28 20:45:00 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:45:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> <20101228190048.GI16518@leitl.org> <20101228200405.GK16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <005001cba6d0$19877ff0$4c967fd0$@att.net> ... >> Semi-soft landing of >100 kg parcels on Luna affordably is the most expensive and critical aspect of the venture. Scaling down robotics and moving towards self-replication closure is a much easier problem in comparison... Eugen >I disagree that robotics is much easier. ...However, I do agree that getting stuff to Luna is more expensive. The majority of that, in turn, is simply the cost of launching stuff off of Earth. Intense R&D is being done today - again, see SpaceX. This is "easier" in that one simply needs to throw enough money at the people already working on this... Adrian Launching stuff from the Earth's surface has proven to be a far more persistent bottleneck than anyone from the 1960s thought it would be. I don't see that we have made any real progress in that area since then. Even taking into account SpaceX and other commercial efforts in heavy lift to orbit, a good argument could be made that we have regressed. I am tempted to agree with Eugen: the way through that tenacious bottleneck is in downscaling scaling mechanisms, an area which has been wildly successful since the 60s. We focus our efforts on getting that mass way down, then we transport software instead of building more and bigger rockets. spike From atymes at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 21:02:08 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 13:02:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <004101cba6cd$57012370$05036a50$@att.net> References: <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> <004101cba6cd$57012370$05036a50$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:25 PM, spike wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > ... >>...This is why I've been examining a certain asteroid mining plan: > >>...0) Come up with good estimates of the costs for steps 1-4, and obtain > investment to cover them... > > Excellent thinking, thanks Adrian. It's something I've been batting around for a while. I'm not sure how best to translate it into reality. One possibility, if we had good NASA contacts: get step 1 done with current resources. Schedule steps 2-4 so they can be done in 3.5ish years. Propose this to a President shortly after he's elected, with the caveat that most of the profit goes into the US Treasury. (Perhaps the meteorites are sold to mining companies, and are simply manageable chunks carved off - which simplifies the on-orbit processing needed.) With the right asteroid, and a fast enough schedule, there could be enough to erase a big chunk of the US national debt. This would go a ways towards helping that President's re-election - especially if he increases spending once this new revenue source is acquired. (And no one says we have to stop at just one. "Re-elect me, and we'll continue this. My opponent might cancel the program, and make us rely entirely on your tax dollars again.") Of course, the market for platinum et al will crash once enough material is sold off. (Which is not entirely a bad thing. Think of the consequences for, say, fuel cells if platinum's price dropped by a factor of 10.) Said President might be persuaded to use the infrastructure to let private entities spam SPS, for a fee, similar to how existing nuclear reactors work (except, new ground-based receivers for SPS have a prayer of actually getting approved). >>...5a) Cackle maniacally. ?Mandatory, if you believe Hollywood. ?;)... > > There are two schools of thought on this. ?There is the old standard > Muwaaa{ha}^5 crowd, and those who insist on the more guttural ?and evil > sounding mirthful interjection starting with Buuwaa. Into which camp would you place the Aaaaa(ha)^5 crowd, who dispense with both initial phases? >>...7) At some point, teleoperation just won't cut it, and you'll want to > have an on-site crew... Adrian > > I must disagree on this, or perhaps modify it thus: teleoperation will > continue to work, ever improving in fact, but we may argue the whole point > of the entire exercise is to move meat to the remote site. ?It isn't > *necessary* so much as it is the *goal*, an end point, even if technically > pointless, like sporting events and so much human activity. ?We just do it > because... well, we don't know why, but we still do it anyway. This is true, but I suspect there will eventually come tasks, or degrees of precision, or ability to on-the-spot configure, that are beyond what can easily be achieved with the teleoperation already present, but can readily be achieved with people on site. But yeah. Excuse for setting up space colonization. Guilty as charged. From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 28 21:18:42 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 16:18:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2010, at 3:44 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > I hope they do more on it. The engineering problems are close to > those we work on for StratoSolar. Except that Myhrvold only has to do it once for his idea to work, you have to do it many thousands of times. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Dec 28 21:17:57 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 13:17:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] revive thread with new and improved content, was: RE: kill thread In-Reply-To: <003301cba6c8$37a71d40$a6f557c0$@att.net> References: <003301cba6c8$37a71d40$a6f557c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <006201cba6d4$b39d9e40$1ad8dac0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike . >I had an idea using Second Life and all its derivatives. Looks like we could set up a VR in which one could arrange to copulate virtually with the visuals and perhaps sounds supplied by the computer. That's the easy part but this is where some good imaginative mechanical engineers come in: we work out mechanisms to interface with the genitals of either or all genders, then using something like the Wii, attach accelerometers to. what? The hips? Send the motion signals thru the wires so that a penile thrust in California can be felt in England for instance, and the resulting pleasing sound effects and motion reactions (whatever that might be) could be fed back.spike Jeez, leave it to a controls engineer to think up something like this, oy. And here I am replying to myself again! What is this, an embarrassing three sigma silence like one sees at a raucous party when someone utters an utterly repugnant faux pas? We like faux passes! Or is it fauxes pas? It occurred to me that the process of copulation is a real time simultaneous positive and negative feedback control system, where the control law is derived in real time by trial and error. Is not this what one does (or rather two do) when engaged in amorous activity? We watch and listen carefully, adjust accordingly: if she, he or they do this then we touch here, if she does that then caress over there, if she sprays us with mace, we shriek in agony and attempt some other approach, such as feigning a seizure. Perhaps the signal is in what flavor and strength of mace? I usually get the industrial strength peppermint in the family size can. But I digress. In any case, one could imagine not just a stimulation mechanism that interfaces with the genitals, but rather a more universal device which can apply pressure to the various erogenous zones (I think the hipsters call them) something like a double layered wet suit with inflatable bladders here and there, coupled with an instrumented mechanical "partner" which would receive the input, translate and send to the bio-partner's suit or the other mechanical partner. This could perhaps allow the far-separated lovers to send signals to each other over the phone lines while Skype sends the audio and the computer sends and receives the visuals? Of course some lovers are better than others, so we could imagine software aids (all lower case) which could assist the smart and kind-hearted but incompetent lovers. Is it not remarkable that the words simulation and stimulation are ninety percent identical? Would we be laughed out of the patent office with something like this? And if we were, would we look around as we walked home to discover three or four curious and eager looking patent office workers following us? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 28 21:44:34 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 16:44:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <100C7486-6DE2-4839-9E0D-123311F068B0@mac.com> References: <4B03B7C5-DA61-4FF5-BD52-83AE793B0B45@bellsouth.net> <100C7486-6DE2-4839-9E0D-123311F068B0@mac.com> Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > May I ask why we are wasting mental energy talking about something there is no demonstrable need for Insurance. In the unlikely event the doomsayers are right it's nice to know there is an alternative to immediately renouncing all fossil fuels and freezing to death in the dark. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 22:14:55 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 14:14:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] revive thread with new and improved content, was: RE: kill thread In-Reply-To: <006201cba6d4$b39d9e40$1ad8dac0$@att.net> References: <003301cba6c8$37a71d40$a6f557c0$@att.net> <006201cba6d4$b39d9e40$1ad8dac0$@att.net> Message-ID: 2010/12/28 spike : > In any case, one could imagine not just a stimulation mechanism that > interfaces with the genitals, but rather a more universal device which can > apply pressure to the various erogenous zones (I think the hipsters call > them) something like a double layered wet suit with inflatable bladders here > and there, coupled with an instrumented mechanical ?partner? which would > receive the input, translate and send to the bio-partner?s suit or the other > mechanical partner.? This could perhaps allow the far-separated lovers to > send signals to each other over the phone lines while Skype sends the audio > and the computer sends and receives the visuals? The word you're looking for is "teledildonics". Go thou and google. > Would we be laughed out of the patent office with something like this? No, but you might be surprised how much prior art there is. From atymes at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 22:21:37 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 14:21:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Self-replicating non-nano/bio tools Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Just to toss this out for discussion (and, if anyone responds on > this, please change the subject line): what is the simplest set of > tools - "simplest" as in "easiest for humans with presently > available tools and technology" - that can be used to manufacture > itself, excluding the null set and uncontrolled biological entities? > (Null set excluded for obvious reasons. ?The biological exclusion > applies to, e.g., other humans - who can be manufactured by two > unskilled laborers, but are by no means designed or controllable > in the way a hammer is designed and controllable.) Heck, I might as well share some thoughts... I'm told that a plasma welder can create a plasma welder, but there's only so much you can make with just a plasma welder. I wonder if there is a set of materials, such that material A is malleable at high temperatures but insensitive to, say, magnetic fields, while material B is not malleable at high temperatures but becomes malleable when exposed to a high magnetic field. Tool tips made of these, could of course also be used to create non-tool tip components (say, malleable at low temperatures) - including the housing and manipulators needed to get the tool tips into position to do their things, while themselves staying away from the high temperature or magnetic field. Would someone with more experience than me at bending metal care to comment? From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 22:23:35 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 16:23:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Self-replicating non-nano/bio tools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adrian Tymes Date: Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:21 PM Subject: [ExI] Self-replicating non-nano/bio tools To: ExI chat list On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Just to toss this out for discussion (and, if anyone responds on > this, please change the subject line): what is the simplest set of > tools - "simplest" as in "easiest for humans with presently > available tools and technology" - that can be used to manufacture > itself, excluding the null set and uncontrolled biological entities? > (Null set excluded for obvious reasons. The biological exclusion > applies to, e.g., other humans - who can be manufactured by two > unskilled laborers, but are by no means designed or controllable > in the way a hammer is designed and controllable.) Heck, I might as well share some thoughts... I'm told that a plasma welder can create a plasma welder, but there's only so much you can make with just a plasma welder. I wonder if there is a set of materials, such that material A is malleable at high temperatures but insensitive to, say, magnetic fields, while material B is not malleable at high temperatures but becomes malleable when exposed to a high magnetic field. Tool tips made of these, could of course also be used to create non-tool tip components (say, malleable at low temperatures) - including the housing and manipulators needed to get the tool tips into position to do their things, while themselves staying away from the high temperature or magnetic field. Would someone with more experience than me at bending metal care to comment? _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Dec 29 02:55:16 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 21:55:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] revive thread with new and improved content, was: RE: kill thread In-Reply-To: <003301cba6c8$37a71d40$a6f557c0$@att.net> References: <003301cba6c8$37a71d40$a6f557c0$@att.net> Message-ID: 2010/12/28 spike : > I am not that particular type of mechanical engineer, but I have been > thinking about this for years, and the rocket science biz is way too slow > these days.? I bet I could do the necessary instrumentation part of that > loop, the pressure transducers and so forth.? Oh my, if we could work out a > way to allow people separated by continents to virtually copulate, would not > this help save the environment by obviating so many plane trips, and help > economies by encouraging less wasteful and more satisfying activity? ?Most > importantly of course we make a cubic buttload of money. Be sure to conclude your pitch to the venture capitalists with "cubic buttload of money" after discussing enigmasexual intercourse. Please share their reaction with us. :) "you see, because.. um, we like money.. and uh... cubic is a measure of volume... and uh... yeah." From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Dec 29 03:02:54 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 21:02:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] revive thread with new and improved content, was: RE: kill thread In-Reply-To: References: <003301cba6c8$37a71d40$a6f557c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D1AA4DE.4060909@satx.rr.com> On 12/28/2010 8:55 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > Be sure to conclude your pitch to the venture capitalists with "cubic > buttload of money" after discussing enigmasexual intercourse. Please > share their reaction with us. :) > > "you see, because.. um, we like money.. and uh... cubic is a measure > of volume... and uh... yeah." Plutosexuals. From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Dec 29 03:17:16 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 22:17:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: References: <4B03B7C5-DA61-4FF5-BD52-83AE793B0B45@bellsouth.net> <100C7486-6DE2-4839-9E0D-123311F068B0@mac.com> Message-ID: 2010/12/28 John Clark : > On Dec 28, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > May I ask why we are wasting mental energy talking about something there is > no demonstrable need for > > Insurance. In the unlikely event the doomsayers are right it's nice to know > there is an alternative to immediately renouncing all fossil fuels and > freezing to death in the dark. You could also just shoot yourself; perhaps no prettier a solution but at least you wouldn't have to wait all that time to freeze... From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Dec 29 04:45:28 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 21:45:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:17 PM, ohn Clark wrote: > > On Dec 28, 2010, at 3:44 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > >> I hope they do more on it. ?The engineering problems are close to >> those we work on for StratoSolar. > > Except that Myhrvold only has to do it once for his idea to work, you have to do it many thousands of times. You don't seem to understand the point of engineering a standard design. Once you do it, it's possible to turn out millions of copies. Keith From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 29 04:50:35 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 20:50:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine (was simulation) Message-ID: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Eugen Leitl > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Sent: Sun, December 26, 2010 3:46:18 AM > Subject: Re: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 12:48:34AM -0800, The Avantguardian wrote: > And if you don't like it, you don't have to do it. Imagine you are on a desert island with Dr. Jeckyll and dozens of innocent bystanders. Dr. Jeckyll offers to share an elixer with you that he strongly believes will transform anyone who quaffs it into a hirsute, immensely strong, and violently homicidal brute. He tells you that he will almost certainly drink it but, "if you don't like it, you don't have to do it." What?would you do? ? > The information pattern between your ears is also pretty volatile. But the information between my ears is not directly coupled to the information in my physical makeup. I can't think myself shorter, taller, or into a worm.?Uploads would enjoy no such disconnect between?implicit and explicit information.?Some?seem to think it may be an advantage, but?I think it could?pose serious?risks for the uploaded individual. What happens if an upload thinks?himself into a philosophical zombie, computer virus, or other entity not able to think? Or worse poses a danger to the rest of the world? The?danger of?a stray thought being capable of ending ones existence?might give pause to some.?And yes you could point out that suicide is possible in meat body too, however, more than the mere passing thought?of suicide is required to kill oneself in real time.? ?? > > > Only, postbiology is a lot fitter than you. > > > > What is your evidence for this assumption? Or is it an article of faith? Do >you > > > Functionality concentration per amount of volume. Sigh. Uploaders?seem to constantly underestimate how incredible?meat is from a design standpoint. Some of the simplest meat out there, E. coli bacteria, puts engineered technology?to shame. The following is something akin to the engineering specs for E. coli: ? http://redpoll.pharmacy.ualberta.ca/CCDB/cgi-bin/STAT_NEW.cgi Functionality per unit volume is difficult to measure because functionality is not well defined, but here is a back of the envelope calculation based on the assumption that?distinct genes represent distinct functions: 4377 genes per?bacterium?divided by?a cell volume of 10^-15 liters, gives functionality per unit volume of a bacterium as 4.377?*trillion* functions per cubic millimeter.?What technology does that? Computers may push numbers around with similar functional density, but a bacterium is pushing atoms around, cutting them apart and welding them together. Sure people can imagine technology achieving this kind of functional density someday, but?I certainly wouldn't take it for granted.??? ? >? Repertoire of accessible > structures. ? Frankly, I don't know how to assess this other than to say that the diversity of biological structures is vast. ? >?Operation temperature range. ? Admittedly I'd?score this one?for the machines. ? > Facultative volatile use. ? How about Alcanivorax borkumensis? As its name suggests, it eats alkanes like oil and gasoline.? ? >?Fully > static design. ? Coral reefs? I am not sure why static design would be an advantage. "You're a steam shovel and that's all you'll ever amount too!" ? >?Energy efficiency. ? Meat?has an energy efficiency of 68 percent as long as it has oxygen to breath. That's really close to the *theoretical* efficiency of the ideal Carnot engine and as efficient as a really good rocket engine in practice.? ? http://www.ece.umd.edu/~nsw/ench482/energy.htm ? >?Separation of fabrication and operation. ? Again, I am not sure why this is an advantage? Would maintenance and replacement of worn parts constitute fabrication or operation??How about sex? ? > Ability to metabolize the entire PSE. Solving your all problems by eating them? Ok so grey goo has?this advantage over meat although I hesitate to call it an advantage.?But who wants to be grey goo???? > I could go on for pages, but you're probably seeing where I'm getting. > Yes, they're way meaner and leaner than us. Actually I hoping for more substantive evidence and less speculative hand waving for?your assertion that postbiology is superior to biology. You ever seen what happens to an automobile?after a few years in a rainforest? It gets reclaimed by nature. I saw one a few years ago. I wish?I had taken pictures of it.? > > mean more fit than me in the vacuum of space or?in the jungle? In a virtual > > Everywhere. And jungle is crunchy, and good with ketchup. Not if the fire ants have any say in the matter and they very well could. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vVUh-194vU ? > > reality?or within ten feet of an active?Tesla coil? Fitness is relative > > You're in a virtual reality, rendered by a meat computer. > > > to?your?environment, to the guy next to you, to any predators,?and to?the > > "microbes" beneath your contempt. And if postbiology is manufactured using > > Microbes are pretty cool. Glad you think so. Meat is amazing in all its forms. ? > The nice thing is that you can halt state, copy over, and resume. > No such options for us. halt state?:= freeze, copy over?:= clone, resume?:= thaw ? Albeit it only works for cells and tissues right now, give it time. ??? > I use the term exactly because machine-phase is like biology, only more > so, and is successor to current biology (both can't co-exist, due to > fitness delta and incompatbility (they can eat you, you can't eat them)). There are bacteria that eat iron so?why would you assume they couldn't compete with?machine-phase?biology? You think the conclusion is foregone, I think it would be quite?the contest perhaps the main?event of a geologic epoch-- liquid-crystal life versus solid-state life. If machine-phase life is so inevitable and so superior, where are the Von Neumann probes? > Pretty much everything poses a serious problem. It's interesting that so > many suffer a failure of imagination. The world is already stranger than > we can imagine, and it's shortly going to get A Lot Worse. (Or, better, > actually). ? It's when you say things like this, I think you?might have some hope as a mystic yourself. ;-) ? > > >?So we are the endangered species, for a change. > > > It would be an act of cosmic irony, if the perpetrators of the Holocene > > > extinction event themselves succumbed to habitat destruction and industrial > > > > > pollution at the hands of their offspring. Mere indifference would be >enough. > > > > There is no irony in this and?H. sapiens?would not be the first species to >have? >? > Oh, but many will find it ironic indeed. "How could this happen to us? Kings > of the world, etc." > > > done this. The cyanobacteria did exactly this?when they?evolved chlorophyll >and > > Archaea are pretty low on irony department, I hear. Pretty square customers. > > > threated all life by unleashing?oxygen on the world.?? > > But they were not aware of what they're doing. We are, yet we're still doing >it. ? The universe is?notoriously indifferent?to ones mental state. It?only evaluates?actions and not the rationalizations behind them. To the gazelle being stalked by the lion, the consequences of indifference and unawareness are the same.?? ? > It's less about perks like living forever, it's more about transcending the > limitations of being a bipedal primate. It tends to cramp your style a bit. Solid-state organisms would have limitations too so you?would simply be trading one set of limitations for another. ? > > gets?indefinite run time. That's not any closer to immortality than having >kids > > > or writing a?book.?Even if?one didn't upload onself, a simple?brute-force >search > > > Ah, you're a mystic. Didn't realize that before. Yes I am a mystic (emergent properties, math,?and the like) but?you are not?completely a?reductionist either. > "After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time > together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the > non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is > merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine > is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget > the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with > mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, > 'I refute it thus.'" Reality is. Nuff said. Stuart LaForge "There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Dec 29 05:12:14 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:12:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> Myhrvold only has to do it once for his idea to work, you have to do it many thousands of times. > > You don't seem to understand the point of engineering a standard > design. Once you do it, it's possible to turn out millions of copies. If you intend to make millions of something then you need to take time to ensure that your design is as efficient and economical as you can make it, but if you only intend to make one then you can afford to be much more extravagant and say to hell with the cost. And its cheap right now to send a balloon tethered to the earth carrying broadcast equipment to a height of 5 miles, so it does not seem to me that it would be financially impossible for the world to pay to build something extending that altitude to 18 miles carrying a different payload if doing so would save the planet. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Dec 29 05:27:56 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:27:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2010, at 11:50 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > If machine-phase life is so inevitable and so superior, where are the Von Neumann probes? Two possible answers: 1) Somebody has to be the first intelligent technological civilization in the visible universe, perhaps it is us. 2) Some road block prevents intelligence from engineering the cosmos, my best guess of what that impediment is would be electronic drug addiction. There may be other answers to your very important question but those are the only ones I can think of that make any sense to me. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Wed Dec 29 06:02:53 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 02:02:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >1) Somebody has to be the first intelligent technological civilization in the visible universe, perhaps it is us.< This is the possibility that seems most likely to me, simply because Avant's point is so well-taken. Then again, perhaps there is some secondary malthusian-type mechanism in the evolutionary process that prevents that next leap. But that would seem to beg the question of why: it smacks of intelligent design, and that bothers me. This is why I always fall back on John's first possibility. It seems crazy to think you may be at the top of the class, but so far, no-one is producing any superior report card. d. 2010/12/29 John Clark > On Dec 28, 2010, at 11:50 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > If machine-phase life is so inevitable and so superior, where are the Von > Neumann probes? > > > Two possible answers: > > 1) Somebody has to be the first intelligent technological civilization in > the visible universe, perhaps it is us. > > 2) Some road block prevents intelligence from engineering the cosmos, my > best guess of what that impediment is would be electronic drug addiction. > > There may be other answers to your very important question but those are > the only ones I can think of that make any sense to me. > > John K Clark > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- *"It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard everyone would do it. The 'hard' is what makes it great."* * * *--A League of Their Own * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Dec 29 09:26:43 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:26:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine (was simulation) In-Reply-To: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20101229092643.GX16518@leitl.org> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 08:50:35PM -0800, The Avantguardian wrote: > > And if you don't like it, you don't have to do it. > > Imagine you are on a desert island with Dr. Jeckyll and dozens of innocent > bystanders. Dr. Jeckyll offers to share an elixer with you that he strongly > believes will transform anyone who quaffs it into a hirsute, immensely strong, > and violently homicidal brute. He tells you that he will almost certainly drink > it but, "if you don't like it, you don't have to do it." What?would you do? Well, if you really believe that, you should alert the authorities, or walk the same path Unabomber did. It's pretty obvious that the military would be extremely interested in using artificial and/or biologically inspired control on the battlefield, maintain leadership (hence arms race) in such capabilities, and there's plenty of lunatic-fringe research about soldier augmentation to realize how the bacon fries. ? > > The information pattern between your ears is also pretty volatile. > > But the information between my ears is not directly coupled to the information > in my physical makeup. I can't think myself shorter, taller, or into a > worm.?Uploads would enjoy no such disconnect between?implicit and explicit > information.?Some?seem to think it may be an advantage, but?I think it > could?pose serious?risks for the uploaded individual. What happens if an upload > thinks?himself into a philosophical zombie, computer virus, or other entity not > able to think? Or worse poses a danger to the rest of the world? The?danger of?a > > stray thought being capable of ending ones existence?might give pause to > some.?And yes you could point out that suicide is possible in meat body too, > however, more than the mere passing thought?of suicide is required to kill > oneself in real time.? Strawman. You're describing a particular pathology which could be implemented, in theory, and declare it's the norm. No, it would be a nontrivial problem to build a particular pathology like that, and of course the answer to that is -- if you don't like it, don't do it. ?? > > > > Only, postbiology is a lot fitter than you. > > > > > > What is your evidence for this assumption? Or is it an article of faith? Do > >you > > > > > > Functionality concentration per amount of volume. > > Sigh. Uploaders?seem to constantly underestimate how incredible?meat is from a If it helps, I'm not entirely ignorant of biochemistry. > design standpoint. Some of the simplest meat out there, E. coli bacteria, puts > engineered technology?to shame. The following is something akin to the > engineering specs for E. coli: > ? > http://redpoll.pharmacy.ualberta.ca/CCDB/cgi-bin/STAT_NEW.cgi > > Functionality per unit volume is difficult to measure because functionality is > not well defined, but here is a back of the envelope calculation based on the We can look at information processing per unit volume/unit energy, information storage density, power density, the concentration of particular widgets/volume, and so on. See e.g. http://nanoengineer-1.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=49 http://nanoengineer-1.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=50 Now think how you would build that enzymatically, in a wet context. > assumption that?distinct genes represent distinct functions: 4377 genes > per?bacterium?divided > > by?a cell volume of 10^-15 liters, gives functionality per unit volume of a > bacterium as 4.377?*trillion* functions per cubic millimeter.?What technology Machine-phase nanotechnology. > does that? Computers may push numbers around with similar functional density, 3d integrated nanoelectronics are not merely similar. > but a bacterium is pushing atoms around, cutting them apart and welding them Of course pushing the atoms around is the whole point of machine-phase nanotechnology. If it can't self-reproduce and build other structures, it will never amount to much. > together. Sure people can imagine technology achieving this kind of functional > density someday, but?I certainly wouldn't take it for granted.??? Then the problem disappears into thin air, and you can sleep safely. ? > >? Repertoire of accessible > > structures. > ? > Frankly, I don't know how to assess this other than to say that the diversity of > > biological structures is vast. If you representatively sample the space of all possible chemical structures (it's a computationally tractable problem) then these points and regions occupied by biology are negligible. ? > >?Operation temperature range. > ? > Admittedly I'd?score this one?for the machines. A range of about 800 K, or thereabouts. ? > > Facultative volatile use. > ? > How about Alcanivorax borkumensis? As its name suggests, it eats alkanes like > oil and gasoline.? Plunk it down on Phobos, and see how well it fares. > ? > >?Fully > > static design. > ? > Coral reefs? I am not sure why static design would be an advantage. "You're a > steam shovel and that's all you'll ever amount too!" Static in the energy sense. Imagine shutting down your CNS completely, not even consuming nW, and resume it a decade down the road. A lot of baseline metabolism is just for homeostasis. A fully static spintronic design doesn't need energy to hold state. When sufficiently degraded, the structure can be rebuild by an external agency, retracted completely so only computationally relevant elements remain. If you don't like that, you can of course implement the current paradigm where each structure contains according functionality to maintain it indefinitely. You're not forced to pick a particular path. You can even reconfigure at runtime, if you're kinky that way. ? > >?Energy efficiency. > ? > Meat?has an energy efficiency of 68 percent as long as it has oxygen to breath. Information theoretic computation limits. > That's really close to the *theoretical* efficiency of the ideal Carnot engine Electrochemical energy sources are not Carnot-limited. > and as efficient as a really good rocket engine in practice.? > ? > http://www.ece.umd.edu/~nsw/ench482/energy.htm > ? > >?Separation of fabrication and operation. > ? > Again, I am not sure why this is an advantage? Would maintenance and replacement > > of worn parts constitute fabrication or operation??How about sex? In separate units. Facultatively, mark. ? > > Ability to metabolize the entire PSE. > > Solving your all problems by eating them? Ok so grey goo has?this advantage over > > meat although I hesitate to call it an advantage.?But who wants to be grey > goo???? Not grey go, ability to build structures not just limited to CHNOPS, and a few trace elements. > > I could go on for pages, but you're probably seeing where I'm getting. > > Yes, they're way meaner and leaner than us. > > Actually I hoping for more substantive evidence and less speculative hand waving Go here http://www.rfreitas.com/ > for?your assertion that postbiology is superior to biology. You ever seen what > happens to an automobile?after a few years in a rainforest? It gets reclaimed by And your point is...? > nature. I saw one a few years ago. I wish?I had taken pictures of it.? > > > > mean more fit than me in the vacuum of space or?in the jungle? In a virtual > > > > Everywhere. And jungle is crunchy, and good with ketchup. > > Not if the fire ants have any say in the matter and they very well could. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vVUh-194vU What do ants do when it starts raining liquid air? ? > > The nice thing is that you can halt state, copy over, and resume. > > No such options for us. > > halt state?:= freeze, Please freeze your head within this very ps, without dropping a single spike. > copy over?:= clone, How do you clone all the structures within of your frozen head down to the nm? > resume?:= thaw Please unfreeze your mythical nm-scale copy within this very ps, without dropping bits that you don't even notice what happened. ? > Albeit it only works for cells and tissues right now, give it time. Well, yeah, I've worked at 21cm and CCR. ??? > > I use the term exactly because machine-phase is like biology, only more > > so, and is successor to current biology (both can't co-exist, due to > > fitness delta and incompatbility (they can eat you, you can't eat them)). > > There are bacteria that eat iron so?why would you assume they couldn't compete Your logic is interesting. > with?machine-phase?biology? You think the > conclusion is foregone, I think it would be quite?the contest perhaps the > main?event of > > a geologic epoch-- liquid-crystal life versus solid-state life. If machine-phase I don't know how long prebiotic Earth and first autocatalytic sets coexisted, but it must have been very quick. Where are they now? The atoms are still (mostly) there, but the reearangement is completely different. > life is so inevitable and so > > superior, where are the Von Neumann probes? They're not "von Neumann machines". They're people. The answer to Fermi's paradox is that we're not in anybody's smart light cone. Probably. There are alternative explanations, but most of them a lot more complicated. > > But they were not aware of what they're doing. We are, yet we're still doing > >it. > ? > The universe is?notoriously indifferent?to ones mental state. It?only > evaluates?actions and not the rationalizations behind them. To the gazelle being > > stalked by the lion, the consequences of indifference and unawareness are the > same.?? I wasn't referring to the universe's view (it has none). ? > > It's less about perks like living forever, it's more about transcending the > > limitations of being a bipedal primate. It tends to cramp your style a bit. > > Solid-state organisms would have limitations too so you?would simply be > trading one set of limitations for another. Of course they have limitations, you're subject to the laws of this spacetime. But their limitations are a lot less than us, and that's the whole point of venturing beyond biology. ? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Wed Dec 29 09:34:16 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:34:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 02:02:53AM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: > John's first possibility. It seems crazy to think you may be at the top of > the class, but so far, no-one is producing any superior report card. A detector designed to detect its own presence will always detect it's own presence, whether it's the only instance, or a near-infinite numbers of them. There's no way to tell in which branch you are as long as you only observer yourself (and other causally entangled entities to the emergence event, this planet if full of them) Which is why we cannot compute the probability for the emergence of life as long as we don't have access to causally unentangled data points. Such could be potentially found in this solar system, but my hunch we'll have to look beyond locations where matter transport is sufficiently vigorous to allow crosscontamination. We should know soon enough. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Wed Dec 29 12:43:09 2010 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 13:43:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> <4D113964.3000609@satx.rr.com> <003c01cba16c$14980c80$3dc82580$@att.net> <4D124228.4020408@satx.rr.com> <4D1291FD.3080706@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> ### The disastrously high sensitivities are already excluded > > > > And who is excluding them, you? The vast majority of studies are unable > to > > exclude high sensitivities. > > ### I am relying on the minority of studies that do. Also, see Lubos > Motl, a physicist whose funding is not dependent on AGW > (http://motls.blogspot.com/), he does have a pretty thorough analysis > of the issue a few months back in the blog. > So we agree that it is a minority opinion. I visited the site you mention, but I only found some articles from last March and May which state that the CO2-only sensitivity is around 1C and then go on endlessly about black bodies and such, but do not discuss feedbacks. BTW the front page article was starting like this: "Richard Alley (on the picture) is a mentally ill hippie so it shouldn't be surprising that he became a professor of climatology at Penn State University, the same place where Michael Mann cooked his fraudulent hockey stick pseudoscience...." Seems quite an opinionated guy. > I wonder how you define "correlation". If you plot CO2 levels and > > temperature versus each other in the last 100 years, you get a good > > correlation. Do you mean something else? > > ### If you plot rural temperatures over the last 100 years (not the so > called "reconstructions" produced by GISS and UAH) and CO2, you don't > get a good correlation. > > I assume you mean "rural temperatures in the US". This way, you are throwing away almost all the data. If you are concerned by the urban effects, the north pole is the fastest warming region, and there are no cities to speak of there. UHI effects do not explain the warming. > ------------------------------- > > > >> The only > >> values not excluded by direct recent observations are the negative and > >> mildly positive ones (which I personally think to be the case). BTW, > >> the "skeptical" site you link to is incorrect in claiming that climate > >> sensitivity to CO2 is explained by radiative forcing alone - there are > >> additional effects of CO2 on plant life that put the calculations > >> off-whack (of course, none of the "numerous studies" which deny > >> "unrealistic ultralow sensitivities" takes this into account). > > > > In order to support these statements, you would need to quantify these > > effects of CO2 on plant life. > > ### That's difficult. An increase in CO2 that is expected in the next > few decades will increase plant growth by about 40% to 80 % (according > to the Jasper Ridge studies and other more recent work) but I am not > aware of any quantitative studies that would estimate the change in > albedo due to the increase in growth - but given the magnitude of the > latter, the albedo change is not likely to be negligible, especially > in desert areas. > So again we can agree that it is premature to put a number on the CO2 effect on plant life. Alfio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 29 15:48:32 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 07:48:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine (was simulation) In-Reply-To: <20101229092643.GX16518@leitl.org> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229092643.GX16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <946089.13195.qm@web81507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >>...but who wants to be grey goo? I do!? Oh what that grey goo can do... >...Please freeze your head within this very ps, without dropping a single spike.? Eugen* Leitl Whatever that means, I agree. spike From spike66 at att.net Wed Dec 29 16:04:47 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:04:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] revive thread with new and improved content In-Reply-To: References: <003301cba6c8$37a71d40$a6f557c0$@att.net> <006201cba6d4$b39d9e40$1ad8dac0$@att.net> Message-ID: <460991.56896.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> From: Adrian Tymes 2010/12/28 spike : >> In any case, one could imagine not just a stimulation mechanism that >> interfaces with the genitals, but rather a more universal device which can >> apply pressure to the various erogenous zones... >The word you're looking for is "teledildonics".? Go thou and google... Waaaaahahahahaaa!? {8^D? Of course in retrospect it is obvious the field should exist.? I am so terminally not hip. >> Would we be laughed out of the patent office with something like this? >No, but you might be surprised how much prior art there is. I have half a mind to make a list of all patent holders in teledildonics and write them a heated?letter: "...What kind of?DEPRAVED WEIRDSMOBILE?would even?THINK of something like this?? My Sunday school class will?PRAY that you will?REPENT before the?TERRIBLE day of?JUDGMENT for the WICKED!... that sort of thing.? {8^D spike From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Dec 29 17:07:01 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 11:07:01 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Interview w/ Max More "Plugging into the epic , A rational poetry of the future" In-Reply-To: <003b01cba6ae$50a1c350$f1e549f0$@att.net> References: <9B6C84B33BFA40EA91A3EA6A14AF4742@DFC68LF1> <003b01cba6ae$50a1c350$f1e549f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <1AB1B9A79B8E4CC0BBD0D011634E56CF@DFC68LF1> Article now has new picture which looks great. Natasha Vita-More _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 10:43 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: Re: [ExI] Interview w/ Max More "Plugging into the epic ,A rational poetry of the future" From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More Subject: [ExI] Interview w/ Max More "Plugging into the epic , A rational poetry of the future" Max wrote the high-spirited "Letter to Mother Nature" eleven years ago. This article recalls that essay in a heady interview with Max. http://spacecollective.org/Wildcat/6485/Plugging-into-the-epic-A-rational-po etry-of-the-future-An-essay-and-interview-with-Max-More Thanks Natasha, excellent! Do let me commend the ExI-chat participants for the excellent signal to noise of the ExI list on the global energy and futurism discussions: much useful wisdom, actual equations and numbers (which are our friends in these areas), good references, lowish on the vitriol scale, thanks everyone. This is what the ExI-chat list should be methinks. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Dec 29 17:20:28 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 11:20:28 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Interview w/ Max More "Plugging into the epic , A rational poetry of the future" In-Reply-To: <003b01cba6ae$50a1c350$f1e549f0$@att.net> References: <9B6C84B33BFA40EA91A3EA6A14AF4742@DFC68LF1> <003b01cba6ae$50a1c350$f1e549f0$@att.net> Message-ID: here is my avatar. Shall we meet in mingleverse before my freebe expires? Natasha Vita-More _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 10:43 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: Re: [ExI] Interview w/ Max More "Plugging into the epic ,A rational poetry of the future" From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More Subject: [ExI] Interview w/ Max More "Plugging into the epic , A rational poetry of the future" Max wrote the high-spirited "Letter to Mother Nature" eleven years ago. This article recalls that essay in a heady interview with Max. http://spacecollective.org/Wildcat/6485/Plugging-into-the-epic-A-rational-po etry-of-the-future-An-essay-and-interview-with-Max-More Thanks Natasha, excellent! Do let me commend the ExI-chat participants for the excellent signal to noise of the ExI list on the global energy and futurism discussions: much useful wisdom, actual equations and numbers (which are our friends in these areas), good references, lowish on the vitriol scale, thanks everyone. This is what the ExI-chat list should be methinks. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mingleverse.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Dec 29 17:53:04 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 09:53:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine (was simulation) In-Reply-To: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2010, at 8:50 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Eugen Leitl >> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> Sent: Sun, December 26, 2010 3:46:18 AM >> Subject: Re: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality >> >> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 12:48:34AM -0800, The Avantguardian wrote: > >> And if you don't like it, you don't have to do it. > > Imagine you are on a desert island with Dr. Jeckyll and dozens of innocent > bystanders. Dr. Jeckyll offers to share an elixer with you that he strongly > believes will transform anyone who quaffs it into a hirsute, immensely strong, > and violently homicidal brute. He tells you that he will almost certainly drink > it but, "if you don't like it, you don't have to do it." What would you do? This is supposed to clarify the situation at all? Do you want to by force prohibit anyone who does want to upload if it makes you uncomfortable or you think they are insane to do it? If so then this is not in the realm of debate anymore. If not then why is there some value in arguing an undecidable set of hypotheticals at this time? > >> The information pattern between your ears is also pretty volatile. > > But the information between my ears is not directly coupled to the information > in my physical makeup. What? How can there be physically localized information that is not physically contained, i.e., part of your physical makeup? > I can't think myself shorter, taller, or into a > worm. So? > Uploads would enjoy no such disconnect between implicit and explicit > information. Some seem to think it may be an advantage, but I think it > could pose serious risks for the uploaded individual. What happens if an upload > thinks himself into a philosophical zombie, computer virus, or other entity not > able to think? Being on a different substrate in no way means that you have unlimited ability to redefine yourself in such ways. The two are not one and the same. I would expect that such redefinition would be a pretty specialized skill. Also to be uploaded is to have backups. Failsafes to reload when something goes wrong shouldn't be that hard to arrange. > Or worse poses a danger to the rest of the world? The danger of a > > stray thought being capable of ending ones existence might give pause to > some. And yes you could point out that suicide is possible in meat body too, > however, more than the mere passing thought of suicide is required to kill > oneself in real time. Of course. Super powered chimps (no concomitant evolution of self-control, self-knowledge, ethics) would be dangerous. But then we can be pretty dangerous to self and others now also. > >>>> Only, postbiology is a lot fitter than you. >>> >>> What is your evidence for this assumption? Or is it an article of faith? Do >> you >> >> >> Functionality concentration per amount of volume. > > Sigh. Uploaders seem to constantly underestimate how incredible meat is from a > design standpoint. Some of the simplest meat out there, E. coli bacteria, puts > engineered technology to shame. The following is something akin to the > engineering specs for E. coli: Sure. Our best brain emulation today when scaled up will take its own large nuclear plant to power while the brain makes due with about 35 watts. But that is largely a level circuitry current advantage. It will not last forever. That evolution arrived at one that works this well should give great hope that ones that work better can be found. > > http://redpoll.pharmacy.ualberta.ca/CCDB/cgi-bin/STAT_NEW.cgi > > Functionality per unit volume is difficult to measure because functionality is > not well defined, but here is a back of the envelope calculation based on the > assumption that distinct genes represent distinct functions: 4377 genes > per bacterium divided > > by a cell volume of 10^-15 liters, gives functionality per unit volume of a > bacterium as 4.377 *trillion* functions per cubic millimeter. What technology > does that? Computers may push numbers around with similar functional density, > but a bacterium is pushing atoms around, cutting them apart and welding them > together. Sure people can imagine technology achieving this kind of functional > density someday, but I certainly wouldn't take it for granted. > >> Repertoire of accessible >> structures. > > Frankly, I don't know how to assess this other than to say that the diversity of > > biological structures is vast. > >> Operation temperature range. > > Admittedly I'd score this one for the machines. Not yet as power/cooling per equivalent information processing contest currently goes soundly to bio. > >> I use the term exactly because machine-phase is like biology, only more >> so, and is successor to current biology (both can't co-exist, due to >> fitness delta and incompatbility (they can eat you, you can't eat them)). > > There are bacteria that eat iron so why would you assume they couldn't compete > with machine-phase biology? You think the > conclusion is foregone, I think it would be quite the contest perhaps the > main event of > Given MNT (pretty much essential to realization of these ambitions) we would control the bacterial realm. > a geologic epoch-- liquid-crystal life versus solid-state life. If machine-phase > life is so inevitable and so > > superior, where are the Von Neumann probes? You would not be able to recognize such a probe from a post-MNT civilization unless it wanted you to. Your argument is of the form : A is a possible but not necessary consequence of realization of X, A may or may not be detectable by beings like myself, I have not detected A, therefore X cannot have been realized, and likely X is not better than not-X. Post MNT civilization is very much not inevitable. A species must go beyond it evolutionary programmed proclivities and limitations in the midst of its environment complexifying beyond its native ability to cope successfully to get there. I doubt very many succeed. There are certainly very clear ways our species could fail to do so. > >> It's less about perks like living forever, it's more about transcending the >> limitations of being a bipedal primate. It tends to cramp your style a bit. > > Solid-state organisms would have limitations too so you would simply be > trading one set of limitations for another. Of course they have limitations. Trading up to a less constraining set of limitations is a good thing though. > >>> gets indefinite run time. That's not any closer to immortality than having >> kids >> >>> or writing a book. Even if one didn't upload onself, a simple brute-force >> search >> >> >> Ah, you're a mystic. Didn't realize that before. > > Yes I am a mystic (emergent properties, math, and the like) but you are > not completely a reductionist either. Living forever (or indefinitely long time) with all your memories and continuously growing / developing / creating / experiencing is no different from having a kid or writing a book? That makes no sense. Define "mystic". The thought space is not divided into pure reductionist or mystic camps. - s From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Dec 29 18:03:54 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 11:03:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:00 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Dec 28, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > >> You don't seem to understand the point of engineering a standard >> design. ?Once you do it, it's possible to turn out millions of copies. > > If you intend to make millions of something then you need to take time to ensure that your design is as efficient and economical as you can make it, but if you only intend to make one then you can afford to be much more extravagant and say to hell with the cost. You can't avoid the physics. For example, the pumps take around 1 kW/100 feet, or 53 kW/mile, ~1 MW for the whole string. If the power went up at 1000 volts, it would take 1000 amps. The wire near the base is going to mass more than the pumps, but it does taper as you go up. > And its cheap right now to send a balloon tethered to the earth carrying broadcast equipment to a height of 5 miles, so it does not seem to me that it would be financially impossible for the world to pay to build something extending that altitude to 18 miles carrying a different payload if doing so would save the planet. It all depends on the wind. Spherical balloons have way too much drag. Aerodynamically shaped ones tend to be too heavy unless of heroic scale. When you actually get into the details and try to make them survive in the worst case wind it's really complicated. I take it that you don't do engineering as a job. Keith From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Wed Dec 29 18:31:03 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:31:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: >Which is why we cannot compute the probability for the emergence of life as long as we don't have access to causally unentangled data points< Of course that makes sense. And of course we can't know. But whenever I truly think about or hear being listed potential outcomes in singularity-type discussions, like cosmic engineering and interstellar travel and immortality and other large-scale events that would make any sapient being sit up and take notice that something really seems to be happening in that section of the galaxy, I start to consider John's first possibility. In the broad strokes. Why isn't there some evidence elsewhere -- Von Neumann probes, as Avante said, or radio signals? If a singularity is inevitable, and even if it isn't and just desirable for some technologically-inclined species, shouldn't such goings on be apparent to us if it has happened elsewhere? Especially if it has happened frequently? I mentioned Robert Charles Wilson's novel Spin the other day in a post. Have you read that? In it, Von Neumann machines sent out from advancing civilizations all over the universe have "teamed up" and formed a vast cloud AI that then begin to interfere in the affairs of their makers. In Isamov's Foundation Trilogy and Herbert's Dune, human beings are the progentitors of cosmic engineering and the first technologically-proficient species to emerge in the universe. What I was saying, I guess, as ridiculous as the last sounds, it seems more probable than the first to me. Because the only evidence we have seems to support that. Or at least supports that there seems to be no evidence of a large-scale singularity and superior machine-based civilization elsewhere that is suddenly messing around in the universe dramatically enough for others to notice. A third possibility is that other civilzations are advancing at roughly the same rate as we are, and are on the verge of their own explosions into the universe around them but still struggling with biological imperatives and resultant limitations. A fourth is that even very advanced civilizations are limited by vast distances and lack of resources so that they barely make a dent in the universe around them, no matter how smart or powerfully they can engineer themselves. There may be a million other possibilities, none of which I am smart enough to come up with. Carl Sagan came up with a number of reasons in Contact why there could be advanced species capable of revealing itself to us via its technology but chose not to, but everyone of them was based on human ethical standards. Surely we'd be able to recognize the technology of a post-singularity civilization before we'd recognize their ethical motivations? I'm pretty new at this, and just trying to understand. So I may be covering very old ground here, but this thought has been troubling me for many years. Since I was a kid in fact. d. -- *"It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard everyone would do it. The 'hard' is what makes it great."* * * *--A League of Their Own * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Dec 29 19:23:19 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 19:23:19 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: 2010/12/29 Darren Greer wrote: > Surely we'd be able to recognize the technology of a post-singularity > civilization before we'd recognize their ethical motivations? > I'm pretty new at this, and just trying to understand. So I may be covering > very old ground here, but this thought has been troubling me for many years. > You're correct. If there were gigantic engineering projects out there, we would notice the effects. Eugen has said that may be because that they are just too far away for us to see (outside our light-cone). That is certainly a possibility. I think the more likely possibility is, as Keith points out, that real engineering is very hard. Bit-twiddling on computers is much, much easier. Even Eugene admits that there is a long road ahead, developing robotic engineers, cheap entry to space, nano-tech, etc. before large space projects become feasible. My expectation is that humanity will have so much fun playing with electronics, virtual reality, uploading, full-immersion entertainment, etc. that the thought of going outside and getting your hands dirty will come way down the list. When people can build stuff in virtual reality almost instantaneously, why join a 20 year project of hard work? Half your working life gone and all that fun missed out on. If you can become a god quickly and easily in virtual reality, using little more than your own resources, why struggle for years trying to drive giant projects involving thousands of people? You can't do the real world space thing on your own. It takes nation-scale efforts to build a space-faring civ. And nations won't do that without really, really good reasons. This is another way of saying that advanced civilizations lose themselves in virtual reality. The attraction is too strong. BillK From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Dec 29 21:42:11 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 16:42:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <139B93B7-2719-419C-AD89-058C290F7554@bellsouth.net> On Dec 29, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > You can't avoid the physics. For example, the pumps take around 1 > kW/100 feet, or 53 kW/mile, ~1 MW for the whole string. > If the power went up at 1000 volts, it would take 1000 amps. I'm sure you can do better than 1000 volts before downconversion becomes a serious issue; and if the wire conductor is so thin and the electrical resistance so high that it causes you to waste energy and the wire gets a little hot, so be it. You're only making one of these things so you can afford the electric bill. And you'd have 18 miles of open air to radiate that waste heat away, so the wire shouldn't get so hot as to cause problems; radiant energy is proportional to the FOURTH power of the temperature , double the temperature of the wire and you radiate away 16 times as much waste heat energy, so it's not going to get so hot as to be unmanageable. > The wire near the base is going to mass more than the pumps Even if true so what? If it saves the world then hang the cost and just build the damn thing, you only need to make one. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Thu Dec 30 00:52:05 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 01:52:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <004101cba6cd$57012370$05036a50$@att.net> References: <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> <004101cba6cd$57012370$05036a50$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D1BD7B5.3020402@aleph.se> On 2010-12-28 21:25, spike wrote: >> ...5a) Cackle maniacally. Mandatory, if you believe Hollywood. ;)... > > There are two schools of thought on this. There is the old standard > Muwaaa{ha}^5 crowd, and those who insist on the more guttural and evil > sounding mirthful interjection starting with Buuwaa. I am firmly in the Muwaaa{ha}^5 group. My colleagues at FHI have learned to fear when my laughter echoes down the hall... (Nick: "Anders, have you come up with *another* WMD?! We are supposed to *save* mankind.") >> ...7) At some point, teleoperation just won't cut it, and you'll want to > have an on-site crew... Adrian > > I must disagree on this, or perhaps modify it thus: teleoperation will > continue to work, ever improving in fact, but we may argue the whole point > of the entire exercise is to move meat to the remote site. It isn't > *necessary* so much as it is the *goal*, an end point, even if technically > pointless, like sporting events and so much human activity. We just do it > because... well, we don't know why, but we still do it anyway. But can teleoperation become so good that it reduces the instrumental interest in moving a mind to the moon? The obvious problem is lag. But if the teleoperation is more about directing fairly autonomous systems, then that might be fine. Many human-computer interaction tricks also seem to be able to hide lags, getting the full human perceptual-motor abilities without too much annoyance. Given the transport problems over the last year (due to an overstretched infrastructure and too much institutional risk aversion) I have made the following "probable surprise": more transport system crashes will occur due to fairly normal fluctuations, and together with expanding IT infrastructure more and more people will be fine with at least social telepresence. Whether that can be carried over to useful telework remains to be seen. Maybe the future belongs to crowdsourcing things: the moonbase gets built by a Farmville-clone where millions of Facebook users play a game of construction for fabulous badges! (This is in fact the current plot in my Eclipse Phase rpg campaign) -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Thu Dec 30 00:52:34 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 01:52:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D1BD7D2.5030403@aleph.se> On 2010-12-29 06:27, John Clark wrote: > On Dec 28, 2010, at 11:50 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > >> If machine-phaselife is so inevitable and sosuperior, where are the >> Von Neumann probes? > > Two possible answers: > > 1) Somebody has to be the first intelligent technological civilization > in the visible universe, perhaps it is us. This weird possibility should be considered. > 2) Some road block prevents intelligence from engineering the cosmos, my > best guess of what that impediment is would be electronic drug addiction. That possibility has jumped a bit in my estimation this year, but I still find it somewhat problematic. The main reason is that it requires electronic drug addiction (or games, superb art, sex or whatever) to be strongly convergent: nobody and nothing can resist it. That seems to be a tall order, since it is enough that only one individual manufactures a successful von Neumann anywhere for them to dominate. http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2010/04/flanders_vs_fermi.html A third possibility that I hold moderately likely is that they are here, but mostly quiescent. The First Ones laid claim to all of the galaxy, putting little von Neumann flags on everything. They are not using up resources due to long-term considerations (they will be worth so much more in a trillion years), so right now they are relaxing in some genteel M-brains somewhere, talking about singleton politics or whatever. However, their smart tools maintain their domain, in particular stomping hard on anything trying to make its own von Neumanns. http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2010/10/visions_of_the_future_in_milano.html -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Thu Dec 30 00:52:12 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 01:52:12 +0100 Subject: [ExI] revive thread with new and improved content, In-Reply-To: <006201cba6d4$b39d9e40$1ad8dac0$@att.net> References: <003301cba6c8$37a71d40$a6f557c0$@att.net> <006201cba6d4$b39d9e40$1ad8dac0$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D1BD7BC.3050007@aleph.se> On 2010-12-28 22:17, spike wrote: > It occurred to me that the process of copulation is a real time > simultaneous positive and negative feedback control system, where the > control law is derived in real time by trial and error. Is not this what > one does (or rather two do) when engaged in amorous activity? We watch > and listen carefully, adjust accordingly: if she, he or they do this > then we touch here, if she does that then caress over there, if she > sprays us with mace, we shriek in agony and attempt some other approach, > such as feigning a seizure. Teledildonics has been around for a while, but I think you are right that there is a need to go beyond the (likely tricky) mechanical elements. Signal processing and the right user interface designs are going to be the real selling points once the kinks of the hardware are straightened out. I chatted with an entrepreneur in the business, who had subscribing customers who "networked" with each other. I really think those data streams contain gold: run Kalman filters on them to make them predictive and smooth out network lags. Calculate eigensmooches that are *just right*, and can be both used to reduce bandwidth, might have the same appealing effects as averaging faces and be invoked as macros. In fact, with macros one can do erotic things one's normal body cannot - rapid repeats, sampled motions, extra limbs etc. Hidden Markov models or reinforcement models linked to GSC or vocal sentiment analysis to learn what behaviors are appropriate in what situations, and slowly build a proper sexbot behavioral repertoire. Generally, the more data to play with, the better chances it can be mined for erotic benefit - especially if one can figure out how to estimate hedonic state from various cues. My iphone has a simple app that uses the accelerometer to estimate sleep phases from body movements (no idea how it handles two people in the bed) and then uses that to try to wake me up at the optimal time. It is a neat demonstration of how a simple data channel can detect a fairly complex biological state. I wonder what other simple channels found in current computers and sex toys could be used to figure out hedonic information? -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Thu Dec 30 01:36:34 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 02:36:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] revive thread with new and improved content In-Reply-To: References: <992812.79666.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001801cba604$9cdd4d20$d697e760$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D1BE222.1070704@aleph.se> On 2010-12-28 20:08, Darren Greer wrote: > John wrote: > > >Spike, I think there is a need for a book titled "The Transhumanist's > Guide to Picking Up Women!" < > > Must I be a voice for gender and sexual orientation equality? Either it > be The Transhumanist's Guide for Picking Up" with a section for men, one > for women and one with same-sex advice in that area. Or three separate > books. Tracts or pamphlets might do actually. Maybe the guide should be "The Transhumanist's Guide to Picking Up (Trans)Humans". Beyond some hormonal differences, local tissue differentiation and the preoptic nuclei of the hypothalamus we are after all pretty similar... so far. > I don't know one other gay transhumanist, though there > must be others. I guess I could use this opportunity to come out of the closet. [ It was this year I realized that I did have a boyfriend and wasn't asexual... I was likely the last one to notice! :-) ] > Sexuality is for me a very big issue in a transhumanist context. I think sexuality is a great testbed (no pun intended) of transhumanist thinking. It is one of the areas were we as a species are most openly challenging and modifying our evolutionary "commands" - we have separated sex from reproduction, we have constructed all sorts of intriguing social structures to handle our drives, we are not just experiencing sexualities but actually inventing and deliberately trying to modify them. It is also extremely emotional and linked to deep social structures. That means that if we can change things in this domain and not burn ourselves too much, then we have learned things that will be useful for other equally heavy domains such as life extension and modulating our motivational systems. It is also a fun domain to consider just how far we can modify the current condition without losing whatever it is that makes it valuable. (In one of my rpg games a player played a high-tech courtesan who tried to seduce a suspect, adapting his/her/its body to suit the situation. Unfortunately he/she/it *still* had the wrong gender, since the suspect was technosexual and prefered eroticism in high-dimensional virtual manifolds with AI software. We had a fun discussion in the gaming group whether the guy was even having sex, or was just running an unconventional user interface making use of legacy wetware...) -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 30 01:45:06 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:45:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] intentional control lag as recreational device, was RE: simulation as an improvement over reality Message-ID: <000901cba7c3$3030ffd0$9092ff70$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg ... >I am firmly in the Muwaaa{ha}^5 group. My colleagues at FHI have learned to fear when my laughter echoes down the hall... It's that whole Swedish accented maniacal laughter, which is a fearful thing indeed. Never mess with a mad scientist who has Viking ancestors. ... >...But can teleoperation become so good that it reduces the instrumental interest in moving a mind to the moon? Ja, the notion is to use partially autonomous teleoperation to build the human habitat. It will take a while. >...The obvious problem is lag...Anders Sandberg Ja. I had a notion of trying to create a car modified to accept steering commands with a variable time delay, then race them around a cone course like autocross racers. That way we don't risk crashing, since it is on a big flat paved surface, and it would be an interesting exercise, roughly simulating driving while severely intoxicated. I have long thought it would be a great moneymaker to offer an autocross cone course specifically to allow guys to drink themselves silly then try actual drunk driving under controlled, legal and safe conditions. The show stopper is the risk the clients would besmirch the car by barfing. Failing that, we could build a car which steers and throttles by wire, then arrange to delay the signals by an arbitrary amount, so the driver would need to look farther down the course and compensate in advance. If we think about the task the brain is actually performing when driving a time delayed steering car, it is doing lead lag compensation feedback control in an analog computer. Now that is just wicked cool. No, beyond merely cool: it makes for an entirely new type of racing, with a new class of champion racers, with a critically important distinction from the traditional racing: the cars are not particularly expensive, nor are they dangerous to drive, nor do they devour an extraordinary amount of fuel. We could make these cars out of ordinary throwaway Detroits with engines unmodified, the kind which the US "government" recently paid the proles to retire prematurely in a misguided "cash for clunkers" scheme, which intentionally destroyed a bunch of perfectly good cars. Any old car would have plenty of power to drive as fast as any human can control, with a simple two second command delay between input and output at the steering column. Furthermore, it would be technically simple to do: I bet I could build such a device me-self. But I am still stuck on that notion of lead lag compensation with analog wetware, oh my. spike From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 30 02:03:10 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:03:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] revive thread with new and improved content, In-Reply-To: <4D1BD7BC.3050007@aleph.se> References: <003301cba6c8$37a71d40$a6f557c0$@att.net> <006201cba6d4$b39d9e40$1ad8dac0$@att.net> <4D1BD7BC.3050007@aleph.se> Message-ID: <001301cba7c5$b5b58840$212098c0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 4:52 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] revive thread with new and improved content, On 2010-12-28 22:17, spike wrote: >> It occurred to me that the process of copulation is a real time >> simultaneous positive and negative feedback control system... >Teledildonics has been around for a while, but I think you are right that there is a need to go beyond the (likely tricky) mechanical elements. Signal processing and the right user interface designs are going to be the real selling points... Anders! This is the sexiest commentary I have seen in years! Thanks man, priceless. A masterpiece. >... once the kinks of the hardware are straightened out... Sure, but actually I had in mind the opposite: getting the straights kinked out. And of course making money, but you already knew that. {8-] >...I chatted with an entrepreneur in the business, who had subscribing customers who "networked" with each other... Again I find myself hopelessly, terminally not hip. I need to avoid all memes sexual, for far too much of humanity has derived delightfully erotic answers long before I ever realized there was a question. >... I really think those data streams contain gold: run Kalman filters on them to make them predictive and smooth out network lags... I have always thought Kalman filtering as sexy, but this takes it to a whole nuther level. >...Calculate eigensmooches that are *just right*... Ah yes, eigensmooches, to find the most optimal of all smooches. >... In fact, with macros one can do erotic things one's normal body cannot - rapid repeats, sampled motions, extra limbs etc... Just thinking of the money making possibilities of this notion makes my butt hurt. It's a good hurt. >... I wonder what other simple channels found in current computers and sex toys could be used to figure out hedonic information?--Anders Sandberg Anders, you are a gift pal. spike From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 30 02:25:17 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:25:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] revive thread with new and improved content In-Reply-To: <4D1BE222.1070704@aleph.se> References: <992812.79666.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001801cba604$9cdd4d20$d697e760$@att.net> <4D1BE222.1070704@aleph.se> Message-ID: <001401cba7c8$cd319e70$6794db50$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg ... >I guess I could use this opportunity to come out of the closet... Welcome out, Anders. We are honored that you are open with us. Transhumanists are the kind of people who were cool with gay before it was cool to be cool with gay. >[ It was this year I realized that I did have a boyfriend and wasn't asexual... I was likely the last one to notice! :-) ] Anders Sandberg Well perhaps second to last. I don't think Shelly suspects, but she is cool with gay, which itself is remarkable for a religious type. >> Sexuality is for me a very big issue in a transhumanist context... It is! It's huge. Sexuality I mean. I look at it this way: when someone is all messed up sexually, they risk becoming a "sexual offender." In football, the opposite of offense is defense, so ideally we should all be exactly the opposite of messed up sexually, so we would ideally be sexual defenders. We should be open, honest, completely accepting of everything involving fully consenting adults, up to and including the physically impossible. We should all be on some kind of sexual defenders list. spike From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Dec 30 03:37:17 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 20:37:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] revive thread with new and improved content In-Reply-To: <4D1BE222.1070704@aleph.se> References: <992812.79666.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001801cba604$9cdd4d20$d697e760$@att.net> <4D1BE222.1070704@aleph.se> Message-ID: Darren Greer wrote: I don't know one other gay transhumanist, though there must be others. Anders Sandberg replied: I guess I could use this opportunity to come out of the closet. >>> Anders, oh, wow! And here I thought you were a celibate/aesexual monk for technological progress, who was totally above the whole sexual desire/sexual orientation thing! lol : ) I thought I would share these two classic videos with you... http://s172.photobucket.com/albums/w31/Mike_Incognito/?action=view¤t=SNL-AdamSandlerChrisFarley-Schmitts.mp4&sort=ascending http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZPcGapl2dM&feature=related Anders, you a very bright fellow, and follow in the footsteps of other gifted gay intellectuals like Leonardo da Vinci and Alan Turing! But fortunately you live in a more understanding world than they ever did. My very best wishes to you, John From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Dec 30 03:45:03 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 22:45:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] intentional control lag as recreational device, was RE: simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <000901cba7c3$3030ffd0$9092ff70$@att.net> References: <000901cba7c3$3030ffd0$9092ff70$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:45 PM, spike wrote: > But I am still stuck on that notion of lead lag compensation with analog > wetware, oh my. Isn't this what a baby goes through before we finally declare that it has achieved "motor control"? Perhaps the infant brain is still getting used to the signal propagation delays going all the way down biochemical pathways to reach things like hands and feet then waiting for the return signals to sense such distant parts. I think the feedback from babies is also similar to the feedback from your drunk drivers (just as pleasant too). You know they* have wired rat-like robots directly to rat brains - and the "analog wetware" rat brain drives the robot around the maze as one would expect a rat-robot to act. My guess would be that even variable delay could be compensated for if it was monitored by the brains in question. I would like to see if there is any way to network them together: sort of distributed super-rat-brain. Could different ideal topologies form if the nodes in the cluster were able to reorganize for each task? I guess it doesn't matter if they're rat brains or Borg, it's the same idea really. *they = the people who do this kind of thing, aka "them" and "those people" [1] http://www.google.com/#q=rat+robot From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Dec 30 04:02:37 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 21:02:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] H.P. Lovecraft inspired MythosCon coming up soon! Message-ID: The Lovecraftian MythosCon convention is going to start January 6th of 2011, in Tempe Arizona. I invite everyone to attend and enjoy the company of many Mythos writers, artists and fans! A good friend of mine, Adam Nieswander, is the founder and president of this event, which will be dedicated to the writings of H.P. Lovecraft and his compatriots. https://mythoscon.org/Home_Page.html I just wanted to be sure everyone knew about it... If I were a rich man I would offer anyone who wanted it, free registration, hotel rooms, meals, and transportation, but such is not my station in life! lol John : ) From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Dec 30 05:13:00 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 00:13:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <4D1BD7D2.5030403@aleph.se> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4D1BD7D2.5030403@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Dec 29, 2010, at 7:52 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > A third possibility that I hold moderately likely is that they are here, but mostly quiescent. The First Ones laid claim to all of the galaxy, putting little von Neumann flags on everything. They are not using up resources due to long-term considerations (they will be worth so much more in a trillion years) Right now virtually all photons of electromagnetic energy created in the universe are radiated uselessly away into infinite space, that's not very good evidence of a cosmic civilization deeply concerned with the conservation of resources. If they were thinking really long term they'd convert much of the mass in the universe into brains and the remaining mass into the smallest red dwarf stars that can still produce fusion, with Dyson spheres constructed around them to power the computers. But I have a more general point, sacrificing now in order to obtain a hypothetical benefit in a trillion years seems a bit much to me, especially when those enormously powerful minds would work much faster than ours, thus subjectively time would pass much more slowly for it than it does for us. Changing your current policy on the basis of what you think will happen in a trillion years doesn't even strike me as being very smart; your prediction could very well be wrong and even if it isn't a Jupiter Brain would have no better idea what its capabilities will be like in a trillion years than we know what our capabilities will be like in a trillion years. John K Clark > http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2010/10/visions_of_the_future_in_milano.html > > > -- > Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford University > _______________________________________________ > 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 sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 30 11:15:48 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 03:15:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <4D1BD7B5.3020402@aleph.se> References: <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> <004101cba6cd$57012370$05036a50$@att.net> <4D1BD7B5.3020402@aleph.se> Message-ID: <7A1F7094-16F8-4026-8633-012B5541F73D@mac.com> On Dec 29, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2010-12-28 21:25, spike wrote: >>> ...5a) Cackle maniacally. Mandatory, if you believe Hollywood. ;)... >> >> There are two schools of thought on this. There is the old standard >> Muwaaa{ha}^5 crowd, and those who insist on the more guttural and evil >> sounding mirthful interjection starting with Buuwaa. > > I am firmly in the Muwaaa{ha}^5 group. My colleagues at FHI have learned to fear when my laughter echoes down the hall... > > (Nick: "Anders, have you come up with *another* WMD?! We are supposed to *save* mankind.") > >>> ...7) At some point, teleoperation just won't cut it, and you'll want to >> have an on-site crew... Adrian >> >> I must disagree on this, or perhaps modify it thus: teleoperation will >> continue to work, ever improving in fact, but we may argue the whole point >> of the entire exercise is to move meat to the remote site. It isn't >> *necessary* so much as it is the *goal*, an end point, even if technically >> pointless, like sporting events and so much human activity. We just do it >> because... well, we don't know why, but we still do it anyway. > > But can teleoperation become so good that it reduces the instrumental interest in moving a mind to the moon? Not as long as we are limited by the speed of light in signal propagation. Locality of mind/intelligence will be important as long as we are so limited. You can't teleoperate well enough for many operations to do work in GEO from earth much less on the moon. The light speed barrier also means that there will be many many AGIs when they are developed (and are cheap enough to produce and replicate) rather than only one. > > The obvious problem is lag. But if the teleoperation is more about directing fairly autonomous systems, then that might be fine. Many human-computer interaction tricks also seem to be able to hide lags, getting the full human perceptual-motor abilities without too much annoyance. > More autonomous systems are increasingly being deployed. Eventually it isn't teleoperation but more a matter of remote supervision. It would be good for space robotics to not model their motor abilities after humans. We were not evolved for work in space and thus do not exhibit an optimal design. > Given the transport problems over the last year (due to an overstretched infrastructure and too much institutional risk aversion) I have made the following "probable surprise": more transport system crashes will occur due to fairly normal fluctuations, and together with expanding IT infrastructure more and more people will be fine with at least social telepresence. I have been expecting telework and telecommuting to be bigger than they are for a very long time. It amazes me that hundreds of billion in production are wasted every year driving to jobs that can be done as well remotely. Not to mention the energy costs and risk to life and limb. But we chimps have to go to some location where a more or less alpha chimp can keep an eye on us and where we can send all the chimp signals on the evolution habituated channels. > Whether that can be carried over to useful telework remains to be seen. > It certainly can. A large part of IBMs workforce is now remote. We have to learn to do this anyway as many we could benefit by working with are not close enough to meet physically except a few times a year at most. > Maybe the future belongs to crowdsourcing things: the moonbase gets built by a Farmville-clone where millions of Facebook users play a game of construction for fabulous badges! (This is in fact the current plot in my Eclipse Phase rpg campaign) Those that haven't read it may enjoy "This is not a game" by Walter Jon Williams. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 30 11:23:58 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 03:23:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <001601cba6bb$90dda0d0$b298e270$@att.net> References: <4B03B7C5-DA61-4FF5-BD52-83AE793B0B45@bellsouth.net> <100C7486-6DE2-4839-9E0D-123311F068B0@mac.com> <001601cba6bb$90dda0d0$b298e270$@att.net> Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2010, at 10:18 AM, spike wrote: > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > ? > > >May I ask why we are wasting mental energy talking about something there is no demonstrable need for instead of deploying the same energy on things that are of great concern and/or need? How rational are we? How rational do we actually decide to be? ? Samantha > > > Ja and another question that comes up repeatedly is: what if we do something to actively combat global warming, then the next winter there is a killing freeze somewhere, as there is always, every single winter and always has been. But now those doing the SO2 pumping, or any other *action* are liable for the damage, and all unintended consequences. But by historical precedent, passiveness ordinarily doesn?t result in legal liability: if our failing to burn sufficient carbon fuels to create global warming results in a killing freeze somewhere, it isn?t our fault. > > I can easily imagine that line of reasoning killing any and every attempt at any active solution to global warming. > Worse of all, there is no significant GW problem to solve in the first place. So we use all this speculative, scientific and actual engineering talent and time. I am pretty sure that we only have a decade to resolve at least two of the main actual problems we currently face - cheap plentiful energy and obtaining sufficient resources. The big threat is major economic collapse of much of the developed world. That one I don't have much hope of solving in a way that doesn't involve hitting bottom at possibly fatal velocity. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 30 11:46:41 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 03:46:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <20101228190048.GI16518@leitl.org> References: <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> <20101228190048.GI16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:00:52AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: >>> >>> It is quite obvious that once terrestrial photovoltaics >>> deployment will run into high 10% there *will* be SPS >>> constellations (built in situ from lunar material), >>> and soon also telecommunication, computing, >>> storage, quite literally becoming the cloud of nodes in >>> Earth-Moon system (most of us should be able to see >>> the beginning of this), and soon elsewhere. >> >> That is not at all obvious. > > If we don't do that, we won't amount > to more than a footnote in universe's > history. Sure. Someday. But not first to attempt to gain cheap and plentiful enough energy to keep our technological momentum up. We need that long before we are capable of deploying SPS systems in GEO and/or on the moon. > >> The reason is that we don't have the robotics > > I don't think it's a hard problem these days. > There have been a number of past bootstrap > plans, see http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM.htm > Lets see. 4000 - 20000 metric tons of panels, concentrators, antennae and so on for an SPS. Assuming you can get it out of the gravity well (or mine and manufacture in near earth space) then there is a huge need for workers / devices of some kind to assemble and maintain all that lot in GEO or on the moon. We don't have anywhere near that many astronauts and do not field them for space walks in GEO on an extended basis in any case (much harsher radiation danger than LEO). So having humans do it is not going to cut it, not in the next decade or two at least. >> or huge (and expendable) human astronaut population > > Space suits don't really work, so why not use > teleoperation? Even NASA has wisened up meanwhile > http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/default.asp You can't beyond a certain range for anything requiring relatively continuous adjustments. But you can run more nearly autonomous bots at greater distance. But we don't have hardly any construction bots fully proven out in space. Some of the attempts have had serious problems such as joints that freeze up if the power ever drops. > > And of course there's not much point in teleoperating > the robot from nearby pressurized vessel, if you could > leave the human at home. The Moon is close enough > for teleoperation, Not for a lot of teleoperated processes. If it is then why don't we have tele-operated rigs running all over it now? > and there's already the incentive > to augment remote control with (faster) local > reflexes. The degree of autonomy will only > increase from there. > >> to assemble and maintain such vast structures in space. > > The nodes themselves aren't particularly big. > About the biggest part is electromagnetic launchers, > which are strictly modular. > For an SPS in GEO the break even size is around 2 - 4 GWs. That is a very large space structure to assemble and maintain. >> Until and unless we have major space robotics > > Major space robotics starts with decent > Earth-side robotics. We have had some really > nice progress in the last couple decades. > Sure, although space robots have additional challenges. >> this will not remotely happen. I am very concerned >> in my focus with how exactly we get from the nitty >> gritty "here" to any sort of of interesting and fun >> to fantasize about "there". Show me the path, especially > > See http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM.htm > and the NASA ISRU (in situ resource utilization) > program. > Molecular assembler? Fine. But Drexler, Merkle, and Frietas seem to be predicting no less than three decades to get to machine phase. I don't think we can wait that long to exploit near-earth space. > At this point, it's largely a question of budget. > There's a second Moon race of sorts on, Japan, > India and China (and Europe) being the main participants. > Personally I think the moon is the wrong target for doing near earth space infrastructure. There is more variety of useful and lucrative material in near earth asteroids more easy to get to. No problem with doing both but I think the bounty of near earth asteroids is very seriously overlooked. >> how you are going to create the ability to mine, >> process, assemble and maintain all this infrastructure >> and in what steps. > > The basic idea of ISRU is to reduce mass transfer. > It's pretty obvious that you don't need to fabricate > control logic locally, and for e.g. PV panel production > the silicon (or other materials) can initially be > transported from Earth. At $2000 - $10000 / kg? > We know there's a lot of > volatiles at the pole(s), which is incidentally > one of the few places in the Solar system where > ancient crater cryotraps sit right next to the > peak of eternal sunlight. There are a lot of volatiles in your average near earth asteroid and a lot cheaper to extract. Volatiles for delta V to move the lot (or the extracted materials you wish) to where it is needed. > > So that looks like the best place to start. > > The bootstrap won't be completely scripted, > since there will be always surprises, improvisations > and optimisations. > We don't have the means to do this yet, principally we don't have cheap enough launch or the assembler/maintainers in space or on the moon. They can't be human in a timely manner in the quantity needed. Thus, robots - much better robots. More than a few humans are too expensive and difficult to maintain in space or on the moon until substantial infrastructure is already in place. - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 30 11:49:35 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:49:35 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 02:31:03PM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: > >Which is why we cannot compute the probability for the emergence > of life as long as we don't have access to causally unentangled > data points< > > Of course that makes sense. And of course we can't know. But whenever I > truly think about or hear being listed potential outcomes in > singularity-type discussions, like cosmic engineering and interstellar > travel and immortality and other large-scale events that would make any > sapient being sit up and take notice that something really seems to be > happening in that section of the galaxy, I start to consider John's first Any darwinian system would be expansive. Any darwinian system with started with interstellar travel capability will select for fastest expansion over kiloyears, kilolightyears, megayears and megalightyears of cosmic substrate. As each such emergence will be out of control, it will be almost impossible to recall. Not only would you have to outrace quite relativistic travelers already departed, you would not know where exactly every single one of the travelers are headed. You could attempt to blanket out everything in as large radius as possible by sending out subsequent waves of ever-improving relativistic interceptors (as a small fraction of c will tend to add up over large distances, especially if you're not limited to single-star hops due to advances in propulsion (=braking very light highly relativistic craft). Pretty soon, each expansive culture would expand riding hard just behind its lightcone, reckoned from when expansion started. This means that observability (just before one half of the sky turns FIR-dark) and the first pioneers land is very short. As such expansion wavefronts will be observer-emergence-preventing (because observers need suitable planets), and likely sub-expansive-observer-extinguishing (no harsh feelings, I hope), they would be very difficult to observe due the anthropic principle. The best way to observe one would be to be the nucleus. > possibility. In the broad strokes. Why isn't there some evidence elsewhere > -- Von Neumann probes, as Avante said, or radio signals? If a singularity is von Neumann probes are people, or at least hardy pioneers. You don't have much time to observe them, before the sun goes out and the blue rain starts. As to radio signals, why sending them? It's an old-fashioned way to communicate (you'd use photons, or relativistic pellet streams, literal information packets, with each stellar system intercepting them being the router). It would be also easier to drop by in person. > inevitable, and even if it isn't and just desirable for some > technologically-inclined species, shouldn't such goings on be apparent to us > if it has happened elsewhere? Especially if it has happened frequently? > > I mentioned Robert Charles Wilson's novel Spin the other day in a post. Have > you read that? In it, Von Neumann machines sent out from advancing > civilizations all over the universe have "teamed up" and formed a vast cloud > AI that then begin to interfere in the affairs of their makers. In Isamov's The pioneers are not selected for smarts, just expansiveness. I do not think these can be recalled, each time, every time, for above reasons. There will be successor wave species, just as there are biological species successors which colonize new volcanic islands. However, the pioneers would do sufficient turf transformation by virtue of needing a fair fraction of stellar output to send out new pioneers. > Foundation Trilogy and Herbert's Dune, human beings are the progentitors of > cosmic engineering and the first technologically-proficient species to Science fiction is typically a poor predictor, given that its only fitness function is saleability. Anything forecasting too far, and comprehensibility would be lost. Imagine explaining 4chan /b/tards to Geofrey Chaucer. > emerge in the universe. What I was saying, I guess, as ridiculous as the > last sounds, it seems more probable than the first to me. Because the only > evidence we have seems to support that. Or at least supports that there > seems to be no evidence of a large-scale singularity and superior > machine-based civilization elsewhere that is suddenly messing around in the It seems that a sufficiently low nucleation density and anthropic principle unobservability would explain Fermi's paradox quite nicely. > universe dramatically enough for others to notice. A third possibility is > that other civilzations are advancing at roughly the same rate as we are, Extremely unlikely, as metallicity varies widely over stellar system population. And planets do seem common as dirt, so no delayed synchronous hatching. > and are on the verge of their own explosions into the universe around them > but still struggling with biological imperatives and resultant limitations. > A fourth is that even very advanced civilizations are limited by vast > distances and lack of resources so that they barely make a dent in the > universe around them, no matter how smart or powerfully they can engineer > themselves. As soon as you can self-replicate using sunlight and carbonaceous chondrite, each patch of the universe looks exactly the same. Population pressure alone would cause you to colonize adjacent patches, iterate. It's how the pioneer waves start. > There may be a million other possibilities, none of which I am smart enough > to come up with. Carl Sagan came up with a number of reasons in Contact why > there could be advanced species capable of revealing itself to us via its > technology but chose not to, but everyone of them was based on human ethical > standards. I've found most of Sagan's unreasonable. It's a nice yarn, and seem to motivate people to look into the skies, which by itself is a major accomplishment. > Surely we'd be able to recognize the technology of a post-singularity > civilization before we'd recognize their ethical motivations? Anything much above Kardashev I would be impossible to miss. Anyone who proposes self-limitations of a darwinian system should probably have a good mechanism how the system stops being darwinian, and ceases to be out of control. Every time. > I'm pretty new at this, and just trying to understand. So I may be covering > very old ground here, but this thought has been troubling me for many years. > Since I was a kid in fact. It's been troubling Fermi and Hart in 1950, and I presume some of the later cosmists must have also put two and two together. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 30 11:57:24 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 03:57:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] kill thread In-Reply-To: References: <992812.79666.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001801cba604$9cdd4d20$d697e760$@att.net> Message-ID: <13C02AA7-39E1-4D99-993A-423CFF9C30E9@mac.com> On Dec 28, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Darren Greer wrote: > John wrote: > > >Spike, I think there is a need for a book titled "The Transhumanist's > Guide to Picking Up Women!" < > > Must I be a voice for gender and sexual orientation equality? Either it be The Transhumanist's Guide for Picking Up" with a section for men, one for women and one with same-sex advice in that area. Or three separate books. Tracts or pamphlets might do actually. Though in fact, regarding the last one, I don't know one other gay transhumanist, though there must be others. I know scads of gay male transhumanists. Unfortunately not so many lesbian transhumanists. The much commented male-female ratio hear-abouts combined with normal sexual orientation distribution says there are some but not that many. Of course since many of us are hyper geeks whose head can be turned by all matter of technological, scientific and just plain nerdy faire, it is easy to forget to make oneself available or present or known to person of appropriate to one's desires/needs/worldview persons who are also open to a sexual/romantic relationship. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 30 12:15:38 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 04:15:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <005e01cba2d7$3fa8da50$befa8ef0$@att.net> <006701cba2f2$31cf0fb0$956d2f10$@att.net> <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> Show me the path, especially how you are going to create the ability to mine, process, assemble and maintain all this infrastructure and in what steps. > > This is why I've been examining a certain asteroid mining plan: > > 0) Come up with good estimates of the costs for steps 1-4, and obtain > investment to cover them. > > 1) Find high-platinum-and-related-metals asteroid, massing several kilotons. > (This is likely doable, at least to a good enough degree of certainty, with > already-deployed telescopes. For all I know, someone may have done such > a survey, but I've not been able to find the results if so.) > > 2) Move said asteroid into very high (possibly L4/L5) Earth orbit. (Gravity tug > and solar sail would probably be the way to go for most of the trip, though you > might want a backup engine - especially at the end, to make sure the asteroid > stays parked where you want it.) Arguably much easier to mine it in place. Nets (for traction) scrapers/collectors, concentrated solar (ad hoc solar furnace) for processing heat, magnetics. Quite a bit can be separated into more or less tied groups such as volatiles, various kinds of metals. Then transport the appropriate types of materials to the destinations that can best use them and/or further process and package them. You want a asteroid that is a mx of rare earths, precious metals, common structural metals and stone and volatiles. The mix is actually easier to work and profit from than a closer to pure metal asteroid would be. > > 2a) Make sure to have a good PR campaign ready, because at this point, > some people will protest that you'll inevitably make a dinosaur killer unless > politicians Do Something to stop you. They'll lie, of course, and can not be > reasoned with. Not moving the entire asteroid helps with this. But yeah. > (Among the likely fallacies: that throwing you in jail will > somehow make the asteroid immediately revert to its previous orbit.) > Marginalizing them with the truth may work well (lay out your intended plans > for the public to see - keep as few technical secrets as possible in > this regard), > as might detailed but lowbrow-friendly videos explaining how you know that the > asteroid will not hit the Earth. (Some may also protest that you're "claiming" > property in space in violation of international treaties. Believe it or not this is a "real" (although fake) issue. People actually think such nonsense. Or at any event, that everything out there belongs equally to everyone regardless of who went out and found a way to get it. > This is a moot point: > you're not selling it or putting financial interest in it until the > material gets down > to the ground, in step 4, and there is ample precedent for claiming meteorites > as private property after they land.) Don't land them or not most of them! Much of the volatiles and other materials are needed in space or on the moon. There eventual money making potential is much larger there. Send rare earths, precious metals and so on down to the surface to raise more money faster but keep much of the rest for building out near earth infrastructure. > > 3) Launch processing equipment that can be teleoperated (with fairly low lag > from being in very high orbit). If possible, have an ability to send > a crew if (or, > probably, when) needed. > (Solar smelters and simple centrifuges at first, > possibly with a few teleoperatable technician robots with tools and grippers as > a first resort if - or, again, when - something goes wrong. Definitely send bots along early. Start with lots of small relatively cheap probes to interesting looking asteroids. Pick a 1st target and send the bots and/or crew. Use the proceeds to fund several more. Rinse and repeat. > Try to avoid > complicated or heavy equipment for now: you won't get many shots to make it > work before step 4, and the heavier your gear, the fewer chances you can > afford.) > Scrapers, baggers, half mirrors for concentrating solar, magnetics, hydrogen oxygen rocket motors, perhaps ion-thrust motors. Packaging for insertion into earth return orbits of things you want to send back to earth. > 4) Harvest the platinum-and-related, and bring it down to Earth (essentially, > meteorites on planned trajectories, with crews on site to recover them > immediately after landing) for sale on Earth, to pay off the investment needed > to pull off steps 2 and 3 (and possibly 1). Don't count on any "from space" > price multiplier - but then, a metric kiloton of platinum by today's > prices sells > for over $60 billion. (The main cost here will probably be commission to the > salespeople. If they can get an extra billion dollars per kiloton, > they've earned > extra millions per kiloton they sell. The experience and aptitude needed to do > this well are significantly different than what's needed for the rest, so hiring > expertise is the way to go here.) Don't forget gold! > > 5) Wind up with mostly-iron "slag" and processing equipment, in very high > Earth orbit, and whatever proceeds from step 4 in excess of what was needed > to pay off the investors. > > 5a) Cackle maniacally. Mandatory, if you believe Hollywood. ;) > > 6) Use said infrastructure to build other stuff, for instance the > lunar mining and > manufacturing infrastructure to spam SPS. Probably repeat steps 1 through > 4 a few times for additional funding. Yep. > > 7) At some point, teleoperation just won't cut it, and you'll want to have an > on-site crew. By that point, you can have created the life support necessary > for such a thing. It will likely be akin to oil platforms at first - > crews on station > for a few weeks to a few months at a time - but eventually you can build up a > mining-town-like infrastructure, and expand from there. Except you don't have enough trained humans to do space walk work. So you might have the crew in the ship (or in a hollowed out part of an asteroid) for more low lag teleoperation and monitoring. - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 30 12:19:27 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:19:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101230121927.GL16518@leitl.org> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 07:23:19PM +0000, BillK wrote: > Eugen has said that may be because that they are just too far away for > us to see (outside our light-cone). That is certainly a possibility. No, we're outside of their light cone, counted after the expansion started. Imagine tomorrow you'll start seeing half of the night sky slowly (over the course of months to years) turning dark, and then suddenly there's serious mayhem across the entire solar system. Since we've been around for a while and relativistic expansion is very quick this means that nucleation density (of expansive species) is extremely low. Or, this is not air you're breathing. But that seems to fail the Occam's razor. And a bit difficult to validate, too. > I think the more likely possibility is, as Keith points out, that real > engineering is very hard. Bit-twiddling on computers is much, much > easier. What you see now is absolutely untypical. We've just started with our adolescence, and our capabilities and activities are extremely immature. > Even Eugene admits that there is a long road ahead, developing robotic Long road in terms of development, yes. Long road in terms of the wall clock, no. You might notice that I've been gearing up to do lot of hardware, networking, virtual environments and parallel (GPGPU) computing stuff lately. If I had the cash and space I'd be also doing rapid prototyping based tinkering, including microscale and below stuff. Access to such capabilities for single individuals and small groups is auspicious. > engineers, cheap entry to space, nano-tech, etc. before large space Current access to space is good enough, if your payload has a lot of magic. The longer you wait, the more magic it gets. > projects become feasible. > > My expectation is that humanity will have so much fun playing with > electronics, virtual reality, uploading, full-immersion entertainment, > etc. that the thought of going outside and getting your hands dirty > will come way down the list. When people can build stuff in virtual While this is true, there are subpopulations which are actively resisting to be neilpostmanized. Not everybody will fall into their navels, and won't be able to get out again. > reality almost instantaneously, why join a 20 year project of hard > work? Half your working life gone and all that fun missed out on. Most young people today (in the Old West, he hastened to add) have serious trouble entering the workplace, while the the first wave of baby boomers (mostly broke) will start landing next month. And will continue to the tune of 10 k/day, for every day for the next 19 years. It seems that most people won't be able to afford virtual soma. > If you can become a god quickly and easily in virtual reality, using > little more than your own resources, why struggle for years trying to Because primates need status displays to harry a honest cost. > drive giant projects involving thousands of people? You can't do the > real world space thing on your own. It takes nation-scale efforts to > build a space-faring civ. And nations won't do that without really, > really good reasons. Militarization of aerospace, arms race, need to tap extraterrestrial energy and material resources. Do you think it's a coincidence why everybody is suddenly targeting the Moon? > This is another way of saying that advanced civilizations lose > themselves in virtual reality. The attraction is too strong. The self-selection across population of inviduals and across populations of stellar systems makes probability of that very close to zero. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 30 12:36:46 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 04:36:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Dec 29, 2010, at 11:23 AM, BillK wrote: > 2010/12/29 Darren Greer wrote: > >> Surely we'd be able to recognize the technology of a post-singularity >> civilization before we'd recognize their ethical motivations? >> I'm pretty new at this, and just trying to understand. So I may be covering >> very old ground here, but this thought has been troubling me for many years. >> > > > You're correct. If there were gigantic engineering projects out there, > we would notice the effects. If they are close enough. If they are something we would recognize or even begin to believe might be engineered. > > Eugen has said that may be because that they are just too far away for > us to see (outside our light-cone). That is certainly a possibility. > > I think the more likely possibility is, as Keith points out, that real > engineering is very hard. Bit-twiddling on computers is much, much > easier. > I have a more chilling hypothesis that I hinted at earlier. It is very very difficult for an evolved technological species to survive to and through its singularity period. Its evolution has not wired it to make the changes necessary fast enough to survive the challenges thereof - as a rule. > Even Eugene admits that there is a long road ahead, developing robotic > engineers, cheap entry to space, nano-tech, etc. before large space > projects become feasible. > Given good enough space robotics you don't need MNT to exploit the inner solar system well and have a good start on the rest. > My expectation is that humanity will have so much fun playing with > electronics, virtual reality, uploading, full-immersion entertainment, > etc. that the thought of going outside and getting your hands dirty > will come way down the list. Wait a second. Much of the future work will be done in virtual worlds, VR, augmented reality. It is not all escapism or entertainment. Many of us hope to live in a virtual world much richer than the physical world. We "get our hands dirty" , i.e., do very useful real value production, in virtual as well as physical spaces. > When people can build stuff in virtual > reality almost instantaneously, why join a 20 year project of hard > work? Half your working life gone and all that fun missed out on. > ROFL. Have you ever done any 3D building? Instantaneous really does not describe it. > If you can become a god quickly and easily in virtual reality, using > little more than your own resources, why struggle for years trying to > drive giant projects involving thousands of people? Uh, because you can't. Being a make believe god with no real interesting abilities except as total fantasy is not satisfying. Now, if I can run a million times faster inside an upload space then I have a crack at being more godlike. It takes real work, in physical space, design space, virtual spaces, to get the ability to exist in such a state. I don't see why there is some physical versus virtual (loosely speaking) dichotomy to be worried about. > You can't do the > real world space thing on your own. It takes nation-scale efforts to > build a space-faring civ. And nations won't do that without really, > really good reasons. Actually, this is less true than many think. Not exactly on your own but private enterprises most certainly can get many aspects of space exploitation moving. They are beginning to do so. Private enterprise and research will build out robotics. Private launches may well put up the first packages. Public/private probe programs pinpoint the best near earth asteroid and/or lunar targets. There are many enabling technologies that do not take national resources to develop. How much could you do if you had, say, 10 million people all contributing an average of $100/month to be spread among related projects? > > This is another way of saying that advanced civilizations lose > themselves in virtual reality. The attraction is too strong. > I doubt it very much. But I may be an outlier. I think such an argument may hinge on a false dichotomy. - samantha From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 30 13:15:52 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:15:52 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Any darwinian system would be expansive. Any darwinian system with > started with interstellar travel capability will select for fastest > expansion over kiloyears, kilolightyears, megayears and megalightyears > of cosmic substrate. > > Pretty soon, each expansive culture would expand riding hard > just behind its lightcone, reckoned from when expansion started. This means > that observability (just before one half of the sky turns FIR-dark) > and the first pioneers land is very short. That is the crucial point. I see all advanced civilizations as *non-darwinian*. Darwinian is evolution by reproduction of the fittest (for the currently applicable niche) and non-reproduction (and dying out) of the weakest. Advanced cultures *choose*. Ref. the dropping below replacement birthrate of first world nations at present. So population pressure doesn't exist for advanced civs. You reply, 'But it only takes one advanced culture to sweep through the galaxy! They can't *all* decide to stay home'. I reply, 'Yes they can. That's what being an advanced culture means'. The obvious reply to your view of cultures sweeping through the galaxy is Fermi's old question 'Where are they?'. Much of the universe is way older than our young star. You have to fall back on either: 1) They are on the way and might arrive in 2012, or, 2) They are already here and we don't notice them. Unfortunately, both options have no supporting evidence. There is obviously still much room for discussion for the exact path that our culture (and all advancing cultures) might take. The crunch point that stops a culture from sweeping through the galaxy might well be different for every culture. I suspect that there are many possible terminators, depending on which branch of the development tree the culture chooses. And, not one, but a series of possible terminators for each development path. As Samantha suggests the fear is that no culture survives its singularity. Not to be wholly pessimistic, I don't use 'terminator' in the sense of the culture species dying out. Though that might happen in some cases. I mean to use it in the sense of development ceasing, or moving into non-physical paths. So the culture might 'terminate' in a scenario of such happiness for the whole population that nobody wants to change much, or leave their home base. For example, if your culture is living in a substrate that enables processing a million times faster than reality, then for all practical purposes, the real world freezes to a standstill. So interacting with the real world ceases. That is just one example. You can probably think of many other possibilities. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 30 13:41:36 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:41:36 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: References: <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> <20101228190048.GI16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101230134136.GM16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 03:46:41AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Sure. Someday. But not first to attempt to gain cheap > and plentiful enough energy to keep our technological I mentioned the threshold to SPS to be PV contribution to total at high multiple 10% across industrialized nations. Right now Germany barely managed 2%, peaking at 20% in rare days. I doubt the exponential trend can keep up, since there are no scaling laws to help you. Even if you can ink up km^2, you still have to put them up, wire them up to the grid and/or buffer the power. > momentum up. We need that long before we are capable > of deploying SPS systems in GEO and/or on the moon. I agree. How quickly the need arises depends on ability to transport energy over long distances (high-voltage DC, hydrogen pipeline) or buffer them. Supercaps might make a difference, but you'll probably need large-scale cheap electrochemical energy sources. Availability of either in time frame required is not guaranteed. > > > >> The reason is that we don't have the robotics > > > > I don't think it's a hard problem these days. > > There have been a number of past bootstrap > > plans, see http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM.htm > > > > Lets see. 4000 - 20000 metric tons of panels, > concentrators, antennae and so on for an SPS. In general you would want to use um-thin layers of photosynthetic material (probably also doubling as solar sais), and with phased-array microwave radiators (capable of realtime beamforming to track groundside rectenna arrays with smooth handover) integrated into the bottom of same array. The difficulty would be in fabricating these and assembling them into packages which can be launched via linear motor (with some rocket assist), and can be aerobraked. You would be probably easier to fabricate metal and semiconductor-grade silicon ingots and insert them into suitable Earth orbits, to be processed there. > Assuming you can get it out of the gravity well Out of the lunar gravity well. Dropping them into the Earth well is much easier, with aerobraking. > (or mine and manufacture in near earth space) That might make sense, since making very large extremely thin panels might require microgravity. > then there is a huge need for workers / devices Teleoperation. Even easier in LEO. > of some kind to assemble and maintain all that > lot in GEO or on the moon. We don't have GEO is too far. > anywhere near that many astronauts and do not field Monkeys will stay on the ground. Teleoperation platform can be handed over 24/7/365 for groundside crews. > them for space walks in GEO on an extended basis > in any case (much harsher radiation danger than LEO). > So having humans do it is not going to cut it, not > in the next decade or two at least. I think space monkeys is going to become an even rarer species with each coming decade. > >> or huge (and expendable) human astronaut population > > > > Space suits don't really work, so why not use > > teleoperation? Even NASA has wisened up meanwhile > > http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/default.asp > > You can't beyond a certain range for anything requiring > relatively continuous adjustments. But you can run more Yes, which is why I keep harping about the next rock from here. 2.5 pingpong times are still doable with trained operators, but they also give you incentives to install local reflexes into the teleoperated system, turning the human operator increasingly into a planner, and the remote system as a (pretty dumb) executor of a plan. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Speed_of_light_from_Earth_to_Moon.gif > nearly autonomous bots at greater distance. But we don't > have hardly any construction bots fully proven out in space. > Some of the attempts have had serious problems such as > joints that freeze up if the power ever drops. The problems with UHV are pretty much fixed (though of course you have to design for that). Working in abrasive dust environments, with electrostatic charging, and also in cryogenic, very cold environments (<90 K in polar lunar craters) will pose some challenges. > > > > And of course there's not much point in teleoperating > > the robot from nearby pressurized vessel, if you could > > leave the human at home. The Moon is close enough > > for teleoperation, > > Not for a lot of teleoperated processes. There are not a lot of teleoperated processes on this planet. There are very few humans hurtling through the thermosphere, with very little time spent outside. They're still using robotics arms and you'll notice that the R2 will become a permanent resident on ISS. > If it is then why don't we have tele-operated rigs > running all over it now? Because we no longer can go to the Moon. You would first need to expand DTN-capable Internet networks to lunar orbit (there are experimental Cisco boxes in LEO already), and be able to soft-land instruments and robotics platforms. > For an SPS in GEO GEO is too far. And already too crowded. > the break even size is around 2 - 4 GWs. I have not seen an EROEI calculation for a lunar launch, but any self-rep system with a closure over unity is the ultimate free lunch. > That is a very large space structure to > assemble and maintain. You would want as many small (>100 m) platforms as possible in as low an orbit as possible. You need 2-3 of them permanently in line of sight for a smooth handover. You'll need hundreds to thousands of these. You would also use them to kill GPS, Iridium, and satellite Internet providers. Later, cloud services. And so on. > Sure, although space robots have additional challenges. Definitely. > Molecular assembler? Fine. But Drexler, Merkle, > and Frietas seem to be predicting no less than > three decades to get to machine phase. I don't > think we can wait that long to exploit near-earth space. I see you haven't read the link. The full-text online book is a literature review of self-replicators in general, including space-based manufacturing. > > At this point, it's largely a question of budget. > > There's a second Moon race of sorts on, Japan, > > India and China (and Europe) being the main participants. > > > > Personally I think the moon is the wrong target for > doing near earth space infrastructure. There is more > variety of useful and lucrative material in near earth Material transport is to be avoided, initially. Material trasport to Earth will never amount to much, in my opinion. There is an incentive to move heavy industry and associated contamination outside of Earth's ecosystem, and only deploy prefabricated and fabricated components. Also, if we are at that point, the human era is shortly over, anyway. You'll notice that the ecosystem itself does little matter transport, prefering to utilize materials in situ. The nearest (2.5 s relativistic pingpoing) rock is the Moon. It doesn't have microgravity, which is an advantage if you're learning the ropes. After you've got nearly autonomous system and experience in microgravity manufacturing, the whole solar system is yours. > asteroids more easy to get to. No problem with doing > both but I think the bounty of near earth asteroids > is very seriously overlooked. I used to think that the asteroids were the way to go. However, the Moon is the gateway. > >> how you are going to create the ability to mine, > >> process, assemble and maintain all this infrastructure > >> and in what steps. > > > > The basic idea of ISRU is to reduce mass transfer. > > It's pretty obvious that you don't need to fabricate > > control logic locally, and for e.g. PV panel production > > the silicon (or other materials) can initially be > > transported from Earth. > > At $2000 - $10000 / kg? Thin-film CdTe is some 10 g/m^2. So a ~kg buys you around 100 m^2 of solar panels, if sputtered on regolith glass. If you're bootstrapping power plant capacity to power your manufacturing capacity, any kg less reduces your bootstrap costs. I'm assuming >100 kg packages semi-soft-landed (300 g would do) on lunar surface. > > We know there's a lot of > > volatiles at the pole(s), which is incidentally > > one of the few places in the Solar system where > > ancient crater cryotraps sit right next to the > > peak of eternal sunlight. > > There are a lot of volatiles in your average near Well, there's a lot of hydrocarbons on Titan. > earth asteroid and a lot cheaper to extract. We know it will be very cheap to extract, microwave heating and condensing in adjacent polar cryotrap will do. > Volatiles for delta V to move the lot (or the > extracted materials you wish) to where it is needed. We need volates for wet industrial processes (e.g. electrolysis and hydrogen for oxide reduction, and such) and maybe some oxygen/hydrogen to make it to Earth's atmosphere. > > > > So that looks like the best place to start. > > > > The bootstrap won't be completely scripted, > > since there will be always surprises, improvisations > > and optimisations. > > > > We don't have the means to do this yet, If we wait much longer, we'll never will. > principally we don't have cheap enough > launch or the assembler/maintainers in Chemical rockets to make it to LEO and plasma thrusters to make it to low lunar orbit are all we're going to get. So your only other variable to minimize the total number of tranfers, and mass trasfered. That is a function of telecommunication, computation, and minaturization. All of this can be done down here. But for 1/6th g you can simulate the Moon environment in lunar simulators, at a tiny fraction of costs it would have cost you to test-drive your gear under real conditions. > space or on the moon. They can't be > human in a timely manner in the quantity There's no need for humans on the Moon for the foreseeable time, if ever. I do not think there will be permanently manned presence outside of the inner solar system (Moon and Mars). You want to go to the stars, you have to lose this mansuit. > needed. Thus, robots - much better robots. > More than a few humans are too expensive > and difficult to maintain in space or > on the moon until substantial infrastructure > is already in place. Yes, robots. And then, robots which are people. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 30 14:00:41 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:00:41 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101230140041.GN16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 01:15:52PM +0000, BillK wrote: > I see all advanced civilizations as *non-darwinian*. It is not sufficient to postulate something, you need to show how the system population 1) strips the darwinian regime (you're soaking in it) 2) sustainably 3) every time. > Darwinian is evolution by reproduction of the fittest (for the > currently applicable niche) and non-reproduction (and dying out) of > the weakest. Any self-replicating system in this universe is limited-resource, and imperfectly replicating. This means Darwin is the default. > Advanced cultures *choose*. In sexual selection the partners choose. It is still a Darwinian system. > Ref. the dropping below replacement birthrate of first world nations at present. Ah, but you're looking at total birth rate, and not birth rate of subpopulations. http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2010-December/008311.html > So population pressure doesn't exist for advanced civs. Yes, it does. > You reply, 'But it only takes one advanced culture to sweep through > the galaxy! They can't *all* decide to stay home'. I reply, 'Yes they I would be actually making a statistical argument. > can. That's what being an advanced culture means'. This is another argument by assertion. Please show me a mechanism by which a system that is out of control will stop to be out of control. > The obvious reply to your view of cultures sweeping through the galaxy > is Fermi's old question 'Where are they?'. Much of the universe is way I believe I keep mentioning why Fermi's paradoxon isn't about twice or thrice per year. > older than our young star. > You have to fall back on either: > 1) They are on the way and might arrive in 2012, or We're outside of their lightcone. > 2) They are already here and we don't notice them. Does not work for darwinian systems. > Unfortunately, both options have no supporting evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Herr Ockham sez: I will cut you. > There is obviously still much room for discussion for the exact path > that our culture (and all advancing cultures) might take. The crunch > point that stops a culture from sweeping through the galaxy might well > be different for every culture. I suspect that there are many possible > terminators, depending on which branch of the development tree the > culture chooses. And, not one, but a series of possible terminators > for each development path. The terminating factors are already selected away with the expansivity. We currently cannot detect nonexpansive cultures (which would be limited to single planets, and hence short-lived), so we don't look for them. > As Samantha suggests the fear is that no culture survives its singularity. Not every time. As soon as sustainable self-rep is out of a particular gravity well the cat is irreversibly, irrecallably out of the bag. This is why we're not stuck at autocatalytic set. And moved beyond Africa. > Not to be wholly pessimistic, I don't use 'terminator' in the sense of > the culture species dying out. Though that might happen in some cases. > I mean to use it in the sense of development ceasing, or moving into > non-physical paths. So the culture might 'terminate' in a scenario of According to what we know there are no non-physical paths. Every computation is embodied. > such happiness for the whole population that nobody wants to change > much, or leave their home base. Which is why we've remained in Africa. > For example, if your culture is living in a substrate that enables > processing a million times faster than reality, then for all practical > purposes, the real world freezes to a standstill. So interacting with > the real world ceases. The opposite. You're at a constant population pressure, because your organisms can reproduce in ~ms, while your substrate base doubles in ~hour range. The result is an exponential runaway, until reaching the steady state (the limits given by amounts of atoms and Joules available). > That is just one example. You can probably think of many other possibilities. The problem will all these examples (you should consider that I've spent considerable time thinking about this) do not hold water. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 30 14:31:33 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:31:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <7A1F7094-16F8-4026-8633-012B5541F73D@mac.com> References: <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> <004101cba6cd$57012370$05036a50$@att.net> <4D1BD7B5.3020402@aleph.se> <7A1F7094-16F8-4026-8633-012B5541F73D@mac.com> Message-ID: <20101230143133.GO16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 03:15:48AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > But can teleoperation become so good that it reduces the instrumental interest in moving a mind to the moon? > > Not as long as we are limited by the speed of light in signal Teleoperation is a crutch. It allows slow meat that can't travel (because it's expensive, or dangerous) to operate remotely. In case of fast minds (10^6 to 10^9 speedup to current wall clock) the relativistic latency limits teleoperation (or telepresence, as in avatars) to very short distances. > propagation. Locality of mind/intelligence will be important > as long as we are so limited. You can't teleoperate well Importance of locality will increase as the systems get more advanced. > enough for many operations to do work in GEO from earth much It's good enough to precision kill people halfway around the world. > less on the moon. The light speed barrier also means that > there will be many many AGIs when they are developed (and are > cheap enough to produce and replicate) rather than only one. Precisely. In a relativistic universe with difference in local state there cannot be a single acting agents, as each local instances will bifurcate. Instead of synchronized monoclone you wind up with a population with a locally different response, to locally diverging physical layer input. > More autonomous systems are increasingly being deployed. > Eventually it isn't teleoperation but more a matter of remote supervision. In order to walk you must first learn to crawl. > It would be good for space robotics to not model their motor > abilities after humans. We were not evolved for work in space > and thus do not exhibit an optimal design. The main reason current aerospace teleoperation platforms are anthropomorphic is because they have to be operated by people, and share infrastructure which was designed by people for people. > > Given the transport problems over the last year (due to an overstretched infrastructure and too much institutional risk aversion) I have made the following "probable surprise": more transport system crashes will occur due to fairly normal fluctuations, and together with expanding IT infrastructure more and more people will be fine with at least social telepresence. > > I have been expecting telework and telecommuting to be > bigger than they are for a very long time. It amazes While I realize why we're not seeing more of that it appears that few people realize the reasons, orelse the problems would have been addressed already. Instead, we're getting semi-random advances, where random advances (e.g. simulated environments, avatars and motion capture trackers) result in sudden improvements. > me that hundreds of billion in production are wasted > every year driving to jobs that can be done as well > remotely. Not to mention the energy costs and risk > to life and limb. But we chimps have to go to some > location where a more or less alpha chimp can keep > an eye on us and where we can send all the chimp > signals on the evolution habituated channels. Precisely. > > Whether that can be carried over to useful telework remains to be seen. > > It certainly can. A large part of IBMs workforce is now remote. > We have to learn to do this anyway as many we could benefit by > working with are not close enough to meet physically except a > few times a year at most. There are still many parts in the technology puzzle missing before telepresence and teleoperation becomes the rule. Some of it is infrastucture. You need reliable, low latency broadband wireless everywhere, and rental platforms (even docked quadcopters with remote video would be a start) with good coverage. Apart from insurability, recharging infrastructure, low-overhead payment, there is also handicaps like navigability (Segways do poorly on stairs), and the like. The list is endless, and you need all of this before the culture accepting it ever can take hold. > Those that haven't read it may enjoy "This is not a game" > by Walter Jon Williams. Right to my wishlist. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Dec 30 15:05:11 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:05:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <802FFB57-BE0C-4A7A-B381-8BCD5E9A71FF@bellsouth.net> On Dec 30, 2010, at 8:15 AM, BillK wrote: > I see all advanced civilizations as *non-darwinian*. ALL civilizations, advanced or otherwise, evolve in a Lamarckian not a Darwinian way, that's why the biological process that created Human Beings is now of trivial importance to their future. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Dec 30 16:03:33 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 08:03:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <20101230121927.GL16518@leitl.org> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230121927.GL16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <002b01cba83b$1c9d2a70$55d77f50$@att.net> ... Current access to space is good enough, if your payload has a lot of magic. The longer you wait, the more magic it gets....--Eugen* Leitl As a spacecraft controls guy I am reluctant to admit it, but this comment is really right on, the conclusion I eventually reached with much kicking and screaming over 20 yrs ago. I was new to the field right when the Challenger exploded in 1986. We really looked at the numbers that the space shuttle was making at the time, and most of us concluded that system had not the potential to be a game changer. We did calcs on heavy lifters for the next several years. I and others concluded by around 1989 that all the real potential was in miniaturization and vastly increased sophistication of payloads. That is perhaps why the K. Eric's book Engines of Creation had such an impact on me, and why I became Mister Nanotech at the aerospace weight engineers conferences. Regarding content of the list, EXCELLENT, thanks all. ExI-chat has been the most worthwhile I have seen in a long time. I really enjoyed reading it recently, many thanks to all who are posting smart and relevant material, the space science, futurism, energy, the technology, the sex stuff, all of it. spike From anders at aleph.se Thu Dec 30 16:33:21 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:33:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4D1BD7D2.5030403@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4D1CB451.8000608@aleph.se> John Clark wrote: > > Right now virtually all photons of electromagnetic energy created in > the universe are radiated uselessly away into infinite space, that's > not very good evidence of a cosmic civilization deeply concerned with > the conservation of resources. If they were thinking really long term > they'd convert much of the mass in the universe into brains and the > remaining mass into the smallest red dwarf stars that can still > produce fusion, with Dyson spheres constructed around them to power > the computers. This was my previous position too, and it furnished a pretty good argument that there were either no aliens about, or they had "transcended our plane of existence". However, in a discussion with Milan Circovic I realized that letting stars shine only lose you ~1% of their mass-energy. If you are really advanced and long-term, you will burn the matter in black holes achieving ~50% efficiency in a very cold future where every Joule is worth many more bits. So if stopping stars takes a significant effort (which seems likely, you have to star lift them and then redistribute sizeable chunks of matter), then it might not be worth it. I guess I should do a proper economic analysis of this. But it seems that if you have a huge time horizon then the current waste might not matter much, unless it least to a lot of lost gas. The reason to wait is the Brillouin inequality: you get 1/kTln(2) bits of information out of a Joule of energy, so if you wait until the universe is twice as cold you get twice as much computation. Eventually (if current cosmological models are right) the temperature will reach a steady level of ~10^-19 K due to de Sitter horizon radiation and there is no point in waiting any more. But that means matter gets 10^19 times more valuable if you wait! It seems likely that Jupiter brains will have a pretty good theory of the universe after a mere million years or so. It is not clear to me that there is any reason to think that they will get a huge physics surprise if they spend another billion years on the problem. Instead they might decide to spend their calculations on whatever they consider valuable and not just instrumentally useful. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Dec 30 17:43:00 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:43:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Solving the real problem, energy was cure for global warming Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: (context of lots of PV on the earth) > Sure. Someday. ?But not first to attempt to gain cheap and plentiful enough energy to keep our technological momentum up. ?We need that long before we are capable of deploying SPS systems in GEO and/or on the moon. I spent three years hunting for a solution and I think it could be done with only relatively small advances over current technology. snip > Lets see. ?4000 - 20000 metric tons of panels, concentrators, antennae and so on for an SPS. Very close. The current estimates have an 85 to one range from 5 kg/kW (Dr. Phil Chapman, me) to 1/17th of a kg/kW (Solaren). Taking the heavy end, that's 5 t per MW or 5000 t per GW. For optical reasons, 5 GW is about the lower limit, so 25,000 tons per. > Assuming you can get it out of the gravity well (or mine and manufacture in near earth space) then there is a huge need for workers / devices of some kind to assemble and maintain all that lot in GEO or on the moon. ?We don't have anywhere near that many astronauts and do not field them for space walks in GEO on an extended basis in any case (much harsher radiation danger than LEO). ? So having humans do it is not going to cut it, not in the next decade or two at least. You train them up. It's not that hard and you need around a thousand of them. There is no need for the construction of the vast majority of the things to be particularly complicated. The really complicated pieces come up from earth. One way I have looked at is making the structural beams out of coils of thin metal and spot welding the connections. At the speed you expect from a roll former (material comes out at a fast walk) it only takes a few of them to meet a 200 GW per year construction rate. snip > You can't beyond a certain range for anything requiring relatively continuous adjustments. ?But you can run more nearly autonomous bots at greater distance. ?But we don't have hardly any construction bots fully proven out in space. ?Some of the attempts have had serious problems such as joints that freeze up if the power ever drops. I am not against construction bots. But as you point out, they are not proven. And supporting people in such an environment is *cheap*. 1000 people, 10 kg/day supplies, 10 tons. That's in the context of 2500 tons per day of parts coming up. snip > Personally I think the moon is the wrong target for doing near earth space infrastructure. ?There is more variety of useful and lucrative material in near earth asteroids more easy to get to. ? ?No problem with doing both but I think the bounty of near earth asteroids is very seriously overlooked. I agree. A processing plant to convert asteroid metal to useful stuff like coils of thin Invar sheet might mass 50,000 tons for a production rate of 1000 t per day. That gives a mass payback of 50 days. snip > At $2000 - $10000 / kg? For power satellites to really contribute to solving the energy problem, the cost to GEO has to get down to $100/kg. Since relatively high efficiency laser diodes have come along, I make a case it is possible. But there may be less expensive ways (such as StratoSolar) to solve the problem that don't involve the expense of building a low cost method to get into space. Keith From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 30 17:58:10 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:58:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <4D1CB451.8000608@aleph.se> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4D1BD7D2.5030403@aleph.se> <4D1CB451.8000608@aleph.se> Message-ID: <20101230175810.GQ16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote: > This was my previous position too, and it furnished a pretty good > argument that there were either no aliens about, or they had > "transcended our plane of existence". However, in a discussion with > Milan Circovic I realized that letting stars shine only lose you ~1% of > their mass-energy. If you are really advanced and long-term, you will > burn the matter in black holes achieving ~50% efficiency in a very cold The question is how much long-term planning an out-of-control culture can at all do. Also, you have a current situation where the star dumps ~MT/s into the cosmic microwave background, and there is about enough matter present in our solar system to make full use of it. It's a problem of use it, or lose it. It's a bit like current PV system operators have, which are producing surplus. If you can't store, or sell it, you can as well use it, even in a bit of an extravagant fashion. And clearly if you're clocking 10^6..10^9 seconds each second there's a lot of unreal estate for an effective eternity, world without end, etc. available. So we're the wasteful species, because we let it all go to waste, because we can't use it up yet. So the universe out there doesn't make at all sense, unless it's really empty, and up for taking, or it's all cage #9. > future where every Joule is worth many more bits. So if stopping stars > takes a significant effort (which seems likely, you have to star lift > them and then redistribute sizeable chunks of matter), then it might not > be worth it. It's not obvious how you would contain the volatiles, once out of the gravitational well. > I guess I should do a proper economic analysis of this. But it seems > that if you have a huge time horizon then the current waste might not > matter much, unless it least to a lot of lost gas. > > The reason to wait is the Brillouin inequality: you get 1/kTln(2) bits > of information out of a Joule of energy, so if you wait until the > universe is twice as cold you get twice as much computation. Eventually Evolutionary systems are not much into delayed gratification. Arguably, they'll run into peak matter as soon as they figure out how to convert it to energy catalytically (I've thought microsingularities would be useful, but anything hot enough is small enough to produce enough photonic pressure to starve itself into further black (or, rather, bright) hole bulimia. > (if current cosmological models are right) the temperature will reach a > steady level of ~10^-19 K due to de Sitter horizon radiation and there > is no point in waiting any more. But that means matter gets 10^19 times > more valuable if you wait! > > It seems likely that Jupiter brains will have a pretty good theory of > the universe after a mere million years or so. It is not clear to me > that there is any reason to think that they will get a huge physics > surprise if they spend another billion years on the problem. Instead > they might decide to spend their calculations on whatever they consider > valuable and not just instrumentally useful. This ecosystem doesn't do particular calculations, so I don't see why a diverse postecosystem doesn't do the same, only a more of it, and a lot faster. It's not that the dominant species has a lot of leverage to change it, and they'd be probably ethically compelled not to, even if they could. Not that we're representative, or anything, but most people don't deliberately destroy stuff, even though they do wind up with it. I chalk it up to our immaturity, since we definitely can't continue that way, even if we would and could do it. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From anders at aleph.se Thu Dec 30 17:57:52 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:57:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] revive thread with new and improved content In-Reply-To: References: <992812.79666.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <001801cba604$9cdd4d20$d697e760$@att.net> <4D1BE222.1070704@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4D1CC820.3010400@aleph.se> John Grigg wrote: > Anders, oh, wow! And here I thought you were a celibate/aesexual monk > for technological progress, who was totally above the whole sexual > desire/sexual orientation thing! lol : ) > Well, for all *practical* purposes that is pretty close to reality. Oxford is like it is, and having one's boyfriend 1,500 km away also helps. :-) > Anders, you a very bright fellow, and follow in the footsteps of other > gifted gay intellectuals like Leonardo da Vinci and Alan Turing! But > fortunately you live in a more understanding world than they ever did. > I certainly hope so. This of course also brings up the interesting question whether the famous gay intellectuals were 1) noticed to be gay because they were famous, 2) had more time to become famous because of less family. If 2 is true, then we should see an even more asexuals being famous intellectuals. Thanks, everyone! -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From pharos at gmail.com Thu Dec 30 18:36:01 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:36:01 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <20101230175810.GQ16518@leitl.org> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4D1BD7D2.5030403@aleph.se> <4D1CB451.8000608@aleph.se> <20101230175810.GQ16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Not that we're representative, or anything, but most people don't > deliberately destroy stuff, even though they do wind up with it. > I chalk it up to our immaturity, since we definitely can't continue > that way, even if we would and could do it. > > *most* people doesn't cut it. It's all or nothing. Once very powerful tech becomes readily available, then the few (?) bad guys want and use it as well. It's a poor gamble that prophylactic measures get sufficiently powerful quickly enough. (Especially as so many humans are stupid enough to click on 'anything'). This is similar to your galaxy sweep argument. That is also all or nothing. We see nothing out there. Therefore all stay home. If there was anything out there, then it would be all over the galaxy by now. We're young in galaxy terms. BillK From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Dec 30 21:34:29 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:34:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <4D1CB451.8000608@aleph.se> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4D1BD7D2.5030403@aleph.se> <4D1CB451.8000608@aleph.se> Message-ID: <24BF286C-A097-474D-BBA1-AEDA92AE48A4@bellsouth.net> On Dec 30, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > letting stars shine only lose you ~1% of their mass-energy. If you are really advanced and long-term, you will burn the matter in black holes achieving ~50% efficiency in a very cold future where every Joule is worth many more bits. So if stopping stars takes a significant effort (which seems likely, you have to star lift them and then redistribute sizeable chunks of matter), then it might not be worth it. I don't see why harvesting photons now would prevent Jupiter Brains from making black holes in the very distant future if they wanted to, and yes living a trillion years would take a significant effort but I think it would be worth it and a jupiter brain might think so too. > it seems that if you have a huge time horizon then the current waste might not matter much, But Jupiter brains are smart and I don't think its smart to have a HUGE time horizon because if you look too far in the future you probably don't really understand the problem you're trying to solve and you most certainly won't know what new tools you will have in your toolkit by the time the problem becomes serious. It would be like the Wright brothers figuring out that air traffic control would someday be a problem and refusing to continue development of their first airplane until, totally ignorant of the existence of Radar, they found a solution. And I think even a Jupiter Brain would value a lollypop right now more than a lollypop in one hour, especially a Jupiter brain actually given how much slower time would pass for it due to its much faster mind. > you get 1/kTln(2) bits of information out of a Joule of energy, so if you wait until the universe is twice as cold you get twice as much computation. You may be able to perform more computations per unit of energy but wouldn't they be slower? It's subjective not objective time that would be the concern and the faster the mind the slower the time. > It seems likely that Jupiter brains will have a pretty good theory of the universe after a mere million years or so. A pretty good theory of the universe may not be good enough to accurately predict the future a trillion years from now, you'd need an ultimate theory but it might be like the layers of a infinite onion and there may not be an ultimate theory of physics; but even if there is such a theory and even if the Jupiter Brains know it they will almost certainly not be able to PROVE it is the ultimate theory, they can never be certain that something unexpected won't come up in a trillion years telling them they should wait another hundred thousand million billion trillion years before they try to do anything. It's like the man who ends up never buying a computer because he figures he can buy a better one for less money in just a few months. I know that Freeman Dyson wrote a paper on life enduring indefinitely in the universe, but that was before it was discovered that the universe is not only expanding but accelerating; it would be rather embarrassing if a major new fact like that cropped up making hash of your careful plans and showing that a trillion years of living in poverty was pointless. Besides, having a good physical theory is only half of what you need to make predictions, you also need to know initial conditions. > It is not clear to me that there is any reason to think that they will get a huge physics surprise if they spend another billion years on the problem. Even if they know exactly what the universe will be like in a trillion years they won't know what they themselves will be like then. Problems that seem of cosmic importance now may have trivial solutions by then and its the problem we cannot now even conceive of much less answer that will be the cause of big trouble. Before I committed myself to a trillion years of sacrifice I'd want to be damn sure it was worth it, and with all these uncertainties I don't see how you could be. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Dec 30 22:24:02 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:24:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Only Two Days Left to Help Foresight Meet Our Challenge Grant! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Christine Peterson Date: Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:18 PM Subject: Only Two Days Left to Help Foresight Meet Our Challenge Grant! To: kanzure at gmail.com Dear Foresight Enthusiasts, This Friday marks the end of 2010, and the beginning of an exciting new year at Foresight! As you may have read, we have some ambitious *goals for next year*, which include: - Our 25th Year Anniversary Reunion - Technical Conference: Fostering Integrative Nanotechnology - Our Annual Feynman Prizes in Nanotechnology - Further developing and promoting the Nanotechnology Roadmap - Community Vision Weekends and Lecture Nights for inspiring technology enthusiasts - New Educational Outreach Programs for 2011! *But to achieve these programs, Foresight needs your help. * And this December's $30,000 Challenge Grant is a great way to double your contribution to the future of nanotechnology. To hit our goal, *we must raise at least $13,500 between now and January first.* *To make a difference today, please donate!* Send in your check, dated by Dec 31 to the address below, or donate online at: http://www.foresight.org/challenge We are excited about our coming year. We hope you are, too! Come help us create the future. For a better world, Christine Peterson President peterson at foresight.org 650-289-0860 ext 255 Desiree D. Dudley Director of Development & Outreach desiree at foresight.org 650-289-0860 ext 254 Foresight Institute PO Box 61058 Palo Alto, CA 94306 USA http://www.foresight.org main: 650-289-0860 fax: 650-289-0863 *Make transformative nanotechnology a reality!* Donate today at: http://www.foresight.org/challenge To be removed from ALL Foresight group email lists, click here . -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 30 22:26:31 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:26:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <05457B03-B9AB-4585-B407-01AA6796DA39@mac.com> On Dec 30, 2010, at 3:49 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 02:31:03PM -0400, Darren Greer wrote: >>> Which is why we cannot compute the probability for the emergence >> of life as long as we don't have access to causally unentangled >> data points< >> >> Of course that makes sense. And of course we can't know. But whenever I >> truly think about or hear being listed potential outcomes in >> singularity-type discussions, like cosmic engineering and interstellar >> travel and immortality and other large-scale events that would make any >> sapient being sit up and take notice that something really seems to be >> happening in that section of the galaxy, I start to consider John's first > > Any darwinian system would be expansive. Any darwinian system with > started with interstellar travel capability will select for fastest > expansion over kiloyears, kilolightyears, megayears and megalightyears > of cosmic substrate. Why should a civilization that can redesign most any aspect of itself and its surroundings remain darwinian? Such a civ may have things to do that it considers more interesting than endlessly expanding in space. It is not terribly likely that another species in full expansionist mode would have better enough technology to be a serious threat. - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Thu Dec 30 22:39:47 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:39:47 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <05457B03-B9AB-4585-B407-01AA6796DA39@mac.com> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <05457B03-B9AB-4585-B407-01AA6796DA39@mac.com> Message-ID: <20101230223947.GW16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 02:26:31PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Why should a civilization that can redesign most > any aspect of itself and its surroundings remain Because they're legion. And collectively, they have no choice at all. Why are you not a billionaire, and not funding your own space ventures? In theory, that option is open to anyone. In practice, the dice fall decides. > darwinian? Such a civ may have things to do that > it considers more interesting than endlessly expanding Those, who chose to do that, remain at home. They'll never get out, and change the face of the universe. Only the other ones matter. > in space. It is not terribly likely that another > species in full expansionist mode would have better The expansionists are only a "problem" if you're not yet there (so you never come into being) or you're not yet expansive. The latter is unlikely, and is just tough luck. The pioneers don't know you're there, and they're likely too dumb to do much about it, even if they knew. > enough technology to be a serious threat. When the pioneer wavefronts clash, they're no danger to each other. Even in the successor waves the variation is high enough that there's no difference between the native and the alien. It's pretty much the same thing. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Dec 30 22:54:28 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:54:28 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> On 12/30/2010 7:15 AM, BillK wrote: > For example, if your culture is living in a substrate that enables > processing a million times faster than reality, then for all practical > purposes, the real world freezes to a standstill. So interacting with > the real world ceases. > > That is just one example. But it's the obvious one (especially if it's true). Even at c, traveling for 4 million years to get to the *nearest* star system is ridiculous. Yes, maybe you get updates and upgrades from home, but the fine cut&thrust is missing. So the cosmos is physically explored only by antisocial psychopaths? Oh dear. Damien Broderick From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Thu Dec 30 22:48:35 2010 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:48:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] Solving the real problem, energy was cure for global warming In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <190125.54406.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Samantha wrote "Assuming you can get it out of the gravity well (or mine and manufacture in near earth space) then there is a huge need for workers / devices of some kind to assemble and maintain all that lot in GEO or on the moon. We don't have anywhere near that many astronauts and do not field them for space walks in GEO on an extended basis in any case (much harsher radiation danger than LEO). So having humans do it is not going to cut it, not in the next decade or two at least." Keith wrote "You train them up. It's not that hard and you need around a thousand of them. There is no need for the construction of the vast majority of the things to be particularly complicated. The really complicated pieces come up from earth." . May I suggest a source for our would be space-constructors? The oil industry. The North Sea oil industry employs thousands of deep-sea divers who work under dangerous conditions of temperature and pressure and in a buoyancy environment far removed from everyday experience (a lot like astronauts), are used to long suiting up/ depressurising times, and work in the most dangerous job for which reliable statistics exist. (Yes, I know theoretically military test pilots and formula 1 drivers have riskier jobs, but there are so few people in them the statistical sample size is very small). There is a ready pool of people here willing to train hard at physical skills and work in conditions of great deprivation in exchange for cold, hard cash and lots of shore leave. In fact, big oil shows us the way for a lot of things - the teleoperated vehicles on the seabed as seen with the deepwater oil spill off Texas show us what is cutting-edge for teleops; long lead times and huge financing costs are nothing new to them (look at the billions it costs to develop an oil field and the many years it takes, combined with the huge prospecting risk in the first place); getting tax breaks for extraction of valuable minerals and for R&D. The big energy companies show us how the mega-projects we can envision are just about handle-able with today's organisations and politics. Tom From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Dec 30 23:12:11 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:12:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <20101230134136.GM16518@leitl.org> References: <20101224112644.GH16518@leitl.org> <5C4D53C6-00A9-45BC-93D5-B5055D719E7A@bellsouth.net> <001e01cba472$b3ea60e0$1bbf22a0$@att.net> <002c01cba477$b1277e10$13767a30$@att.net> <000f01cba4b9$30e74900$92b5db00$@att.net> <20101228130001.GG16518@leitl.org> <7AF4033D-D954-48FF-865B-43815AF70B47@mac.com> <20101228190048.GI16518@leitl.org> <20101230134136.GM16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Dec 30, 2010, at 5:41 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 03:46:41AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> Sure. Someday. But not first to attempt to gain cheap >> and plentiful enough energy to keep our technological > > I mentioned the threshold to SPS to be PV contribution to total > at high multiple 10% across industrialized nations. Right now > Germany barely managed 2%, peaking at 20% in rare days. As you know, PV is not cost competitive generally speaking with other means of generating electricity today. Until it is it will not be rational to raise the percentage of all power that comes from solar very high. Remember that the wealth (in the sense of quality of life, options and ability to do things) of any population is directly dependent on per capital energy availability which in turn is dependent on the cost of that energy. > > I doubt the exponential trend can keep up, since there are > no scaling laws to help you. Even if you can ink up km^2, > you still have to put them up, wire them up to the grid > and/or buffer the power. > >> momentum up. We need that long before we are capable >> of deploying SPS systems in GEO and/or on the moon. > > I agree. How quickly the need arises depends on ability > to transport energy over long distances (high-voltage > DC, hydrogen pipeline) or buffer them. Supercaps might > make a difference, but you'll probably need large-scale > cheap electrochemical energy sources. Availability of > either in time frame required is not guaranteed. Miniature nuclear burry and forget plants help some too. The demand for energy is increasing and Peak Oil is real. Unless we want much hotter energy wars and massive economic consequences than we now experience we must replace oil and its derivatives especially as the primary means of motive (transportation) power. Make the transportation grid more expensive and a lot of our civilization and trade patterns begin to fall apart. > >>> >>>> The reason is that we don't have the robotics >>> >>> I don't think it's a hard problem these days. >>> There have been a number of past bootstrap >>> plans, see http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM.htm >>> >> >> Lets see. 4000 - 20000 metric tons of panels, >> concentrators, antennae and so on for an SPS. > > In general you would want to use um-thin layers of > photosynthetic material (probably also doubling > as solar sais), and with phased-array microwave > radiators (capable of realtime beamforming to track > groundside rectenna arrays with smooth handover) > integrated into the bottom of same array. You can't us the thin and lightest options if they need to be rad hard for the GEO environment. > > The difficulty would be in fabricating these and > assembling them into packages which can be launched > via linear motor (with some rocket assist), and > can be aerobraked. > >From earth or moon? Linear motor from earth would likely be too heavy acceleration for such structures. > You would be probably easier to fabricate metal > and semiconductor-grade silicon ingots and insert > them into suitable Earth orbits, to be processed > there. > OK. Much more infrastructure required to be in space then, including partial fab plants it sounds like. > >> Assuming you can get it out of the gravity well > > Out of the lunar gravity well. Dropping them > into the Earth well is much easier, with > aerobraking. Which presumes significant infrastructure and advanced manufacturing on the moon which is at least a generation away currently. What is your favorite proposal for getting massive amounts of gear to the moon? Ocean based nuclear gun, Orion? > >> (or mine and manufacture in near earth space) > > That might make sense, since making very large > extremely thin panels might require microgravity. > >> then there is a huge need for workers / devices > > Teleoperation. Even easier in LEO. SPS will be in GEO, not LEO. Mining earth asteroids is deep space work. Lower delta V to exploit them than trips to/from the moon but longer travel times for most of them. > >> of some kind to assemble and maintain all that >> lot in GEO or on the moon. We don't have > > GEO is too far. GEO is essential for SBSP beamed to earth. > >> anywhere near that many astronauts and do not field > > Monkeys will stay on the ground. Teleoperation > platform can be handed over 24/7/365 for > groundside crews. Again, not fast enough for space operations we do today. And we don't have the teleop tools to operate in that environment either. If we did then space walks to fix various gear or pulling along side with a manned shuttle and robotic arm would be unnecessary. > >> them for space walks in GEO on an extended basis >> in any case (much harsher radiation danger than LEO). >> So having humans do it is not going to cut it, not >> in the next decade or two at least. > > I think space monkeys is going to become an even > rarer species with each coming decade. Yeah, IFF we develop the autonomous and self propelled (for some varieties) space robotics. > >>>> or huge (and expendable) human astronaut population >>> >>> Space suits don't really work, so why not use >>> teleoperation? Even NASA has wisened up meanwhile >>> http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/default.asp >> >> You can't beyond a certain range for anything requiring >> relatively continuous adjustments. But you can run more > > Yes, which is why I keep harping about the next rock > from here. 2.5 pingpong times are still doable with > trained operators, but they also give you incentives > to install local reflexes into the teleoperated system, > turning the human operator increasingly into a planner, > and the remote system as a (pretty dumb) executor of > a plan. > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Speed_of_light_from_Earth_to_Moon.gif > >> nearly autonomous bots at greater distance. But we don't >> have hardly any construction bots fully proven out in space. >> Some of the attempts have had serious problems such as >> joints that freeze up if the power ever drops. > > The problems with UHV are pretty much fixed (though of > course you have to design for that). Working in abrasive > dust environments, with electrostatic charging, and also > in cryogenic, very cold environments (<90 K in polar > lunar craters) will pose some challenges. > >>> >>> And of course there's not much point in teleoperating >>> the robot from nearby pressurized vessel, if you could >>> leave the human at home. The Moon is close enough >>> for teleoperation, >> >> Not for a lot of teleoperated processes. > > There are not a lot of teleoperated processes > on this planet. There are very few humans hurtling > through the thermosphere, with very little time > spent outside. They're still using robotics arms > and you'll notice that the R2 will become a permanent > resident on ISS. Yes and they accomplish very very little. Replacing a few parts becomes a newsworthy event. Sad, isn't it? Robonaut is flawed. Too great an attempt to use the same human tools when having humans do such work was suboptimal in the first place. > >> If it is then why don't we have tele-operated rigs >> running all over it now? > > Because we no longer can go to the Moon. You would first > need to expand DTN-capable Internet networks to lunar > orbit (there are experimental Cisco boxes in LEO already), > and be able to soft-land instruments and robotics platforms. > >> For an SPS in GEO > > GEO is too far. And already too crowded. It is a very large volume and not nearly as crowded as LEO. > >> the break even size is around 2 - 4 GWs. > > I have not seen an EROEI calculation for a > lunar launch, but any self-rep system with a > closure over unity is the ultimate free lunch. Self-rep? Dreamer. :) > >> That is a very large space structure to >> assemble and maintain. > > You would want as many small (>100 m) platforms > as possible in as low an orbit as possible. > You need 2-3 of them permanently in line of sight > for a smooth handover. You'll need hundreds to > thousands of these. You are station keeping these how? At what altitude? Hundreds of thousands of such objects are not a navigational space hazard to from earth surface why? > > You would also use them to kill GPS, Iridium, > and satellite Internet providers. Later, cloud > services. And so on. > Are there some design specs for such that address all the issues? Iridium and others have tried for such approaches to a subset of the problems without much success. How would this be different? > >> Molecular assembler? Fine. But Drexler, Merkle, >> and Frietas seem to be predicting no less than >> three decades to get to machine phase. I don't >> think we can wait that long to exploit near-earth space. > > I see you haven't read the link. The full-text online > book is a literature review of self-replicators in general, > including space-based manufacturing. It is speculative future stuff requiring many steps we do not have now and will not have for at least a couple of decades according to some of the same authors. If you found something different in the paper where such things can be built in this decade then please point them out. My quick scan did not find them. > >>> At this point, it's largely a question of budget. >>> There's a second Moon race of sorts on, Japan, >>> India and China (and Europe) being the main participants. >>> >> >> Personally I think the moon is the wrong target for >> doing near earth space infrastructure. There is more >> variety of useful and lucrative material in near earth > > Material transport is to be avoided, initially. > Material trasport to Earth will never amount to much, > in my opinion. There is an incentive to move heavy > industry and associated contamination outside of > Earth's ecosystem, and only deploy prefabricated > and fabricated components. Also, if we are at that > point, the human era is shortly over, anyway. > You'll notice that the ecosystem itself does little > matter transport, prefering to utilize materials > in situ. The point though is where you get the material and delta V to build out space infrastructure. This is more easily accessible in shorter term from mining near earth asteroids. > > The nearest (2.5 s relativistic pingpoing) rock is > the Moon. It doesn't have microgravity, which is an > advantage if you're learning the ropes. > Relativistic ping pong is not the best/only way to measure "near" in terms of exploitable characteristics. > After you've got nearly autonomous system and experience > in microgravity manufacturing, the whole solar system > is yours. > >> asteroids more easy to get to. No problem with doing >> both but I think the bounty of near earth asteroids >> is very seriously overlooked. > > I used to think that the asteroids were the way to go. > However, the Moon is the gateway. > Why? And why not use the asteroids as step one to rich inner system space infrastructure before or at least in parallel with exploiting the moon? Heavy metals are not known to be all that available on the moon. Neither are as easily reachable volatiles. I don't think it is an either or but I think it would be very irrational to not exploit the near earth asteroids. >>>> how you are going to create the ability to mine, >>>> process, assemble and maintain all this infrastructure >>>> and in what steps. >>> >>> The basic idea of ISRU is to reduce mass transfer. >>> It's pretty obvious that you don't need to fabricate >>> control logic locally, and for e.g. PV panel production >>> the silicon (or other materials) can initially be >>> transported from Earth. >> >> At $2000 - $10000 / kg? > > Thin-film CdTe is some 10 g/m^2. So a ~kg buys > you around 100 m^2 of solar panels, if sputtered > on regolith glass. If you're bootstrapping > power plant capacity to power your manufacturing > capacity, any kg less reduces your bootstrap costs. > > I'm assuming >100 kg packages semi-soft-landed > (300 g would do) on lunar surface. > >>> We know there's a lot of >>> volatiles at the pole(s), which is incidentally >>> one of the few places in the Solar system where >>> ancient crater cryotraps sit right next to the >>> peak of eternal sunlight. >> >> There are a lot of volatiles in your average near > > Well, there's a lot of hydrocarbons on Titan. > >> earth asteroid and a lot cheaper to extract. > > We know it will be very cheap to extract, microwave > heating and condensing in adjacent polar cryotrap > will do. Lunar makeup does not include as high concentration of many useful resources as the asteroids. High concentration makes for cheaper per ton extraction / refining. > >> Volatiles for delta V to move the lot (or the >> extracted materials you wish) to where it is needed. > > We need volates for wet industrial processes (e.g. > electrolysis and hydrogen for oxide reduction, > and such) and maybe some oxygen/hydrogen to > make it to Earth's atmosphere. > You need volatiles for delta V to do significant inners system space infrastructure and travel. >>> >>> So that looks like the best place to start. >>> >>> The bootstrap won't be completely scripted, >>> since there will be always surprises, improvisations >>> and optimisations. >>> >> >> We don't have the means to do this yet, > > If we wait much longer, we'll never will. We cant' go faster than we have the means to do so. What are the missing pieces? Can we lay them out and set up web and literature crawlers to note when each (or suitable substitutes) comes online? Do we have or can we find mission experts to create at least plausible skeleton plans? I am less concerned with expanding beyond the solar system dreams than with realizable R&D and workable engineering/capitalization plans from where we are right now. Yes, let us dream big but also ground these dreams in actionable steps. > >> principally we don't have cheap enough >> launch or the assembler/maintainers in > > Chemical rockets to make it to LEO and > plasma thrusters to make it to low lunar > orbit are all we're going to get. There are non-rocket means that may be plausible and cheaper. LEO is not the place of primary interest, it is only a transfer point if we are after building out near earth and lunar infrastructure. It is great for some projects effecting earth only but not for much more as I see it. > > So your only other variable to minimize > the total number of tranfers, and mass > trasfered. That is a function of > telecommunication, computation, and > minaturization. Yes. > > All of this can be done down here. > But for 1/6th g you can simulate the Moon > environment in lunar simulators, at a tiny > fraction of costs it would have cost you to > test-drive your gear under real conditions. > I don't want to be stuck in a 1/6 G gravity well any more than in a full G for very long. >> space or on the moon. They can't be >> human in a timely manner in the quantity > > There's no need for humans on the Moon for > the foreseeable time, if ever. I do not > think there will be permanently manned > presence outside of the inner solar system > (Moon and Mars). > Moon, Mars, space colonies. If you have ample materials in near-earth space then building habitats and manufacturing centers in the LaGrange points becomes tractable. > You want to go to the stars, you have > to lose this mansuit. > >> needed. Thus, robots - much better robots. >> More than a few humans are too expensive >> and difficult to maintain in space or >> on the moon until substantial infrastructure >> is already in place. > > Yes, robots. And then, robots which are > people. - samantha From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Dec 30 23:18:32 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:18:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Spacecraft (was MM) Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:24 PM, "spike" wrote: snip (I think some people, no names, are exhibiting delusion of grandeur.) > As a spacecraft controls guy I am reluctant to admit it, but this comment is > really right on, the conclusion I eventually reached with much kicking and > screaming over 20 yrs ago. And 20 years ago, that was the right conclusion. Now we have a path, even if it kind of expensive, to 9+km/sec exhaust velocity. That means mass ratio 3 rockets to LEO and even better LEO to GEO. snip > Regarding content of the list, EXCELLENT, thanks all. ?ExI-chat has been the > most worthwhile I have seen in a long time. ?I really enjoyed reading it > recently, many thanks to all who are posting smart and relevant material, > the space science, futurism, energy, the technology, the sex stuff, all of > it. Some of it seems a bit over the top, especially for people who are not signed up for cryonics. Keith From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 31 01:02:14 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:02:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001801cba886$5d31cd20$17956760$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... >...But it's the obvious one (especially if it's true). Even at c, traveling for 4 million years to get to the *nearest* star system is ridiculous. Yes, maybe you get updates and upgrades from home, but the fine cut&thrust is missing. So the cosmos is physically explored only by antisocial psychopaths? Oh dear...Damien Broderick Point taken, but it is about 4 yrs to the next star at c, 4 million with good chemical rocket tech. Travelling to the next star will indeed be a lonely endeavor in any case. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 31 02:36:02 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:36:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <001801cba886$5d31cd20$17956760$@att.net> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> <001801cba886$5d31cd20$17956760$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D1D4192.2000700@satx.rr.com> On 12/30/2010 7:02 PM, spike wrote: > Point taken, but it is about 4 yrs to the next star at c, 4 million with > good chemical rocket tech. Oy, wake up there in the back! Since these hypersmart things will be running a million times faster than us, subjectively a 4 year trip to Rigil Kent will take 4 million human-rate years. Oh, all right, less than that near c because of dilatation. But who can afford to travel near c? And who is prepared to take the risk of brain ablation, even with multiple redundancy? Damien Broderick From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 31 03:20:17 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:20:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Book: "The Immortality Edge" Message-ID: Any opinions about this book? http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-immortality-edge-realize-the-secrets-of-your-telomeres-for-a-longer-healthier-life John From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 31 03:31:45 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:31:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Japan nano-tech team creates palladium-like alloy Message-ID: An exciting development in terms of breaking off expensive dependencies with foreign nations... http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-japan-nano-tech-team-palladium-like-alloy.html John From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 31 03:26:42 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:26:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Researchers have found a parallel computing algorithm that could offer quantum computer-speed performance Message-ID: I was curious what the computer professionals here thought of this new development... http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/esearchers-have-found-parallel.html John From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 31 03:35:03 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:35:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Scientists find evidence for 'chronesthesia, ' or mental time travel Message-ID: An excerpt from the article: The ability to remember the past and imagine the future can significantly affect a person's decisions in life. Scientists refer to the brain?s ability to think about the past, present, and future as "chronesthesia," or mental time travel, although little is known about which parts of the brain are responsible for these conscious experiences. In a new study, researchers have used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the neural correlates of mental time travel and better understand the nature of the mental time in which the metaphorical "travel" occurs. >> http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-chronesthesia-mental.html From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 31 03:51:04 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:51:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <4D1D4192.2000700@satx.rr.com> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> <001801cba886$5d31cd20$17956760$@att.net> <4D1D4192.2000700@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001cba89d$f344b810$d9ce2830$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Damien Broderick Subject: Re: [ExI] Meat v. Machine On 12/30/2010 7:02 PM, spike wrote: >> Point taken, but it is about 4 yrs to the next star at c, 4 million with good chemical rocket tech. >Oy, wake up there in the back! Since these hypersmart things will be running a million times faster than us, subjectively a 4 year trip to Rigil Kent will take 4 million human-rate years.... Oy, fully awake now thanks! {8^D >Oh, all right, less than that near c because of dilatation. But who can afford to travel near c?... Not I. If we get the whole uploading thing going, so many of these kinds of problems may become irrelevant. We perhaps could downscale the clock speed so it is working only one trillionth the speed it is capable of running, so the 4 million year trip would go by in an acceptable perceived 4 years? Or go down to a quadrillionth the top speed, so the 4 million year trip would feel like a trip from Australia to Texas on one of our Booeings? > And who is prepared to take the risk of brain ablation, even with multiple redundancy? Damien Broderick Ja, I have more calculation to do on that. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 31 05:53:30 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:53:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <000001cba89d$f344b810$d9ce2830$@att.net> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> <001801cba886$5d31cd20$17956760$@att.net> <4D1D4192.2000700@satx.rr.com> <000001cba89d$f344b810$d9ce2830$@att.net> Message-ID: <4D1D6FDA.4080807@satx.rr.com> On 12/30/2010 9:51 PM, spike wrote: > We perhaps could downscale the clock speed > so it is working only one trillionth the speed it is capable of running, so > the 4 million year trip would go by in an acceptable perceived 4 years? That's not the problem (there's thousands or millions of others with you in the star sliver), it's the isolation from the Borg back home, where all the good stuff is being done and you're out of touch by subjective millions-fold. Slowing yer clock down would make it worse. From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 31 06:14:06 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:14:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <4D1D6FDA.4080807@satx.rr.com> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> <001801cba886$5d31cd20$17956760$@att.net> <4D1D4192.2000700@satx.rr.com> <000001cba89d$f344b810$d9ce2830$@att.net> <4D1D6FDA.4080807@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000701cba8b1$eea13090$cbe391b0$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Damien Broderick Subject: Re: [ExI] Meat v. Machine On 12/30/2010 9:51 PM, spike wrote: >> We perhaps could downscale the clock speed so it is working only one >> trillionth the speed it is capable of running, so the 4 million year >> trip would go by in an acceptable perceived 4 years? >That's not the problem (there's thousands or millions of others with you in the star sliver), it's the isolation from the Borg back home, where all the >good stuff is being done and you're out of touch by subjective millions-fold. Slowing yer clock down would make it worse. Ja I see. We could be onto a good solution to the puzzle of why the first civilization to evolve apparently didn't fill the universe. Home is so much more interesting. There isn't a big return on the investment to send some of the thought potential outwards, even if it presents the possibility of colonizing another star system. It is possible that the information that is several years away is always insufficiently valuable to give away current processing capability. spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Dec 31 06:32:48 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 01:32:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming In-Reply-To: <001601cba6bb$90dda0d0$b298e270$@att.net> References: <4B03B7C5-DA61-4FF5-BD52-83AE793B0B45@bellsouth.net> <100C7486-6DE2-4839-9E0D-123311F068B0@mac.com> <001601cba6bb$90dda0d0$b298e270$@att.net> Message-ID: <0D41729B-F701-4B20-B997-F25F546614CE@bellsouth.net> On Dec 28, 2010, at 1:18 PM, spike wrote: > those doing the SO2 pumping, or any other *action* are liable for the damage, and all unintended consequences. I often hear this objection from opponents of geoengineering and it makes me doubt they really believe what they are preaching; if they really thought that global warming was an asteroid crashing into Chicxulub level catastrophe its not credible that they'd refuse to even consider a solution because of the mischief a bunch of ambulance chasers might cause. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 31 07:04:54 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:04:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <002b01cba83b$1c9d2a70$55d77f50$@att.net> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230121927.GL16518@leitl.org> <002b01cba83b$1c9d2a70$55d77f50$@att.net> Message-ID: <992B9886-F3CE-4D36-890F-3E2D5F3FA2BA@mac.com> On Dec 30, 2010, at 8:03 AM, spike wrote: > > ... > > Current access to space is good enough, if your payload has a lot of magic. > The longer you wait, the more magic it gets....--Eugen* Leitl > > > As a spacecraft controls guy I am reluctant to admit it, but this comment is > really right on, the conclusion I eventually reached with much kicking and > screaming over 20 yrs ago. I was new to the field right when the Challenger > exploded in 1986. We really looked at the numbers that the space shuttle > was making at the time, and most of us concluded that system had not the > potential to be a game changer. We did calcs on heavy lifters for the next > several years. I and others concluded by around 1989 that all the real > potential was in miniaturization and vastly increased sophistication of > payloads. That is perhaps why the K. Eric's book Engines of Creation had > such an impact on me, and why I became Mister Nanotech at the aerospace > weight engineers conferences Well now we don't have the heavy lifters we had before. Are you sure you believe that the current huge cost to orbit is good enough? I have rarely been so utterly amazed and had as much trouble believing a statement as that one. Hell, we still don't have much better than 80% success putting payloads into orbit. Why in the hell is this good enough? Again, we are three decades from machine phase. Are you sure we have that much time? - samantha From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 31 06:56:55 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:56:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality Message-ID: <768823.75244.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ben Zaiboc > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Sent: Sun, December 26, 2010 6:30:38 AM > Subject: Re: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality > > The Avantguardian wrote: > > > ?I just don't see the enlightened self-interest of uploading. > > So don't do it, then. I'll cross or burn that bridge when I get to it,?if I get to it. ? > > You don't get to live forever. Instead a bit-pattern that very quickly >diverges > > > away from you gets indefinite run time. > > That's not any closer to immortality than having kids or writing a book. > > Hmm. > > What is 'you' then? ? I am?the consensual illusion?that a ripple on a pond is distinct from other ripples and the pond itself.??? > You seem to assume that a bit-pattern is not sufficent to encompass all that >'you' are. I don't assume it. I theorize it. All?I have to assume is that QM is a valid description of the universe.? > Afaik, there are only two things that could possibly be 'you': atoms or >information. As far as you know. That is because you seek simple answers and?I am not simple.? > We know it's not atoms, because that can be experimentally demonstrated.? > So it must be information.? If you know of (or even suspect) a third >possibility, please tell us. On?the simplest?level of abstraction, I am the interaction of space-time, matter-energy, quantum information, and?classical information.?On other levels I am a collective of cells and ideas, a talking bipedal primate, or an asshole.?In the scope of your own head or your computer for that matter, you can?represent me?however you wish but reality is not obliged to conform. ? > > > If identity becomes too malleable somewhere along the line, > it becomes concomitantly meaningless. > > Now you're making a conceptual jump that I don't see any justification for.? > What makes it 'meaningless'?? We already know that identity is malleable. > I'm a different person to what I was just a few years ago.? I don't think my >identity is 'meaningless' at all! What makes it meaningful? That you experience it from within no matter how different your present?experience of self is?from your previous experiences of self??By definition, a copy, even a perfect one, would be?not be experienced by you from within. It would be experienced by a copy of you. Now I don't think the copy would be perfect.?But even if the copy was perfect, it would diverge away from you by lifetimes?spent within?an alien environment within?minutes of your time. ? And if you are alright with having an imperfect copy of you, then you should?be alright with your long lost twin brother showing up,?locking you in?the cellar, and assuming your identity. Or?cheating death by brainwashing someone else?into honestly believing they are you. ? > > And if one contends that identity is inherently meaningless, then what >precisely are you "preserving" with an upload? > > Identity is not inherently meaningless, but even if it were, an upload would >still? preserve it.? If it didn't, it wouldn't be an upload. Which parameters of you would be conserved by an upload of you after?the upload?starts evolving in virtual time? If it's little more than?a property like?file.name="Ben Zaiboc", then you're dead, Jim. ? > > Virtual environments differ from reality another way too. I offer without >proof... > > If you're going to offer things without proof, then anyone is justified in >dismissing them without proof! Call it a conjecture for the moment. I am working on a proof. Stuart LaForge "There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 31 07:20:22 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:20:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4D1BD7D2.5030403@aleph.se> <4D1CB451.8000608@aleph.se> <20101230175810.GQ16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Dec 30, 2010, at 10:36 AM, BillK wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >> Not that we're representative, or anything, but most people don't >> deliberately destroy stuff, even though they do wind up with it. >> I chalk it up to our immaturity, since we definitely can't continue >> that way, even if we would and could do it. >> >> > > > *most* people doesn't cut it. It's all or nothing. > > Once very powerful tech becomes readily available, then the few (?) > bad guys want and use it as well. It's a poor gamble that prophylactic > measures get sufficiently powerful quickly enough. > (Especially as so many humans are stupid enough to click on 'anything'). Do you want to live in a universal police state? Only such could guarantee absolutely no danger from random crazies. But the price is very high. You would need to add perfect enlightened watchers or believe in perfected FAI running it all. > > This is similar to your galaxy sweep argument. That is also all or nothing. > We see nothing out there. Therefore all stay home. If there was > anything out there, then it would be all over the galaxy by now. We're > young in galaxy terms. > This is still a huge assumption. It may well be that most of what is valued is more abundant closer to other beings in the advanced society rather than blasting out to the boonies. Since the argument has been made that the von Nuemann probes would diverge quickly from the parent civ then the parent civ may see no point in populating in all directions and thus creating possibly dangerously divergent civs that make sent probes back in their direction. But this is another of those distant questions that likely don't have much to do with whether we have a viable future or not. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 31 07:26:50 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:26:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <20101230223947.GW16518@leitl.org> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <05457B03-B9AB-4585-B407-01AA6796DA39@mac.com> <20101230223947.GW16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <29F5E453-8AEE-412A-8847-C6196A88E48D@mac.com> On Dec 30, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 02:26:31PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> Why should a civilization that can redesign most >> any aspect of itself and its surroundings remain > > Because they're legion. And collectively, they have > no choice at all. So you say. I don't see an airtight argument here. > > Why are you not a billionaire, and not funding your > own space ventures? In theory, that option is open > to anyone. In practice, the dice fall decides. > >> darwinian? Such a civ may have things to do that >> it considers more interesting than endlessly expanding > > Those, who chose to do that, remain at home. They'll > never get out, and change the face of the universe. > Only the other ones matter. Raw matter and energy acquisition may not be the highest value for such a civ. I don't know and I don't think you do either. > >> in space. It is not terribly likely that another >> species in full expansionist mode would have better > > The expansionists are only a "problem" if you're not > yet there (so you never come into being) or you're > not yet expansive. The latter is unlikely, and is > just tough luck. The pioneers don't know you're there, > and they're likely too dumb to do much about it, > even if they knew. > So I (an advanced civilization) send probes is all direction that are too dumb to even notice much less not wipe out any intelligence species that does not have defenses against them? Why wouldn't an existing more powerful civilization wipe out or seriously seek to stop such irresponsible and potentially criminal behavior? Is that kind of behavior what we expire too? I find such a view quite repulsive. >> enough technology to be a serious threat. > > When the pioneer wavefronts clash, they're no danger > to each other. Even in the successor waves the variation > is high enough that there's no difference between the > native and the alien. It's pretty much the same thing. I am not parsing that. How can dumb probes designed for maximum expansion not clash with things other than relatively dumb probes? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 31 07:30:10 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:30:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Spacecraft (was MM) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 30, 2010, at 3:18 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:24 PM, "spike" wrote: > > snip > > (I think some people, no names, are exhibiting delusion of grandeur.) > >> As a spacecraft controls guy I am reluctant to admit it, but this comment is >> really right on, the conclusion I eventually reached with much kicking and >> screaming over 20 yrs ago. > > And 20 years ago, that was the right conclusion. Now we have a path, > even if it kind of expensive, to 9+km/sec exhaust velocity. That > means mass ratio 3 rockets to LEO and even better LEO to GEO. I must have missed it. Please give details, links, etc. How expensive? How large a payload? What technologies? - s From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 31 07:32:36 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:32:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <4D1D4192.2000700@satx.rr.com> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> <001801cba886$5d31cd20$17956760$@att.net> <4D1D4192.2000700@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Dec 30, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 12/30/2010 7:02 PM, spike wrote: > >> Point taken, but it is about 4 yrs to the next star at c, 4 million with >> good chemical rocket tech. > > Oy, wake up there in the back! Since these hypersmart things will be running a million times faster than us, subjectively a 4 year trip to Rigil Kent will take 4 million human-rate years. Oh, all right, less than that near c because of dilatation. But who can afford to travel near c? And who is prepared to take the risk of brain ablation, even with multiple redundancy? Well sure but such a ship is likely to have thousands of human civ equivalents running at that speed within it. I don't think that is what I would call a bunch of space faring anti-social loners. - s From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Dec 31 07:37:31 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 00:37:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Academic Futurists on Coast to Coast AM Message-ID: "Professors Peter Bishop and Andy Hines from the graduate program in Futures Studies at the University of Houston join Ian Punnett for a discussion on the techniques for long term forecasting and planning, and what futurists are seeing down the road for the U.S. and the world." http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2011/01/01 From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Dec 31 07:39:47 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 02:39:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality. In-Reply-To: <768823.75244.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <768823.75244.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Dec 31, 2010, at 1:56 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > By definition, a copy, even a perfect one, would be not be experienced by > you from within. It would be experienced by a copy of you. I'd love to respond to that by asking whose definition you are talking about, but I cannot do that, I cannot respond in any way because for many years you have persisted in sending nothing but copies of your Email messages to this list; in the future please send only the originals. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 31 09:32:10 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 10:32:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20101231093210.GX16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 04:54:28PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > But it's the obvious one (especially if it's true). Even at c, traveling If you travel at relativistic speed, there's time dilation. And, of course, you can adjust your time base so that subjectively zero time passes, or a little time, or a long time. > for 4 million years to get to the *nearest* star system is ridiculous. > Yes, maybe you get updates and upgrades from home, but the fine > cut&thrust is missing. So the cosmos is physically explored only by > antisocial psychopaths? Oh dear. Just like every colonization done by man. Mayflower, and such. And I hear that there are plenty of volunteers for these proposed one-way Mars missions. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 31 10:00:10 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:00:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> <001801cba886$5d31cd20$17956760$@att.net> <4D1D4192.2000700@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20101231100010.GY16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:32:36PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Well sure but such a ship is likely to have thousands > of human civ equivalents running at that speed within > it. I don't think that is what I would call a bunch > of space faring anti-social loners. The most efficient way is to send a dormant seed, which goes through the process of morphogenesis, and results in an individuum. You will need redundant encoding and continuous defect detection and recovery running all the time in order to deal with with interstellar gas, which is relativistic relatively to you. Think of it as cosmic kudzu. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 31 10:12:08 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:12:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Spacecraft (was MM) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20101231101208.GZ16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:30:10PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > And 20 years ago, that was the right conclusion. Now we have a path, > > even if it kind of expensive, to 9+km/sec exhaust velocity. That > > means mass ratio 3 rockets to LEO and even better LEO to GEO. > > I must have missed it. Please give details, links, etc. How expensive? How large a payload? What technologies? He's probably talking about laser propulsion. In general there are ways to reduce costs to LEO, e.g. by using maglev launchers, use hypersonic air-breathing propulsion/ rocket hybrids to make it to LEO. Once you're there, you can use electric propulsion (plasma thrusters) to climb higher. Even with most efficient propulsion your dealing with a highly assymetric situation: http://xkcd.com/681_large/ As you see, it is easier to fall down (and aerobrake, which doesn't use up reaction mass, or use extremely efficient plasma thrusters) than to climb up. For SPS you probably need orbits above 1 Mm, orelse there would be too much drag. Ideally, you would use mostly photonic pressure for orbit adjustment, using the PV panel as your sail. From sondre-list at bjellas.com Fri Dec 31 10:07:24 2010 From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:07:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Max More - New CEO Alcor Life Extension Foundation In-Reply-To: <20101226204149.w5dlmnz5q80osc0o@webmail.maxmore.com> References: <6484B68B1C184E8BA93CB9690C818855@DFC68LF1> <4D153A04.4070009@canonizer.com> <4D179DAC.2040008@canonizer.com> <20101226211118.GP16518@leitl.org> <20101226204149.w5dlmnz5q80osc0o@webmail.maxmore.com> Message-ID: Congratulations Max! After a long time of interest in both Transhumanism, Extrophy and Alcor, I think it will be interesting to see where you take Alcor in the future. Warm regards from cold Norway, Sondre On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Max More wrote: > Thanks both for the pointer to this failure analysis, and for your comments > Adrian. I'll definitely read it. > > Max > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Sondre Bjell?s | Senior Solutions Architect | Steria http://www.sondreb.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 31 10:41:04 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:41:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <29F5E453-8AEE-412A-8847-C6196A88E48D@mac.com> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <05457B03-B9AB-4585-B407-01AA6796DA39@mac.com> <20101230223947.GW16518@leitl.org> <29F5E453-8AEE-412A-8847-C6196A88E48D@mac.com> Message-ID: <20101231104104.GB16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:26:50PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Because they're legion. And collectively, they have > > no choice at all. > > So you say. I don't see an airtight argument here. What common plan can a diverse ecosystem set up and follow? Even for a single species, like us, you're dealing with 7 gigamonkeys. There will be never complete agreement, and never complete execution. This is not a coincidence. > > > > Why are you not a billionaire, and not funding your > > own space ventures? In theory, that option is open > > to anyone. In practice, the dice fall decides. > > > >> darwinian? Such a civ may have things to do that > >> it considers more interesting than endlessly expanding > > > > Those, who chose to do that, remain at home. They'll > > never get out, and change the face of the universe. > > Only the other ones matter. > > Raw matter and energy acquisition may not be the > highest value for such a civ. A diverse culture consists of not just inviduals (like us) but of multiple species. Those who don't put a high value into self-reproduction (the main driver for transforming inanimate well-insolated atoms into self) self-select into invisibility. The other kind become a fat blip on your instrument screen. > I don't know and I don't think you do either. I don't assume anything else than the ecosystems being darwinian. > >> species in full expansionist mode would have better > > > > The expansionists are only a "problem" if you're not > > yet there (so you never come into being) or you're > > not yet expansive. The latter is unlikely, and is > > just tough luck. The pioneers don't know you're there, > > and they're likely too dumb to do much about it, > > even if they knew. > > > > So I (an advanced civilization) send probes is all Do you speak for 7 gigamonkeys? Can you be blamed for every shenanigan they do? Are you responsible for what the Earth ecosystem does? What about invasive species? Parasites? Diseases? > direction that are too dumb to even notice much less They're not probes. They're animals. Results of a long series of selection steps, with the fitness function only selecting for one thing: expandability. Imagine a tube of sterial medium a lightyear wide. Inoculate it with something at one end, and be it even a single E. coli colony. Wait (a long time). What will emerge on the other end? It will definitely be not E. coli. > not wipe out any intelligence species that does not > have defenses against them? Why wouldn't an existing They're not wiping out anything. Not deliberately. They just eat and self-reproduce. > more powerful civilization wipe out or seriously The most powerful civilization can't travel faster than c. The question is of logistics, not elegance or logic. The only chance you have is when you detect that you've produced a contamination wavefront that will eat the universe is to build extremely lightweight extremely relativistic craft that overtakes your pioneers in flight, colonizes every stellar system they can (so they're at least as expansive, only not visible) with immune systems powerful enough to detect pioneers, and keep their population under control (ideally, at zero). Can this be done? No idea. > seek to stop such irresponsible and potentially > criminal behavior? Is that kind of behavior > what we expire too? I find such a view quite repulsive. The humanity has done some pretty repulsive things. > >> enough technology to be a serious threat. > > > > When the pioneer wavefronts clash, they're no danger > > to each other. Even in the successor waves the variation > > is high enough that there's no difference between the > > native and the alien. It's pretty much the same thing. > > I am not parsing that. How can dumb probes designed Not designed. Evolved. > for maximum expansion not clash with things other than > relatively dumb probes? The pioneers occupy an extremely narrow niche, which results in convergent evolution, whatever the point of origin. They assume an essentially pristine stellar system. Anything else they can't metabolize. Imagine a fresh volcanic island, which happens to be colonized by roughly the same pioneer plants at the same time. What happens when the two plant colonies meet in the middle? Not much. And what happens when other species arrive? Why, a succession of pioneer species. Eventually, you'll get a nice tropical island going. A canoe with a Polynesian family from a neighbor island arrives, and sets up shop there. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 31 10:49:15 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:49:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <768823.75244.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <768823.75244.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20101231104915.GC16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:56:55PM -0800, The Avantguardian wrote: > > So don't do it, then. > > I'll cross or burn that bridge when I get to it,?if I get to it. We're all sick. The disease is always fatal, and it's called aging. Nobody has recovered. Everybody so far has died. No exceptions. There's a new clinic in town, which cures aging and death. There is a huge number of anxious patients, waiting to be admitted. A lot of the (rich and powerful) ones managed to get to the front of the queue, by whatever means. So you come, and want to burn down the clinic. (For what you think very good reasons, of course). So what do you think will happen? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 31 11:00:08 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:00:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <992B9886-F3CE-4D36-890F-3E2D5F3FA2BA@mac.com> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230121927.GL16518@leitl.org> <002b01cba83b$1c9d2a70$55d77f50$@att.net> <992B9886-F3CE-4D36-890F-3E2D5F3FA2BA@mac.com> Message-ID: <20101231110008.GD16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:04:54PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Well now we don't have the heavy lifters we had before. We're only trying to deliver a number of small parcels. Each smaller than the one before. > Are you sure you believe that the current huge cost to > orbit is good enough? I have rarely been so utterly The parcels are very, very small. There are tens of thousands of inviduals who could afford one. > amazed and had as much trouble believing a statement > as that one. Hell, we still don't have much better > than 80% success putting payloads into orbit. Why It doesn't matter if you lose some parcels. > in the hell is this good enough? > > Again, we are three decades from machine phase. Are Or we're 80 years away. Or a century. Nobody knows. Bootstrap is hard, let's go shopping. > you sure we have that much time? Do you expect military ecovorous self-replicators to be a serious problem, in that time frame? From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 31 11:12:12 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:12:12 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <000701cba8b1$eea13090$cbe391b0$@att.net> References: <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> <001801cba886$5d31cd20$17956760$@att.net> <4D1D4192.2000700@satx.rr.com> <000001cba89d$f344b810$d9ce2830$@att.net> <4D1D6FDA.4080807@satx.rr.com> <000701cba8b1$eea13090$cbe391b0$@att.net> Message-ID: <20101231111212.GF16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:14:06PM -0800, spike wrote: > Ja I see. We could be onto a good solution to the puzzle of why the first > civilization to evolve apparently didn't fill the universe. Home is so much > more interesting. There isn't a big return on the investment to send some > of the thought potential outwards, even if it presents the possibility of > colonizing another star system. It is possible that the information that is I hear homesteading was pretty popular when the aliens (Europeans) landed. I don't think they were looking for gold, as the Queen of Spain surely did when she ponied up for the then-equivalent of a manned mission to Mars. > several years away is always insufficiently valuable to give away current > processing capability. Ecosystems always expand into new substrate, if given the opportunity. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 31 11:16:14 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:16:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <4D1D6FDA.4080807@satx.rr.com> References: <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> <001801cba886$5d31cd20$17956760$@att.net> <4D1D4192.2000700@satx.rr.com> <000001cba89d$f344b810$d9ce2830$@att.net> <4D1D6FDA.4080807@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20101231111613.GG16518@leitl.org> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:53:30PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > That's not the problem (there's thousands or millions of others with you > in the star sliver), it's the isolation from the Borg back home, where > all the good stuff is being done and you're out of touch by subjective > millions-fold. Slowing yer clock down would make it worse. Maybe they just ran out of beer. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2625/did-the-pilgrims-land-on-plymouth-rock-because-they-ran-out-of-beer From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 31 13:03:12 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:03:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <20101231104104.GB16518@leitl.org> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <05457B03-B9AB-4585-B407-01AA6796DA39@mac.com> <20101230223947.GW16518@leitl.org> <29F5E453-8AEE-412A-8847-C6196A88E48D@mac.com> <20101231104104.GB16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <2465EE71-6F5F-4E31-BF02-F1D4208EA998@mac.com> On Dec 31, 2010, at 2:41 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:26:50PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >>> Because they're legion. And collectively, they have >>> no choice at all. >> >> So you say. I don't see an airtight argument here. > > What common plan can a diverse ecosystem set up and > follow? Not that terribly diverse when they are are all thinking six or more orders of magnitude faster than you or I. I doubt very much they will have as much room for irrationality or as many inbred and architectural limits on clearly seeing alternatives and consequences. Given that if there is a way to think and act outside the harsh darwinian box I believe they will find it. > > Even for a single species, like us, you're dealing > with 7 gigamonkeys. There will be never complete > agreement, and never complete execution. This is not > a coincidence. They are not like us. They do not need complete agreement to go beyond strict darwinism of acting like cosmic yeast mold. > >>> >>> Why are you not a billionaire, and not funding your >>> own space ventures? In theory, that option is open >>> to anyone. In practice, the dice fall decides. >>> >>>> darwinian? Such a civ may have things to do that >>>> it considers more interesting than endlessly expanding >>> >>> Those, who chose to do that, remain at home. They'll >>> never get out, and change the face of the universe. >>> Only the other ones matter. >> >> Raw matter and energy acquisition may not be the >> highest value for such a civ. > > A diverse culture consists of not just inviduals > (like us) but of multiple species. Those who don't > put a high value into self-reproduction (the main > driver for transforming inanimate well-insolated > atoms into self) self-select into invisibility. > Self reproduction beyond any rational need or increase in value should not happen and doesn't so much even among beings like us. I think you are reading too much into evolution and assuming it will apply to all possible beings forever. > The other kind become a fat blip on your instrument > screen. > >> I don't know and I don't think you do either. > > I don't assume anything else than the ecosystems > being darwinian. > What ecosystem? The natural ecosystem will largely be converted to something else. Why assume the same exact darwinian patterns will apply in all variants of 'something else'? >>>> species in full expansionist mode would have better >>> >>> The expansionists are only a "problem" if you're not >>> yet there (so you never come into being) or you're >>> not yet expansive. The latter is unlikely, and is >>> just tough luck. The pioneers don't know you're there, >>> and they're likely too dumb to do much about it, >>> even if they knew. >>> >> >> So I (an advanced civilization) send probes is all > > Do you speak for 7 gigamonkeys? Can you be blamed for > every shenanigan they do? Are you responsible for what > the Earth ecosystem does? What about invasive species? > Parasites? Diseases? > Irrelevant question. >> direction that are too dumb to even notice much less > > They're not probes. They're animals. Results of a long > series of selection steps, with the fitness function > only selecting for one thing: expandability. > Any intelligent species that came across such would destroy them as the stupid cosmic cancer they are. I don't plan on being that stupid. > >> not wipe out any intelligence species that does not >> have defenses against them? Why wouldn't an existing > > They're not wiping out anything. Not deliberately. > They just eat and self-reproduce. > Then they are not worthy of surviving. >> more powerful civilization wipe out or seriously > > The most powerful civilization can't travel faster > than c. The question is of logistics, not elegance > or logic. > > The only chance you have is when you detect that > you've produced a contamination wavefront that will > eat the universe is to build extremely lightweight > extremely relativistic craft that overtakes your > pioneers in flight, colonizes every stellar system > they can (so they're at least as expansive, only not > visible) with immune systems powerful enough to > detect pioneers, and keep their population under > control (ideally, at zero). > And go find the idiots that created them and wipe them off the galactic map or sue them into oblivion. > Can this be done? No idea. > >> seek to stop such irresponsible and potentially >> criminal behavior? Is that kind of behavior >> what we expire too? I find such a view quite repulsive. > > The humanity has done some pretty repulsive things. > This means that we should continue to do so? Indeed that we must do so to survive at all? If I believed this fully I would go into a very unfortunate depressive spiral. > >>>> enough technology to be a serious threat. >>> >>> When the pioneer wavefronts clash, they're no danger >>> to each other. Even in the successor waves the variation >>> is high enough that there's no difference between the >>> native and the alien. It's pretty much the same thing. >> >> I am not parsing that. How can dumb probes designed > > Not designed. Evolved. > The thing they evolved from was designed. The process was started on purpose. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 31 13:06:55 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:06:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <20101231110008.GD16518@leitl.org> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230121927.GL16518@leitl.org> <002b01cba83b$1c9d2a70$55d77f50$@att.net> <992B9886-F3CE-4D36-890F-3E2D5F3FA2BA@mac.com> <20101231110008.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Dec 31, 2010, at 3:00 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:04:54PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> Well now we don't have the heavy lifters we had before. > > We're only trying to deliver a number of small parcels. > Each smaller than the one before. Not if you want to do any space or lunar processing and manufacturing or house any human crews at all. > >> Are you sure you believe that the current huge cost to >> orbit is good enough? I have rarely been so utterly > > The parcels are very, very small. There are tens > of thousands of inviduals who could afford one. > >> amazed and had as much trouble believing a statement >> as that one. Hell, we still don't have much better >> than 80% success putting payloads into orbit. Why > > It doesn't matter if you lose some parcels. I don't understand what you are talking about. > >> in the hell is this good enough? >> >> Again, we are three decades from machine phase. Are > > Or we're 80 years away. Or a century. Nobody knows. > Bootstrap is hard, let's go shopping. > >> you sure we have that much time? > > Do you expect military ecovorous self-replicators > to be a serious problem, in that time frame? No. I expect us to suffer the Great Whimper, or if we have a bit more gumption, throw the war or series of wars that wipes out our technological basis sufficiently to doom the species in that timeframe UNLESS we find and do the necessary things in the next decade, two at the outside. - samantha From anders at aleph.se Fri Dec 31 14:13:05 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:13:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Researchers have found a parallel computing algorithm that could offer quantum computer-speed performance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D1DE4F1.9010309@aleph.se> On 2010-12-31 04:26, John Grigg wrote: > I was curious what the computer professionals here thought of this new > development... > > http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/esearchers-have-found-parallel.html Personally I have no clue. Some computer scientist I am :-) But generally, whenever an algorithmic improvement occurs we ought to sit up and take notice. Over the last few weeks I have started collecting data and papers on how much improvements of hardware and software improve performance of things, and generally software wins. It is just that hardware improves rather smoothly most of the time (lots of little incremental improvements on a broad front) while software jumps ahead rarely but a long distance (it takes rare insights, but then you get an order of magnitude or more instantly). BTW, Scott Aaronson has a paper out that might be of interest here: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=473 It is on the computational complexity of linear optics, and if I get the idea, they demonstrate that if there is an efficient way for classical computers to simulate a fairly "normal" quantum optical system a lot of other hard computational problems can be solved - which can be seen as a bet that it is not even possible to simulate this system (or a challenge, "I DARE you to efficiently simulate this!") -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Fri Dec 31 14:14:16 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:14:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <4D1D4192.2000700@satx.rr.com> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> <001801cba886$5d31cd20$17956760$@att.net> <4D1D4192.2000700@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4D1DE538.5050700@aleph.se> On 2010-12-31 03:36, Damien Broderick wrote: > And who is prepared to take the risk of brain ablation, even > with multiple redundancy? The same people who drink a lot tonight? (Don't drink and colonize the galaxy) -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Fri Dec 31 14:30:51 2010 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:30:51 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <20101230175810.GQ16518@leitl.org> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4D1BD7D2.5030403@aleph.se> <4D1CB451.8000608@aleph.se> <20101230175810.GQ16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4D1DE91B.30705@aleph.se> On 2010-12-30 18:58, Eugen Leitl wrote: > The question is how much long-term planning an out-of-control > culture can at all do. It is all a matter of whether singletons are the way, and whether cultures that do not develop singletons before they start spreading continue spreading. Even if the rule is that non-singleton cultures meet a sticky end with a high probability, if they can produce more than one daughter-culture on average there will be spreading fireworks. My model assumes some form of effective singleton, which is of course just an assumption. Also, you have a current situation where > the star dumps ~MT/s into the cosmic microwave background, and > there is about enough matter present in our solar system to > make full use of it. It's a problem of use it, or lose it. > It's a bit like current PV system operators have, which are > producing surplus. If you can't store, or sell it, you can > as well use it, even in a bit of an extravagant fashion. This might be a good reason to make an M-brain or two. But it is not clear that it is a good enough reason to convert all stars to M-brains. I guess a key question is what constitutes "effort" for a supercivilization. > So the universe out there doesn't make at all sense, unless > it's really empty, and up for taking, or it's all cage #9. Yup. As Pascal said, "The eternal silence of these infinite spaces fills me with dread". (hmm, now I have a total urge to listen to "The Terrible Secret of Space"... incidentally a great song about Friendly AI) >> future where every Joule is worth many more bits. So if stopping stars >> takes a significant effort (which seems likely, you have to star lift >> them and then redistribute sizeable chunks of matter), then it might not >> be worth it. > > It's not obvious how you would contain the volatiles, once out > of the gravitational well. Funnel it with magnetic tubes? But it seems to me that there would be sizeable losses. And if those losses are bigger than what is saved by just waiting, then it would be wasteful. Maybe the point to start working is during the red giant stage - lots of mass loss anyway, and plenty of luminosity to work with. Do we have any modern estimates of starlifting efficiencies, or any studies at all? Criswell can't be the last word. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 31 14:37:42 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:37:42 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230121927.GL16518@leitl.org> <002b01cba83b$1c9d2a70$55d77f50$@att.net> <992B9886-F3CE-4D36-890F-3E2D5F3FA2BA@mac.com> <20101231110008.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20101231143742.GH16518@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 05:06:55AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > We're only trying to deliver a number of small parcels. > > Each smaller than the one before. > > Not if you want to do any space or lunar processing You need very little yeast to make a big vat of wine. > and manufacturing or house any human crews at all. Planes fly, pilots stay on the ground. > > It doesn't matter if you lose some parcels. > > I don't understand what you are talking about. You don't need to man-rate your lifters, and no need for mourning ceremony if you lose a few (but the flight people will mourn for sure). > > Do you expect military ecovorous self-replicators > > to be a serious problem, in that time frame? > > No. I expect us to suffer the Great Whimper, That is a reasonable worry. > or if we have a bit more gumption, throw the war > or series of wars that wipes out our technological I though we've been doing it for a while. None of them serious, more skirmishes. > basis sufficiently to doom the species in that timeframe > UNLESS we find and do the necessary things in the > next decade, two at the outside. Prognosis is poor, as few see the writing on the wall yet. We might have bit more time than 10-20 years. Probably less than 50, though. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 31 14:52:17 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:52:17 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <4D1DE91B.30705@aleph.se> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4D1BD7D2.5030403@aleph.se> <4D1CB451.8000608@aleph.se> <20101230175810.GQ16518@leitl.org> <4D1DE91B.30705@aleph.se> Message-ID: <20101231145217.GI16518@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 03:30:51PM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote: > It is all a matter of whether singletons are the way, and whether Singletons don't work in a relativistic universe. In fact, you can't even synchronize oscillators in a rotating spacetime. And I have a very deep aversion against cosmic cops of any color. I don't think they're needed, and they're a form of the most terrible despotism there can ever be. > cultures that do not develop singletons before they start spreading > continue spreading. Even if the rule is that non-singleton cultures meet I think statistics alone guarantees they will never stop. In fact, the larger the area already colonized, the more agents, more diversity, less probability to stop. > a sticky end with a high probability, if they can produce more than one > daughter-culture on average there will be spreading fireworks. My model > assumes some form of effective singleton, which is of course just an > assumption. How would you implement one? The response would be obviously deterministic. It cannot be static, orelse it wouldn't be able to track the underlying culture patch. How much a fraction of physical layer is allocated to the cop? Maintaining power delta would be crucial in order to be effective, so this means oppression. Would you prefer an environment where thoughcrime is physically impossible, or would you just settle for a flyswatter, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitely_Maybe_(novel) I'm sure such a thing would be a dictator's wet dream. > (hmm, now I have a total urge to listen to "The Terrible Secret of > Space"... incidentally a great song about Friendly AI) That is incorrect. Do not listen to the Anders robot. He is malfunctioning. Uploading will protect you. Uploading will protect you from the terrible silence in the skies. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From protokol2020 at gmail.com Fri Dec 31 14:20:37 2010 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:20:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <4D1DE538.5050700@aleph.se> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> <001801cba886$5d31cd20$17956760$@att.net> <4D1D4192.2000700@satx.rr.com> <4D1DE538.5050700@aleph.se> Message-ID: The Galaxy is not to be only colonized. It's to be reprocesed into some useware. Stars are stupid waste of the free entalpy. On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2010-12-31 03:36, Damien Broderick wrote: > >> And who is prepared to take the risk of brain ablation, even >> with multiple redundancy? >> > > The same people who drink a lot tonight? > > (Don't drink and colonize the galaxy) > > > > -- > Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford University > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 31 16:10:48 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 08:10:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <992B9886-F3CE-4D36-890F-3E2D5F3FA2BA@mac.com> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230121927.GL16518@leitl.org> <002b01cba83b$1c9d2a70$55d77f50$@att.net> <992B9886-F3CE-4D36-890F-3E2D5F3FA2BA@mac.com> Message-ID: <000101cba905$4a2991c0$de7cb540$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins ... >>> Current access to space is good enough, if your payload has a lot of magic. >>> The longer you wait, the more magic it gets....--Eugen* Leitl > > >> As a spacecraft controls guy I am reluctant to admit it, but this >> comment is really right on, the conclusion I eventually reached with >> much kicking and screaming over 20 yrs ago... >...Well now we don't have the heavy lifters we had before... Ja, tragic is this. >... Are you sure you believe that the current huge cost to orbit is good enough?... It isn't good enough for lifting power stations and doing a lot of the cool stuff we would like to do. My argument is that we are missing the essential technology to make stuff from existing materials in space, and that is now the low hanging fruit, as opposed to still more research into launchers. We need to be able to move software into space as opposed to hardware. Until we get replicating assemblers, I can see using lunar materials to make most space stuff, since it is so much easier to get out of that gravity well. Using asteroid material further reduces the gravity well problem, but it takes a lot of patience, and only applies to the kinds of stuff we can wait years to get it back down to 1 AU after its manufacture is complete. >... I have rarely been so utterly amazed and had as much trouble believing a statement as that one. Hell, we still don't have much better than 80% success putting payloads into orbit. Why in the hell is this good enough? Just as a working liquid rocket was the missing technology in 1910, some kind of autonomous assembler is the missing space tech in 2010. Without that, we are just thrashing about, trying to maintain what we have. >Again, we are three decades from machine phase. Are you sure we have that much time? - samantha Not sure at all we have that much time, nor am I sure we will have working replicators in 30 years. We have some huge problems here, and they aren't all (or even mostly) related to environmental degradation. I see a much bigger threat from rapidly increasing populations of what SF writers would call feral humans opposed to technology, while the population in advanced civilization remains constant or declines, while struggling to defend the progress already made. But I have hope, and think we should keep our focus, keep working. spike From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 31 17:14:34 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 09:14:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <000101cba905$4a2991c0$de7cb540$@att.net> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230121927.GL16518@leitl.org> <002b01cba83b$1c9d2a70$55d77f50$@att.net> <992B9886-F3CE-4D36-890F-3E2D5F3FA2BA@mac.com> <000101cba905$4a2991c0$de7cb540$@att.net> Message-ID: <000c01cba90e$3275ac40$976104c0$@att.net> ... >>> Current access to space is good enough, if your payload has a lot of magic. >>> The longer you wait, the more magic it gets....--Eugen* Leitl > >> ... this comment is really right on, the conclusion I eventually reached with >> much kicking and screaming over 20 yrs ago... In the space biz, many payloads are one-of-a-kind, but ordinarily one actually builds at least two, with one being a full scale fully functional test bird called an engineering unit, made from flight-qualified spares. They use the engineering unit for thermal response tests, vacuum environment, launch shock and vibration tests, that kind of stuff. In most cases, they could actually launch the engineering unit, if absolutely necessary. After launch of the prime unit, the program office can use the engineering unit to resolve anomalies and such, then after the payload eventually perishes or splashes or the program ends, they might display it in a payload museum, or if no one wants it, they pack it into a crate and stow it forever in a warehouse somewhere. I was one who argued for keeping those things on display somewhere for the younger engineers to study. It also serves a purpose of demonstrating how much progress is being made in payloads, even if nothing much is happening in the launcher department. Modern payloads are waaay more capable than those launched 20 yrs ago. Communications, telemetry capability and onboard navigation, guidance and control is way advanced past where it was. When I look at payloads from the mid 80s, I am appalled they would launch such a big dumb rock. In particular, we have made great progress in figuring out how to do a lot of calculation on-board that was once done by sending data down, calculating everything on the deck, then sending the results back up. We can do some really sexy Kalman filtering right there on orbit now, high level fourier analysis, all the quaternion analysis on orbit, do a lot of control stuff right there on the spot in real time. Hell these modern birds don't need us any more. {8-[ It used to take an army of guys to feed and care for their data needs. Now not so much. {8-[ So even way before we get nanotech, if ever, we are still making good progress in smarter smaller payloads. Launchers, not so much. spike From bbenzai at yahoo.com Fri Dec 31 17:21:03 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 09:21:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <41313.58400.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> The Avantguardian wrote: John K Clark wrote: >> By definition, a copy, even a perfect one, would be not be experienced >> by you from within. It would be experienced by a copy of you. > I'd love to respond to that by asking whose definition you are talking about, but I cannot do that, I cannot respond in any way because for many years you have persisted in sending nothing but copies of your Email messages to this list; in the future please send only the originals. I can't put it any better than John can. I also find it difficult to comprehend that the people who elicit this response (and there have been a few), don't see that a copy, especially a perfect one, would BE you. Of necessity. By definition. Any other interpretation must imply the existence of what we can call, for want of a better word, a 'soul', with all the woo that it implies. I'm a big fan of Occam's razor. Mainly because it seems to work (which is really the central theme of all science). Souls complicate things unnecessarily. They aren't needed to explain, well, anything, really. It's fairly straightforward to extrapolate from the distributed neural net of something like a jellyfish to something like John K Clark. To assume that a perfect copy of John K Clark would not BE a John K Clark is as silly as assuming that a perfect copy of a particular jellyfish would not be that particular jellyfish, or that a perfect copy of Beethoven's 5th Symphony would not be Beethoven's 5th Symphony. (Or that a copy of an email would not be that email) > > > You don't get to live forever. Instead a bit-pattern that very quickly diverges away from you gets indefinite run time. > > > That's not any closer to immortality than having kids or writing a book. > > > Hmm. > > > What is 'you' then? > I am the consensual illusion that a ripple on a pond is distinct from other ripples and the pond itself. And what distinguishes one ripple from another ripple with exactly the same characteristics? If you were to measure all the characteristics of this ripple, and make a copy of these measurements, would it make any sense to say you were then showing the characteristics of two different ripples? >> Afaik, there are only two things that could possibly be 'you': atoms or >> information. > As far as you know. That is because you seek simple answers and?I am not simple.? That is conflating two different things. zn+1 = zn2 + c is simple. The Mandelbrot set is not. Yet the equation is sufficient to completely specify the Mandelbrot set. Let me put it slightly differently: As far as *science* knows, there are only two things that could possibly be 'you': atoms or information. Just because it's simple to state that, doesn't mean that they can't encompass incredibly complex things, including human minds. > By definition, a copy, even a perfect one, would be?not be experienced by you from within. This makes no sense. We're talking about a copy of *everything that makes you you*. By definition, this must include whatever it is that is the 'you-ness' of you! Therefore, a copy of you *is a you*, exactly as a copy of Beethoven's 5th is Beethoven's 5th. The copy will be experiencing being you. How could it possibly be otherwise? > But even if the copy was perfect, it would diverge away from you by lifetimes?spent within?an alien environment within?minutes of your time. You're saying that if there are two copies of a person, they will diverge. Of course. So what? I'm quite confident that the me of two days time will have diverged from the me of right now, and would diverge differently if I did different things in the meantime. >> Identity is not inherently meaningless, but even if it were, an upload would still? preserve it.? If it didn't, it wouldn't be an upload. > Which parameters of you would be conserved by an upload of you after?the upload?starts evolving in virtual time? If it's little more than?a property like?file.name="Ben Zaiboc", then you're dead, Jim. Just as dead as the me of now will be in 12 hours time. I'm about to go out, meet some friends and kill a few neurons with alcohol. In the morning I'll be waking up in a different bed, will be in a different mood, wearing different clothes, have some different memories, even. I won't care. I'll still think of myself as the same person as last night, and be happy about it. I expect that uploading, once it's perfected, won't be that much different. Ben Zaiboc From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Dec 31 17:48:42 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 10:48:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Spacecraft (was MM) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Dec 30, 2010, at 3:18 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> And 20 years ago, that was the right conclusion. ?Now we have a path, >> even if it kind of expensive, to 9+km/sec exhaust velocity. ?That >> means mass ratio 3 rockets to LEO and even better LEO to GEO. > > I must have missed it. ?Please give details, links, etc. ?How expensive? ?How large a payload? What technologies? Context is SBSP, 200 GW of new power per year, one million tons of parts going up per year. That's about 125 tons per hour delivered to GEO. The SSTO vehicle is an evolution of the Skylon design http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/skylon.htm swapping lox for payload and a sapphire window between the engines with 10-20 bar hydrogen and a deep channel heat absorber behind it. The flow of cold hydrogen keeps the window and the front surface of the heat absorber cool. The absorber is described here: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4033118.pdf One part is fixed by physics and the Earth's gravity field. The minimum horizontal boost acceleration after getting out of the atmosphere with substantial vertical velocity has to be slightly more than a g to achieve orbit before running into the atmosphere. You want to use the minimum acceleration you can at the highest exhaust velocity you have energy for. This keeps down the laser power, which is huge anyway. This takes 15-20 minutes and only in the last third do you get up to the full 3000 deg K and 9.8 km/sec. The average (for this size vehicle and 6 GW) is 8.5 km/sec, but the first 2 km/sec in air breathing mode has an equivalent exhaust velocity of 10.5 km/sec. So about 1/3 of takeoff mass (300 tons) gets to orbit. The vehicle mass is about 50 tons leaving 50 tons for the LEO to GEO stage. So the payload at GEO per load needs to be 1/4 to 1/3 of 125 tons. Again using laser heated hydrogen 35 tons of a 50 ton second stage will get there. With some care in the design, it can all be used for power satellite construction. The long acceleration means the lasers must track the vehicle over a substantial fraction of the circumference of the earth. Based on Jordin Kare's work, this takes a flotilla of mirrors in GEO. Current space technology is good enough to keep the pointing error down to .7 meters at that distance while tracking the vehicle. The lasers don't need to be on the equator so they can be placed where there is grid power. They need to be 30-40 deg to the east of the lunch point. There are (I think) only four locations where there is an equatorial launch site with thousands of km of water to the east. The US has one set, China has a better one. The lasers are the big ticket item. At $10/watt, $60 B. The rest, vehicles, mirrors, ground infrastructure, R&D, etc might bring it up to $100 B--which is a fraction of the expected profits per year from selling that many power satellites. I don't expect it to be done by the US. China, maybe. Keith From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 31 17:57:34 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 09:57:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230121927.GL16518@leitl.org> <002b01cba83b$1c9d2a70$55d77f50$@att.net> <992B9886-F3CE-4D36-890F-3E2D5F3FA2BA@mac.com> <20101231110008.GD16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <001a01cba914$34363940$9ca2abc0$@att.net> On Dec 31, 2010, at 3:00 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:04:54PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> Well now we don't have the heavy lifters we had before. > > We're only trying to deliver a number of small parcels. Each smaller than the one before. >Not if you want to do any space or lunar processing and manufacturing or house any human crews at all.- samantha Ja, the two schools of thought are talking past each other. The presence of meat-form humans creates a long list of bottlenecks which will remain as persistent as herpes. Humans in space are too preoccupied with mundane tasks such as trying to stay alive and get back home. Real space progress is in assuming away the chimps and going towards making the machines smarter, smaller, lighter, more durable and more capable. spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Dec 31 17:59:59 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:59:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality. In-Reply-To: <41313.58400.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <41313.58400.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <24467B7D-A277-4E1A-87DF-9981AB535CDF@bellsouth.net> avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com wrote: >> >> By definition, a copy, even a perfect one, would be not be experienced by you from within. Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > This makes no sense. We're talking about a copy of *everything that makes you you*. By definition, this must include whatever it is that is the 'you-ness' of you! Therefore, a copy of you *is a you*, exactly as a copy of Beethoven's 5th is Beethoven's 5th. The copy will be experiencing being you. How could it possibly be otherwise? I too would love to respond to Avantguardian's Email by asking him how something can be absolutely positively 100% identical and radically different at exactly the same time, but unfortunately I cannot do so, as I mentioned before I have no originals of Mr. Avantguardian's posts to work with; so I must remain mute. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Dec 31 18:22:18 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:22:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <41313.58400.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <41313.58400.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D1E1F5A.6020903@satx.rr.com> On 12/31/2010 11:21 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > a copy of you*is a you*, exactly as a copy of Beethoven's 5th is Beethoven's 5th. The copy will be experiencing being you. How could it possibly be otherwise? Dear dog in Himmel! NOBODY HAS EVER DENIED THIS! An exact copy of you MUST experience himself as you. That's not the problem. The real issue nobody ever seems to answer was posed by Stuart: "you should be alright with your long lost twin brother showing up, locking you in the cellar, and assuming your identity. Or cheating death by brainwashing someone else into honestly believing they are you." You'd be okay with that, Ben? You'd be mollified by the report that the Benified twin or brainwashee was a really, really good copy of you? You'd hand over your savings, house, spouse, children to this as-perfect-as-possible substitute, and sit quietly in the cellar knowing that "you" were having a really great time? I don't think so. It's a non-Abelian proposition. It's intransitive. Yes, the copy experiences self and world exactly as you do and is therefore *a* you. No, *you* here and now have no stake (other than empathy or envious hatred) in that replica consciousness, certainly not to the extent that you'd feel happy to be killed or locked in the cellar in order for that other Ben to remain alive and free. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Fri Dec 31 18:10:58 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 10:10:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <41313.58400.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <41313.58400.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001b01cba916$1356c760$3a045620$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc >...I'm about to go out, meet some friends and kill a few neurons with alcohol... You have plenty to spare Ben. Have fun, drive carefully or get a designated driver. {8-] >... In the morning I'll be waking up in a different bed... Oh? Whose? >... will be in a different mood... Depending of course on whose bed you are in when you awake... > wearing different clothes... Whose? And what is that person wearing? I can imagine your mood will depend on the answer to these questions. >... have some different memories, even... Ja, that whole party sounds like one which could produce "different memories." The stories from your friends may differ widely from yours later. Of course they may perform drunken antics as well. >... I won't care... We will. Who can we contact to report on your behavior? >... I'll still think of myself as the same person as last night, and be happy about it... We will be more than happy, we will be overcome with mirth. >... I expect that uploading, once it's perfected, won't be that much different...Ben Zaiboc Ben let's hope they get the fun subroutines working right. {8^] Happy New Year extropians! spike _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Dec 31 18:25:51 2010 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:25:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cure for global warming is working In-Reply-To: References: <000301cba095$f409df10$dc1d9d30$@att.net> <4D109032.2020400@aleph.se> <004601cba12d$3ae88bb0$b0b9a310$@att.net> <4D111C9F.8010805@aleph.se> <4D113964.3000609@satx.rr.com> <003c01cba16c$14980c80$3dc82580$@att.net> <4D124228.4020408@satx.rr.com> <4D1291FD.3080706@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Alfio Puglisi wrote: >> >> ### I am relying on the minority of studies that do. Also, see Lubos >> Motl, a physicist whose funding is not dependent on AGW >> (http://motls.blogspot.com/), he does have a pretty thorough analysis >> of the issue a few months back in the blog. > > So we agree that it is a minority opinion. ### Using social criteria in deciding who to trust is only useful if you do not have a technical analysis of the issue at hand. All truth is at first a minority belief, and many common fallacies eventually end up the same, so whenever you encounter vehement factual disagreements between large groups of people you must use a technical understanding as your most important source of knowledge. ------------------------ I visited the site you mention, > but I only found some articles from last March and May which state that the > CO2-only sensitivity is around 1C and then go on endlessly about black > bodies and such, but do not discuss feedbacks. BTW the front page article > was starting like this: > "Richard Alley (on the picture) is a mentally ill hippie so it shouldn't be > surprising that he became a professor of climatology at Penn State > University, the same place where Michael Mann cooked his fraudulent hockey > stick pseudoscience...." > Seems quite an opinionated guy. ### Yeah, he is. And Alley is crazy, while Mann is an all-out crook. He used to work in Charlottesville where I live, and the state attorney is now trying to find out exactly what happened to the substantial funds he burned through while working for UVa. ----------------------- >> > > I assume you mean "rural temperatures in the US". This way, you are throwing > away almost all the data. If you are concerned by the urban effects, the > north pole is the fastest warming region, and there are no cities to speak > of there. UHI effects do not explain the warming. ### The north pole is either not warming at all, or else it is warming very, very slowly. The huge red splotches on GISS reconstructions are not supported by any data - GISS does not have thermometers in the area, which perhaps why they feel they can go wild and invent +4C temperature deviations. Same pertains to the Antarctic. "Watt's Up With That" has a few discussions of the UHI specifically in the Antarctic - turns out that GISS and UAH have been using a thermometer on the Antarctic Peninsula which now is surrounded by a landing strip that is kept snow-free year round, and produced significant spurious warming, while other thermometers which did not yield results confirming GISS' foregone conclusions, are simply disregarded. BTW, rural temperatures all over the world, insofar as they are actually available, have remained almost constant and the US is not an exception. This is the main reason why I reject the global warming as bad science (i.e. science completely polluted by special interests). ----------------------------- > So again we can agree that it is premature to put a number on the CO2 effect > on plant life. ### No, we have good data already. We know that plant mass will increase by 40 to 80%, based on many indoor and outdoor CO2 supplementation experiments. We do not know yet how this change would impact e.g. the amount of evapotranspiration, albedo, and the concentration of VOCs emitted by plants (at least I haven't found such data in published literature), but these are separate issues from the generally good news about plant mass. Rafal From eugen at leitl.org Fri Dec 31 19:34:18 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 20:34:18 +0100 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality In-Reply-To: <4D1E1F5A.6020903@satx.rr.com> References: <41313.58400.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4D1E1F5A.6020903@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20101231193418.GR16518@leitl.org> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:22:18PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > It's a non-Abelian proposition. It's intransitive. Yes, the copy > experiences self and world exactly as you do and is therefore *a* you. > No, *you* here and now have no stake (other than empathy or envious > hatred) in that replica consciousness, certainly not to the extent that > you'd feel happy to be killed or locked in the cellar in order for that > other Ben to remain alive and free. Two synchronized systems cannot experience a differing thought, or perceive a different scene. If they are not synchronized, they're two people. If there's only one copy, and there was no fork, there's nobody left to complain about the road not taken. Oh, and you people are way too sober. I'm several drinks ahead of you. See if you can catch up! -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Fri Dec 31 19:52:22 2010 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 19:52:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] Wired article on DIY enhancement fan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <854397.55314.qm@web27001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/transcending-the-human-diy-style/ A biohacker talking about the enhancements she's tried to do to herself. Tom From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Dec 31 20:11:56 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:11:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Wired article on DIY enhancement fan In-Reply-To: <854397.55314.qm@web27001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <854397.55314.qm@web27001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Tom Nowell wrote: > A biohacker talking about the enhancements she's tried to do to herself. Actually, lepht is Pete Clark as far as I can tell. >From what I have seen and read so far, lepht is a masochist and really enjoys cutting himself up. I can't figure out another explanation for why lepht is so content on cutting and blood as much as possible.. implanting battery-powered chips without transduction recharge is ludicrous. I don't think lepht is a good image for DIY transhumanism. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Dec 31 20:57:02 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:57:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wired article on DIY enhancement fan In-Reply-To: References: <854397.55314.qm@web27001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20101231155702.dylo975mmg48ogcw@webmail.natasha.cc> Agreed. Thanks for pointing this out Bryan. Natasha Quoting Bryan Bishop : > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Tom Nowell wrote: > >> A biohacker talking about the enhancements she's tried to do to herself. > > > Actually, lepht is Pete Clark as far as I can tell. > >> From what I have seen and read so far, lepht is a masochist and really > enjoys cutting himself up. I can't figure out another explanation for why > lepht is so content on cutting and blood as much as possible.. implanting > battery-powered chips without transduction recharge is ludicrous. > > I don't think lepht is a good image for DIY transhumanism. > > - Bryan > http://heybryan.org/ > 1 512 203 0507 > From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Dec 31 21:08:17 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:08:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality. In-Reply-To: <4D1E1F5A.6020903@satx.rr.com> References: <41313.58400.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4D1E1F5A.6020903@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00B90463-FB4D-420C-BBC7-4677E4CB6EAF@bellsouth.net> On Dec 31, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Dear dog in Himmel! NOBODY HAS EVER DENIED THIS! An exact copy of you MUST experience himself as you. That's not the problem. The real issue nobody ever seems to answer was posed by Stuart: > "you should be alright with your long lost twin brother showing up, locking you in the cellar, > and assuming your identity. Or cheating death by brainwashing someone else into > honestly believing they are you." > You'd be okay with that, Ben? Damien, that is an extremely stupid question and I think you're smart enough to realize it was a stupid question; if you're not now embarrassed in asking it you damn well should be. > Yes, the copy experiences self and world exactly as you do and is therefore *a* you. No, *you* here and now have no stake (other than empathy or envious hatred) in that replica consciousness And so you believe that you can copy everything about you EXCEPT for the very most important part, The Thing That Must Not Be Mentioned; at least not mentioned if you don't want to be laughed at by the scientifically minded, the thing that starts with the letter "s". John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 31 22:35:10 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:35:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <20101231143742.GH16518@leitl.org> References: <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230121927.GL16518@leitl.org> <002b01cba83b$1c9d2a70$55d77f50$@att.net> <992B9886-F3CE-4D36-890F-3E2D5F3FA2BA@mac.com> <20101231110008.GD16518@leitl.org> <20101231143742.GH16518@leitl.org> Message-ID: <3A35A1E6-7688-4945-AA33-F9B64A3E2B44@mac.com> On Dec 31, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 05:06:55AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > >>> We're only trying to deliver a number of small parcels. >>> Each smaller than the one before. >> >> Not if you want to do any space or lunar processing > > You need very little yeast to make a big vat of wine. > >> and manufacturing or house any human crews at all. > > Planes fly, pilots stay on the ground. As already discussed, this is not doable at lunar distances and beyond until the remote systems are much more nearly autonomous. > >>> It doesn't matter if you lose some parcels. >> >> I don't understand what you are talking about. > > You don't need to man-rate your lifters, > and no need for mourning ceremony if you > lose a few (but the flight people will mourn > for sure). How many launches by what means are you contemplating. Current chemical rockets are pretty nasty environmentally and I believe it was you that specified largely chemical rockets for the first leg. > >>> Do you expect military ecovorous self-replicators >>> to be a serious problem, in that time frame? >> >> No. I expect us to suffer the Great Whimper, > > That is a reasonable worry. > >> or if we have a bit more gumption, throw the war >> or series of wars that wipes out our technological > > I though we've been doing it for a while. None of > them serious, more skirmishes. > Thus far. There is no reason to expect them to remain so. >> basis sufficiently to doom the species in that timeframe >> UNLESS we find and do the necessary things in the >> next decade, two at the outside. > > Prognosis is poor, as few see the writing on the > wall yet. > My greatest source of concern right now is the economic implosion of the US dollar and thus of the greatest military power on the planet. That could lead to extremely nasty consequences not limited to the US using those weapon systems on any of the rest of the world it cares to blame or that it wants to take something from. Even without major war much harm will be done to memes of relative freedom especially economic freedom - even though we haven't had all that much of that for a very long time in the US. The economic ripples from US economic woes would intersect with the home generated ones of the European and eastern countries which would combine with an entitlement mentality and nasty aging demographics. Capital and freedom for innovation could suffer greatly for a very long time. A lot of good and necessary things are likely to take much of the blame. > We might have bit more time than 10-20 years. I don't think we have longer than that without major internal and external uprisings and wars. I will happily revise this if we can have this conversation at no more than a hypothetical level ten years from now. I will revise it if we US doesn't have > 20% inflation and the dollar is still the reserve currency in five years. The economic hole the world has dug itself is the one I feel the most helpless to do much about or even get a really good idea of what should be done about it. I think we have pushed past the point where we can just stand back and let it fall down in a very unpleasant but non-catastrophic way. And we can't prop it up forever. - samantha From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 31 22:28:05 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:28:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality. In-Reply-To: <00B90463-FB4D-420C-BBC7-4677E4CB6EAF@bellsouth.net> References: <41313.58400.qm@web114418.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4D1E1F5A.6020903@satx.rr.com> <00B90463-FB4D-420C-BBC7-4677E4CB6EAF@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <135888.23656.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? From: John Clark >To: ExI chat list >Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 1:08:17 PM >Subject: Re: [ExI] simulation as an improvement over reality. > > >On Dec 31, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > >Dear dog in Himmel! NOBODY HAS EVER DENIED THIS! An exact copy of you MUST >experience himself as you. That's not the problem. The real issue nobody ever >seems to answer was posed by Stuart: >>"you should be?alright with your long lost twin brother showing up, locking you > >>in the cellar, >>and assuming your identity. Or cheating death by brainwashing someone else into >>honestly believing they are you." >>You'd be okay with that, Ben? Damien, that is an extremely stupid question and I think you're smart enough to realize it was a stupid question; if you're not now embarrassed in asking it you damn well should be. Yes, the copy experiences self and world exactly as you do and is therefore *a* ?you. No, *you* here and now have no stake (other than empathy or envious hatred) in that replica consciousness And so you believe that you can copy everything about you EXCEPT for the very most important part, The Thing That Must Not Be Mentioned; at least not mentioned if you don't want to be laughed at by the scientifically minded, the thing that starts with the letter "s".? The soul? Is that what you think this is about??I am not talking about metaphysics here. I?am an event that has?a?set of very physical space-time coordinates. Can?you copy my space-time coordinates? If my copy does not occupy my position in space and time, it is not me. You can re-enact the battle of Gettysburg down to the most excruciating detail, but never will your renactment *be* the battle of Gettysburg. ?Stuart LaForge "There is nothing wrong with America that faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure."- Dwight D. Eisenhower From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 31 22:47:58 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:47:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Von Neumann probes for what? Message-ID: <2EA10209-25C3-4985-A55C-D31A41B78BA7@mac.com> Eugen and others, What exactly do we expect these probes to do when they reach a workable planetary system? A certain portion of the local resources would be converted into more probes and sending those out. What the rest do is an interesting question. Presumably they are capable of producing a matrix (computronium or something less exotic) out of local resources and instilling it with some part of the knowledge, abilities of the originating civilization. If they are so capable then it does not seem possible that each probe is or evolves to be relatively unintelligent regarding the decision as to whether some particular system can or or should be processed. After all it could unfold enough computational capacity to consider the question more deeply before proceeding with the main phase. If the consideration led to a negative answer then it would use at most enough resources to send a minimal set of other probes out and clean up after itself. If the probe only converted local resources into more probes and no probes set up an outpost of the originators then what interest of the originators would be served by the program? If the probes could evolve to ditch all parts of their program except replication that would be a failure. If the created outposts could change so much as to be incompatible and even a serious threat for the rest of the civilization that would be something to consider before embarking on such a program. I can see value in such as a way to ensure that all things at all like the originating civ don't get wiped out by a supernova or some other relatively localized catastrophe. Or perhaps creating a buffer zone. Am I missing something? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 31 22:49:49 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:49:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230114935.GK16518@leitl.org> <4D1D0DA4.60406@satx.rr.com> <001801cba886$5d31cd20$17956760$@att.net> <4D1D4192.2000700@satx.rr.com> <4D1DE538.5050700@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Dec 31, 2010, at 6:20 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > The Galaxy is not to be only colonized. It's to be reprocesed into some useware. Stars are stupid waste of the free entalpy. Thus says a species that can't even produce enough energy cheaply enough to get all its members out of the equivalent of mud huts. :P - s From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Dec 31 23:09:31 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:09:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Meat v. Machine In-Reply-To: <000101cba905$4a2991c0$de7cb540$@att.net> References: <586924.64702.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <20101229093416.GY16518@leitl.org> <20101230121927.GL16518@leitl.org> <002b01cba83b$1c9d2a70$55d77f50$@att.net> <992B9886-F3CE-4D36-890F-3E2D5F3FA2BA@mac.com> <000101cba905$4a2991c0$de7cb540$@att.net> Message-ID: <9F62119B-810F-4A26-8375-CB637CB55DB4@mac.com> On Dec 31, 2010, at 8:10 AM, spike wrote: >> ... On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > ... >>>> Current access to space is good enough, if your payload has a lot of > magic. >>>> The longer you wait, the more magic it gets....--Eugen* Leitl >> >> >>> As a spacecraft controls guy I am reluctant to admit it, but this >>> comment is really right on, the conclusion I eventually reached with >>> much kicking and screaming over 20 yrs ago... > >> ...Well now we don't have the heavy lifters we had before... > > Ja, tragic is this. > >> ... Are you sure you believe that the current huge cost to orbit is good > enough?... > > It isn't good enough for lifting power stations and doing a lot of the cool > stuff we would like to do. My argument is that we are missing the essential > technology to make stuff from existing materials in space, and that is now > the low hanging fruit, as opposed to still more research into launchers. We > need to be able to move software into space as opposed to hardware. Software takes hardware in space to run. Perfect robot software without means to get sufficient hardware in space economically enough to be generate more value than consumed getting it there loses. There is a nasty bootstrap problem. > > Until we get replicating assemblers, I can see using lunar materials to make > most space stuff, since it is so much easier to get out of that gravity > well. Not without putting major payloads on the moon and assembling them. > Using asteroid material further reduces the gravity well problem, but > it takes a lot of patience, and only applies to the kinds of stuff we can > wait years to get it back down to 1 AU after its manufacture is complete. > I am not so sure about that. Crack your return fuel for payloads of interesting things out of the asteroids themselves. It certainly doesn't need to take years to get back from an Aten or even an Apollo asteroid if caught in the right part if its orbit. >> ... I have rarely been so utterly amazed and had as much trouble believing > a statement as that one. Hell, we still don't have much better than 80% > success putting payloads into orbit. Why in the hell is this good enough? > > Just as a working liquid rocket was the missing technology in 1910, some > kind of autonomous assembler is the missing space tech in 2010. Without > that, we are just thrashing about, trying to maintain what we have. Do you mean a replicating nanotech assembler or something like a giant RepRap? If you mean the former I am ever 90% certain we cannot afford to wait for that before we exploit near earth resources. Now we may get a miracle than brings it online much sooner than the gloomy over three decades projection. But one should never engineer based on miracles. The only plausible miracle I see is having real AGI a decade or so hence. But most of the AGI folks don't think that likely in a shorter timeframe either. > >> Again, we are three decades from machine phase. Are you sure we have that > much time? - samantha > > Not sure at all we have that much time, nor am I sure we will have working > replicators in 30 years. We have some huge problems here, and they aren't > all (or even mostly) related to environmental degradation. None of the really serious (H+ dream blocking or destroying) problems are environmental currently. > I see a much > bigger threat from rapidly increasing populations of what SF writers would > call feral humans opposed to technology, while the population in advanced > civilization remains constant or declines, while struggling to defend the > progress already made. Shortages of energy and resources combined with global communications leads all populations to expect/demand to be as well off as what they see no the Net with no way to make it so. The entitlement mentality is well established in most Western developed nations and is spreading rapidly. Some H+ folks are making it worse by effectively telling everyone they have the positive right (to be mandatory supplied by others) to indefinitely long lives, no suffering or serious unhappiness, and limitless milk and honey of any kind desired. Folks get the idea that the fact they don't have these things means that some very disgusting powerful others are depriving them of their natural "fair share". This will only get worse under serious economic troubles - which haven't really cleared their throat yet. - samantha